Tank testing the ART at the dock

I took a couple of videos at the dock to compare the motions of my boat without the antiroll tank (ART) and with the ART filled to about 75% of what I thought I would need.  Without that and the graphs that follow I would just be thinking "well, I think that it probably made a difference."  My wife is a true believer, so there is that.  I later modified the amount and viscosity to improve the ability of the ART to decay a roll.  

In an attempt to get an apples to apples video, I stepped on the gunnel 3 times in sync with my roll period.  Not perfectly scientific, but close enough.  I actually pressed a little harder in the second video to create the same roll angle from which to start measuring the decay.  That is because the ART starts decaying the roll even as I was trying to generate it.  Which would, of course, naturally effect the time required to decrease the roll.  To have "apples to apples" I needed to use more force.  So, I guess not really apples to apples in the end.  The ART starts working immediately, even before my measuring.

Here is the action without the ART.

About 8 rolls to the end of the video.  I wish I had longer videos, but Blogspot doesn't allow lengthy videos, so it wouldn't have helped here.  

Here is the action with the ART partially filled.  The same number of "boardings" to create approximately the same roll (which required a little more effort on my part) but the roll decays to approximately the same degree in 4 rolls after I instigate it.

Here is what the action looks like graphed with a g-force meter.  This is actually a graph of acceleration rather than inclination and was developed when using a bag instead of a tank, but I have found the same effect.  Acceleration is usually what makes the rolling unpleasant.  If my roll was slower, I might not be experimenting with an ART.  But my roll is "snappy" and can be uncomfortable and even dangerous.  

I wasn't careful enough when creating these graphs.  First, I didn't make sure that the recorder (my cell phone) was completely level.  That meant that zero g-force wasn't always aligned with zero on the graph.  Bummer.  Even more confusing was that the graph created by the program decided on its own what metric to use on the Y axis, and I didn't notice that.  The X axis is always in seconds, but the Y axis is different on the two graphs.  Bummer.

Here is the graph created without the tank.

 

As the sine waves are getting bigger (until right after the 30 second mark), they are not symmetrical because I was rocking the boat.  After that point is the natural smooth sine wave decay of the roll.  The first Y axis mark is .05G, but the actual g-force isn't what I was interested in (although I would guesstimate the max was .1G.)  From about 34 seconds to 61 seconds, the g-force disintegrates by 50%.  Or a 50% decrease in 27 seconds.

Here is the graph made with liquid added to the ART.

It took me awhile to get the boat rocking and the graph isn't perfectly centered on zero on the X axis.  Also, as stated above, the Y markers have now changed to 1 instead of .5 (so the beginning g-force is still about .1G).  I tried hard to get the same amount of roll going, but I actually got pooped out before I got the full 7 degrees I was hoping for.  The graph is still instructive.  I had stopped "exciting" the roll and was only interested in the decay time.  The amount of roll at 150 seconds decreased about 50% by the 163 second point.  With the tank filled, a 50% decrease took only 13 seconds.  

The ART stifled a similar roll to the same amount in half the time.  Plus, it was much harder to get the roll going in the first place.  It was one of those situations where it felt like somebody must be working against me.  Well it wasn't somebody, but some thing.  Free surface liquid first making a wave and then transferring side-to-side during larger induced rolls.  Amazing what a little water slopping around can do.

 

Video of Antiroll Tank in Action

Here is some video and photos of our recording inclinometer to show the effect of the roll tank installed in the prior blog.  The videos are short because they are size limited by Blogspot.  

We had already crossed the Straight of Juan de Fuca, but no video there.  The next chance to really take advantage of the antiroll tank were encounters with the BC Ferry and other large vessels.  Here is a little video of a BC Ferry passing us (they tend to travel at about 20kt to our 6.5kt).  When they pass, the wake slowly passes us, making for lots of time to build synchronous rolls.  We usually turn and go directly into the wake of large vessels in order to stop building violent rolls.  Not necessary with the antiroll tank. 

Here is what the approaching wake looked like.  A good ten 2' waves perfectly spaced to get us violently rocking.  Time to batten the hatches.

The antiroll tank handled it just fine.  We could feel the wake, of course, but the rolling never built above 4 degrees.  It would lean us to one side, but the tank reduced the "snap back" such that the effect of the next wake was again fairly mild.  It felt like the tank was constantly frustrating the ability of the wake to really get things rocking.

I later went solo around Cape Caution in order to pick up Beth, who flew home from Bella Bella for a week and was flying back into Refuge Cove.  Here is a little video of "Cape Caution" (which I actually never even saw that day, except on the RADAR).  Very foggy and some long swell on the beam coming in from the Pacific.  Nothing the tank couldn't handle.

Oddly enough, the roughest part of my trip this year was from Squirrel Cove in Desolation Sound, where I spent the night at anchor, across the 3 or 4 miles to Refuge Cove, where Beth was coming in on a float plane at noon.  If I'd had a choice, I probably wouldn't have crossed until later in the day after the tide changed.  This is +20 knot wind against the flood tide and right on my beam.  The ride wasn't pleasant, but also not too uncomfortable once I got used to the fact that the max rolling was all of about 10 degrees and seemed fairly mild mannered compared to similar conditions in the past.  

The inclinometer shows that the maximum roll to port was about 5 degrees more than any roll to starboard.  That is because the wind was coming across the deck from starboard, causing a constant list of about 5 degrees from just the wind, even had there been no waves.  It was howling pretty good.  So the actual wave induced rolling was about 10 degrees.  That is about 1/2 of what I would have expected from these conditions without the tank.

My assessment is that the antiroll tank is definitely worth the time and effort.  I still have some experimentation to do with the amount and viscosity of the tank liquid,* but even with just a guesstimated amount of tap water, its utility was proven.  If I decide to integrate the tank into the flying bridge structure, which would entail some fiberglass work, it would still be only a $1,000 investment.  From what I've heard, it would be more effective than bilge keels (at $15,000).  Might be close to being as effective as active fins (at $40K).  Maybe not as effective as a gyro stabilizer (at +$60K).  And there are the advantages of no maintenance, nothing to snag crab lines, works at zero speed (at anchor), no need to haul out, no decrease in speed, no increase in fuel usage, no need to run a 240V generator (I've removed mine), etc.  And, as I said in a prior blog, there is also no profit margin for a seller/installer/designer.  The latter is likely the reason that antiroll tanks are rare.

I have read a couple of places where antiroll tanks are claimed to be dangerous in that they might affect the vessel's stability.  Well, yes, that is possible with any system, although probably less likely with a "gravity activated" system as opposed to an "electrically controlled" system.  Gravity is predictable and always "on."  Other antiroll systems have had their failures, but for some reason don't inspire the same level of criticism (and even fear).  Take for example the effects of an active fin system that gets a bit out of tune.  The fins started rotating the wrong direction, exacerbating the rolls rather than calming them.  Here is a picture of seas similar to what I was in, but their fins got out of sync and the system had to be shut down before it sank the vessel.  Gravity doesn't have glitches.

I know what that feels like.  Here is a picture of my inclinometer taken before I had the antiroll tank operational (going through Race Passage on Johnstone Straight).  This is about what the boat above was doing with their expensive active fins. I don't intend to do that again thanks to my DIY antiroll tank.

* I found the chemical I had used to slightly increase the viscosity of the water in my tank allowed a little growth to form.  It don't hurt the runnin' none, but it was kind of gross.  I have an idea for a sanitary next fill.

Antiroll Tank: First impressions

We have now been cruising with our test antiroll tank for over a month.  I have purposely taken the boat into conditions that I would normally try to avoid.  One of those instances was crossing the Straight of Juan de Fuca from Port Townsend to Sydney, B.C.  It can be calm, but even then, it is likely that there will be swells coming in from the Pacific.  Our crossing was sort of "medium" conditions for the Straight.  2-3' waves on a 6 second period.  Underneath was the swell, but it only made itself known when it coincided with the wind waves.  

We had a mini-disaster during the crossing, but it wasn't really related to the antiroll tank.  I had changed our hollow fiberglass mast to a tabernacle mast so that it could be folded downs when entering our newly acquired boat house.  The hinge was strong enough.  The lock down mechanisms were strong enough.  What wasn't strong enough was the thickness of the fiberglass mast (and I didn't properly reinforce).  

I had some questions about the PO installation of the Garmin radar dome on the antenna (with a custom stainless mount).  I wasn't sure if the original mast was intended to be merely decorative.  I had already reinforced the bottom bolts where the motion of the mast had begun to wear larger holes in the fiberglass.  When I removed the mast for cutting and adding the tabernacle, I was surprised at how light the Garmin dome was, and that lead me to not super-reinforce the newly installed hinge.

In purposely getting into "test conditions" for the antiroll tank, I put plenty of strain on the unstayed mast.  And so the hinge failed in the Straight.  The mast fell onto the solar panel, but not much damage.  Even though the rolling motion had been reduced, the strain was still too much for my tabernacle design (or lack of design).  The top of the mast was then sistered to the stub on the deck.  It was secured with duct tape.  Radar was still functional, but anchor light was not.  We seldom have other boats in the remote anchorages we chose (most don't even have names), but still we left on the aft cockpit light at night.  Sort of like leaving on the porch light.

That's our new Starlink antenna on the deck to the right of the mast.  Mindboggling that I'm typing this while at anchor in a foggy little cove SW of Bella Bella.  I said in the prior post about the tank's construction that I might be able to continue the posts using Starlink, and it definitely is possible.

But the antiroll tank was a success.  Our rolls didn't hardly register on my recording inclinometer.  Below is a photo of the tank installed.  It has "8 inch inspection ports" on each end, not so much for inspection or filling, but because I needed to access the interior in order to do the final epoxy fillets to construct the tank.  Right now, the ports are simply sitting in their openings.  I didn't have time to finalize the tank before we left.

You can also see the hinge on my tabernacle mast in the down position in the lower left corner.  That is the hinge that failed to handle the rocking motion in the Straight, despite the rocking motion being greatly reduced by the tank.  How much it was reduced will be the topic of the next post.