If we required everything to be done in leaps and bounds, we'd never get anything done. Better to re-frame this as "looks to be an improvement on Voith Schneider Propellers". We can recognize the history while recognizing improvements. Progress is made by continual small steps, not giant leaps. If you see giant leaps, it is generally because you just aren't familiar with the topic enough (they do happen, but they are quite rare). Over trivializing improvements and dismissing them because they are abstractly similar only stops the world from moving forward. To reference a clique (something everyone can recite but something nobody knows): "the devil is in the details."
If you read the article, they say that the propeller decrease energy consumption by 22% from conventional shaftline (the video says "up to 25%" though...), that seems like a pretty big win to me. And seems like something that you shouldn't so quickly dismiss.
This kind of issue seems prominent around here and among engineers. Just remember how your work's merit relies so much on the details. What makes you think that this is any different for others? Why conclude that just because you understand something at an abstract level that you understand it at a nuanced level?
Edit: don't use this comment as a reason to downvote them. If you actually like this message upvote them to make this more visible because you're probably frustrated with this issue too.
The article is to light on details to claim anything radical. The operating principal is the exact same principal as a Voith Schneider Propeller, but then with more actuators and less linkages. That too me could just as well be a cost saving thing. Especially as they compare it too "conventional shaftline", and not to a Voith Schneider (I think). Also Voith Schneider's are already available in a in an electric version (eVSP) for diesel-electric drives.
Perhaps this new Dynafin is much more efficient than an eVSP because better tuned individual control optimised by AI and industry 4.0 allows for much better control. But it is equally possible that there is exactly zero advantage to this system and all we read is marketing BS. Hefty improvement claims without details are usually BS in my experience
Yeah I mean I'm not sure why this article was posted to HN. It might as well have been an IFLS link because New Atlas is similar shit quality. But what can we do?
They at least link to the company's website where much more detail can be found (Remember, this is HN, we can get links changed!). If you're going to dismiss a technology, I'm saying be specific (Remember, this is HN, we have engineers and people with actual expertise. This is a technical website, be technical!). I don't know enough about this tech though I do have experience in physical engineering (I'm not in ML, so I'll keep any strong claims to that area).
I can't say much, but at least what I can tell is that the Voith Schneider is made by a single company (according to Wiki). If all this is is a different enough Voith Schneider motor and now there is competition in the space, I'd be okay with that too and wouldn't phrase it like the OP bur rather make this the point and note that the rest is market. But again, I don't know much about motors and even less about marine motors, so I'm not really going to make any hard claims because I don't know. But if this is all that it is, I think my point still stands and you can make a reasonable enough inference of the main point to adapt to competition and improvements (which again, are small steps). Clearly this isn't an exact clone.
Comments
If you simplify anything enough it isn't new.
If we required everything to be done in leaps and bounds, we'd never get anything done. Better to re-frame this as "looks to be an improvement on Voith Schneider Propellers". We can recognize the history while recognizing improvements. Progress is made by continual small steps, not giant leaps. If you see giant leaps, it is generally because you just aren't familiar with the topic enough (they do happen, but they are quite rare). Over trivializing improvements and dismissing them because they are abstractly similar only stops the world from moving forward. To reference a clique (something everyone can recite but something nobody knows): "the devil is in the details."
If you read the article, they say that the propeller decrease energy consumption by 22% from conventional shaftline (the video says "up to 25%" though...), that seems like a pretty big win to me. And seems like something that you shouldn't so quickly dismiss.
This kind of issue seems prominent around here and among engineers. Just remember how your work's merit relies so much on the details. What makes you think that this is any different for others? Why conclude that just because you understand something at an abstract level that you understand it at a nuanced level?
Edit: don't use this comment as a reason to downvote them. If you actually like this message upvote them to make this more visible because you're probably frustrated with this issue too.
The article is to light on details to claim anything radical. The operating principal is the exact same principal as a Voith Schneider Propeller, but then with more actuators and less linkages. That too me could just as well be a cost saving thing. Especially as they compare it too "conventional shaftline", and not to a Voith Schneider (I think). Also Voith Schneider's are already available in a in an electric version (eVSP) for diesel-electric drives.
Perhaps this new Dynafin is much more efficient than an eVSP because better tuned individual control optimised by AI and industry 4.0 allows for much better control. But it is equally possible that there is exactly zero advantage to this system and all we read is marketing BS. Hefty improvement claims without details are usually BS in my experience
Yeah I mean I'm not sure why this article was posted to HN. It might as well have been an IFLS link because New Atlas is similar shit quality. But what can we do?
They at least link to the company's website where much more detail can be found (Remember, this is HN, we can get links changed!). If you're going to dismiss a technology, I'm saying be specific (Remember, this is HN, we have engineers and people with actual expertise. This is a technical website, be technical!). I don't know enough about this tech though I do have experience in physical engineering (I'm not in ML, so I'll keep any strong claims to that area).
I can't say much, but at least what I can tell is that the Voith Schneider is made by a single company (according to Wiki). If all this is is a different enough Voith Schneider motor and now there is competition in the space, I'd be okay with that too and wouldn't phrase it like the OP bur rather make this the point and note that the rest is market. But again, I don't know much about motors and even less about marine motors, so I'm not really going to make any hard claims because I don't know. But if this is all that it is, I think my point still stands and you can make a reasonable enough inference of the main point to adapt to competition and improvements (which again, are small steps). Clearly this isn't an exact clone.