3 ms·

> One thing this study didn't investigate is how much power it could be expected to contribute on an average trip – and that, along with space considerations, w

> One thing this study didn't investigate is how much power it could be expected to contribute on an average trip – and that, along with space considerations, will be key to whether systems like this reach widespread deployment. Someone on this team almost certainly did some estimations of how much energy could be generated on real ships. Since these calculations are not mentioned, it must be assumed that the energy output is not enough to be useful, but saying that would reduce media coverage and grant funding.

gretch 3y ago
This is the worst type of comment. Speculation about the author’s motives, without putting in any work of your own to confirm any of it, then just assuming the worst possible case. This is a forum for technologists to discuss interesting new ideas. “Hacker News”. Even if it’s not fully scalable in this iteration (all new ideas have issues), maybe someone can read it and be inspired and improve the ideas. What’s the point of coming here and choosing to leave miserable speculation?
- callalex 3y ago
  The point is that it’s intellectually dishonest to present a power generation technology and not even once mention how much power it generates.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Eh, depends on the context. But I would agree that in this context is dishonest. The abstract goes as far to say "Furthermore, the effects of ... wave energy capture performance ... are investigated.". [1] So It really seems like they do know and don't want to say. That said, doing ideas that might not be economical now isn't a bad idea. Basic research is useful; but do be honest. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148123014416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
- Almondsetat 3y ago
  Going by your definition, since the article refuses to show actual meaningful numbers, it is too a miserable speculation
- gosub100 3y ago
  > This is a forum for technologists to discuss interesting new ideas. It's not a sci-fi board though. One of the distinguishing characteristics of science and technology is that it's usually based on objective data and evidence. If you want to make a claim that something is more efficient than an alternative, you are generally expected to provide measurements and show that hypothesis to be true. If you can't prove a claim at-scale then you can show a model or a small-scale example. Or show an equation that uses known data applied to your model, that explains why you think your claim is true. But there's simply no room for feel-good, trendy, pie-in-the-sky experiments that don't contain any data. That's reminiscent of the viral knee-jerk behavior against plastic straws a few years ago. Somehow people who lived hundreds of miles away from the ocean thought that forgoing straws would have some positive impact on the environment, but it was all for nothing (most of the ocean's trash comes from a handful of third-world countries). I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a bunch of academic fraud going on and lack of reproducibility in journal publications recently. Adding skepticism is completely warranted given the various levels of academic dishonesty.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
People generally underestimate how much work gets taken out of papers because it doesn't fit with the argument of the paper. Someone absolutely estimated this, and its absence is conspicuous.
- belval 3y ago
  As older researchers will often tell you: the job of a reviewer is to refuse your paper. It doesn't have to be completely black and white though. Maybe they did the maths and the results were middling/unclear, their calculations were filled with assumptions that they didn't want to/didn't have time to defend. In ML it's not uncommon to drop datasets that you evaluated on but that don't achieve SOTA because the reviewer will focus on that and ignore your other results. An article must have a clear concise point.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
flavius29663 3y ago
I think there are variables with a huge amount of variability for a ship: how heavy it is(heavier - less jumping around), how long, what seas it floats in, how much space they can spare. I agree that this article is too premature: before even tank testing has been done, but I can see how this is hard to calculate on a computer model.
greggsy 3y ago
It’s a bit like those old Poplar Mechanics stories about giant zeppelins, or aircraft with eight wings. They make for great articles with graphics to inspire the imagination, but are really just speculative fiction in retrospect. That said, this does seem to have some merit from a feasibility perspective.

gretch 3y ago

This is the worst type of comment. Speculation about the author’s motives, without putting in any work of your own to confirm any of it, then just assuming the worst possible case. This is a forum for technologists to discuss interesting new ideas. “Hacker News”. Even if it’s not fully scalable in this iteration (all new ideas have issues), maybe someone can read it and be inspired and improve the ideas. What’s the point of coming here and choosing to leave miserable speculation?

callalex 3y ago
The point is that it’s intellectually dishonest to present a power generation technology and not even once mention how much power it generates.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Eh, depends on the context. But I would agree that in this context is dishonest. The abstract goes as far to say "Furthermore, the effects of ... wave energy capture performance ... are investigated.". [1] So It really seems like they do know and don't want to say. That said, doing ideas that might not be economical now isn't a bad idea. Basic research is useful; but do be honest. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148123014416 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
Almondsetat 3y ago
Going by your definition, since the article refuses to show actual meaningful numbers, it is too a miserable speculation
gosub100 3y ago
> This is a forum for technologists to discuss interesting new ideas. It's not a sci-fi board though. One of the distinguishing characteristics of science and technology is that it's usually based on objective data and evidence. If you want to make a claim that something is more efficient than an alternative, you are generally expected to provide measurements and show that hypothesis to be true. If you can't prove a claim at-scale then you can show a model or a small-scale example. Or show an equation that uses known data applied to your model, that explains why you think your claim is true. But there's simply no room for feel-good, trendy, pie-in-the-sky experiments that don't contain any data. That's reminiscent of the viral knee-jerk behavior against plastic straws a few years ago. Somehow people who lived hundreds of miles away from the ocean thought that forgoing straws would have some positive impact on the environment, but it was all for nothing (most of the ocean's trash comes from a handful of third-world countries). I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a bunch of academic fraud going on and lack of reproducibility in journal publications recently. Adding skepticism is completely warranted given the various levels of academic dishonesty.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

People generally underestimate how much work gets taken out of papers because it doesn't fit with the argument of the paper. Someone absolutely estimated this, and its absence is conspicuous.

belval 3y ago
As older researchers will often tell you: the job of a reviewer is to refuse your paper. It doesn't have to be completely black and white though. Maybe they did the maths and the results were middling/unclear, their calculations were filled with assumptions that they didn't want to/didn't have time to defend. In ML it's not uncommon to drop datasets that you evaluated on but that don't achieve SOTA because the reviewer will focus on that and ignore your other results. An article must have a clear concise point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

flavius29663 3y ago

I think there are variables with a huge amount of variability for a ship: how heavy it is(heavier - less jumping around), how long, what seas it floats in, how much space they can spare. I agree that this article is too premature: before even tank testing has been done, but I can see how this is hard to calculate on a computer model.

greggsy 3y ago

It’s a bit like those old Poplar Mechanics stories about giant zeppelins, or aircraft with eight wings. They make for great articles with graphics to inspire the imagination, but are really just speculative fiction in retrospect. That said, this does seem to have some merit from a feasibility perspective.