First of all, let me start by introducing myself, as I am publicly very new to DIY Drones, though have been following my obsession since I can remember. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles came into focal range for me around November 2007. However, I've been fascinated with airplanes since 2000 or earlier. The real premise in my taking up so much in this profession is due to the fact that I, over the last 4 years, have been striving to change what we already call our own passion. This strong yearn to alter, to develop more efficient technology for the individual aircraft design sprouted only recently.
"It all started with a dream..."
Firmly, do I take heart in creating solutions unprecedented compared with the current, conventional systems abided by. Where did my personal inspiration come from? The dream derived from the colossal venture to produce a UAV capable of flying from San Antonio, TX, to Las Vegas, NV. Many may ponder over the location. All I can say is that I've had a predestined love for that city since I first visited... A personality trait of some type, perhaps. Eventually the challenge was sized and analyzed. I researched and designed. One of the projects I came across was that of Maynard Hill's, who developed a UAS of long range parameters. Original ideas on how to accomplish this feat were unrealistic, and downright repulsive, as well as hilarious, now that I reminisce my prior engineering skills. To crunch a long timeline short, I have developed quite substantially, both in how I approach a problem to the method of attack I use to resolve it. And for the most part, I'm just getting started. That is why I am here.
Normally, I dislike extensive introductions. The sole reason this discussion is being posted is because I believe I have some tricks stored up my sleeve. To clarify, many problems I see, others do not. Such that solutions I have found might follow as "out there" for some. I reassure readers that I have spent a decent amount of time devising the methodology to explain my development followings. Truth be told, the few inventions underway are complicated; in the end, they boil down to somewhat simplistic concepts (in my view, at least).
This will likely sound humorous, but I am not sure how much information I will want to publicly reveal. No need, is there, to be hesitant if secrets are positive to the community's understanding that there is far more development due in not only software tech, but hardware tech, as well. So, I have taken it upon myself that a long-term seminar, or 'open-source' internet meeting, will help to allocate the idea that efficiency always has potential improvement. Leaving this open-ended is not a goal of mine; in the process I wish to spill some ingenuitive inspiration and take other wise perspectives on which aspects eagerly require improvement in aerodynamics.
Next weekend, my intention is to arise the first basic dilemma examined with aircraft to present day. Aerodynamicists are more than welcome to join in. Anyone who has something to say pertaining to skin friction, induced drag, and other various topics involving efficiency in dynamic airborne objects, please speak. Again, I am not here to gain knowledge about everything I should already have familiarized myself with. Rather, I seek others' opinions and, if all plays well, may cautiously introduce one principle concept in which I proclaim to operate on a higher level than conventional structural technologies.
Many people here are dreamers and visionaries. Many are of the pragmatic engineering mindset as well. Of course you have your usual Internet mix of attention-getters, pseudo pundits, and downright trolls, but for the most part, it's a fairly professional group.
That said, I'm willing to be that most forum members who saw this message metaphorically rolled their eyes at what seems like unsubstantiated arrogance from a self-professed newbie and moved on. Perhaps I have a soft spot for dreamers, yet be warned that it is also paired with a lack of empathy for those who lack the discipline for self-edification.
Your statement seems not so much an introduction as it is a diatribe of the waxing philosophical sort; it seems quite long on idealistic hyperbole and short of specific use-case parameters.
I encourage you to learn all you can about aerodynamics, and frankly, wonder why you haven't sought to do that first, before trying to start a conversation in these hallowed forums. You see "problems" with the efficiency of existing UAVs, yet freely admit that you are generally inexperienced with matters of aircraft design? Hmmm...
What is your goal here? You have ideas but are unable to reduce them to practice, and you seek technical counsel? Do beware that in the stream of commerce, ideas are practically worthless. No, I'm not trying to diminish your great yet unarticulated thoughts, but keeping them secret does you no good. Here's an article for your perusal:
I have already been rather specific on my opinions on efficiency, particularly in matters of propulsive systems. Read these two threads and be more specific about what this flying thing is supposed to do.
As a final note, I am reminded of this timeless quote from Howard Aiken, the inventor of magnetic core memory for computer systems. It's posted on my office wall:
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
My apologies. Allow me to reiterate. I am fairly exposed among the field of aerodynamics. The purpose of my posting here is to test a concept with others and gain a wider scope of people's thoughts. Yes, you are correct that secrets prove little practicality and mark little purpose if I cannot share them. I do seek awareness in this yet to be mentioned concept. First, I plan to prepare visual CAD representation this week as I am fairly positive words won't serve much use technically.
Give me until tonight for a thorough explanation of the base concept. Again, it seems I should have started with the concept ideals instead of a diatribe, so to speak.
You appear to have sufficient experience with rotor dynamics and have probably generalized correlation with aspect ratio, relative diameter, rotational velocity, and Reynolds Number. The basics are easily acquired in time, so excellent on your part. Difficulty arises during the integration of these factors and the incorporation of new variables, such as this concept I continue to pontificate forth.
Just give me several hours, and I'll get on with the technical stuff.
Since I'm busy tonight, I'll explain the basic concept behind what I am preparing to develop/invent.
Considering an aircraft's wetted area, or exposed surfaces, friction is apportioned as skin friction or parasitic drag, in general. This occurs due to relative velocity with the medium air. Induced drag may be alleviated with a lengthier aspect ratio, whereas parasitic drag increases with 'normal' wetted area proportional to relative velocity within the wetting medium (atmosphere in this case). Skin friction, under the parastic drag category, generally accounts for most drag assuming an ultra-low profile airframe, flying wing, or other high aspect ratio deltas.
So, while the conventional process involves powerplants working against skin friction, my design instinct leans toward developing a platform capable of allowing most of the effective wetted area [wing] to flow dynamically along with the relative velocity the platform is travelling through.
And how is that different than the concept of building a Northrop wing with a laminar flow airfoil?
Laminar flow is theoretically possible, however in real world dynamics laminar flow is impossible even with the most efficient airfoil with lowest Reynolds Number, and smoothest wing skin. Move anything through the air, even a perfectly flat, ultra-thin sheet of paper through perfectly still air and you will achieve parasitic vortex oscillations. Displacement of solid state matter chiefly results in friction opposing that of the relative vector. Such that a 1 molecule thick square slate will accelerate the surrounded particle matter in accordance with the wetted 2-dimensional area of that ultra-thin slate. I mention ultra-thin as to eliminate as much of the induced drag composite as possible...
I'm not much of a typing fanatic - accidentally erased some text data. Feel free to give me a call during daylight hours following 4:30PM CST, as I can talk one-on-one more time effectively: (210) 413-6876
No worries really. I came to find others views on the matter, so I must play friendly and without ignorance.
I am an inventrepreneur, and as such, I would be the last one to discourage independent break-from-the-herd idea pursuits. But I have to ask, strictly as a rhetorical question, why are you here?
If, as you suggest, you truly have fostered a breakthrough (in what apparently is boundary-layer flow management), vet the idea yourself to your own satisfaction and then just do it.
Just do it.
What you're suggesting sounds very esoteric. You want an opinion? Go get one worth something. Contact Mark Drela at MIT or Michael Selig at the University of Illinois, or any of a dozen other academic researchers in that art area. Their contact information is easily obtainable from a simple search. Otherwise, be very careful from whom you seek counsel, and even more discerning about any advice which might seem discouraging.
Frankly, if you're not convinced about your own idea, then you need to do more research. This is not a venue for waxing fluid dynamics theoretical. If you are convinced, then the only thing you're going to demonstrate here is a lack of confidence in your own conclusions.
Well, I am "doing it" to lay the facts straight. Of course, it's much easier and quicker to verbally propel an idea than to make one of this complexity. I'm here because development will span over a course period of many months and a may as well sidetrack a few places to verify whether what I'm looking into has ever been previously pondered. Obviously, what I am preparing hasn't practically worked in the past - I understand the reasons. To be done properly, dynamic wing skin requires that little to no internal system friction induce in operation, or this task proves less efficient than a static-skin airfoil form. And it's a blast designing! Apart from which I have yet to restrain to a final method of operation. I will be sure to run the idea by Dr. Drela as I have spoken with him in the past. I have researched Selig airfoils oblivious that their creator is still around. I may counsel his advice also. And yes, I guarantee you inconsistent confidence as a prevailing trend in my choosing overly ambitious projects. Someone has to lay down the dirty work once or twice in a century. As far as vision and eccentricity go, I have yet to confront a genuine Howard Hughes or Albert Einstein in this century. Is creativity at a loss, or am I too visionary? Engineers can render dreams with just as much backbone practicality. Please remember that I sympathize with less stubborn talk and more productive walk, nevertheless no gratifying reward follows without greeting.
I will be updating experiment 1 in several weeks. Basically, two adjacently spaced smaller static carbon fiber rings will repel a larger dia carbon fiber ring using surface flush Neodymium-Iron-Boron magnets of ultra-small size. This will simulate the possibility of acquiring circular levitation without the use of superconductivity.
Hmmm... too many big words.
I know. Wait for the model. Still ordering CF CNC parts. Also, need to employ several formulas for proof in the design process. I'll bring this into scope later. Expect EXP1 to be finished by around June 8th.