Too much information

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by RonL, Jan 18, 2007.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 18, 2007 #1

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    As Will Rogers once said

    " it's better to be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt"

    With that being said, i have a lot of things i would like to discuss in the near future, however, after seeing a lot of information and links about what some members are doing and being involved in, i have a humbled feeling about just what my thoughts and experiences are really worth.

    As most times happens, i find that after having what i think is a really breakthru idea, if the search goes on, someone has already covered it with a patent, most go back to the early 1900's, when everybody flew by the seat of their pants. My how times have changed.

    One example of this is, that i have never seen an application of an electric motor being mounted in such fashion as to have both, armature and the field housing operating in free rotation counter to each other, this idea has been in my mind for some time, and i have even made a small experimental setup, where the two rotating halves were turning small flywheels in opposite directions, the motor splitting power between the two, rpm's being controlled by load on each unit, all excited that i had a new and simple, yet unthought of idea, i went into a state of mind (as my says) all amped up, then i found this "google/patents.com" site, which really makes patent searching easy, and low and behold there was a patent issued in 1945 for this very idea, being used in torpedos.

    A question that i would like to ask is, being as there are a lot of people actually working hard at making a living in the avaitaion business, and at the same time participating on this forum, and sharing much of their knowledge with us, what are some opinions of how, not to be disrespectful or inconsiderate, in what we say or ask ?

    As an example, i'm sure many reading these post are aware of the "PAV CHALLENGE" program, (i recently found this on the internet, and am in love with the ideas they are promoting), is there a way to become involved with a person or group that is in the process of being involved in the event.

    A concept being worked on at present, is using air movment during flight to help balance, power generated with power being used. Based on some of my studies and observations there are a number of ways to recover some lost energies when a plane is at a cruise speed. If these thoughts can be proven, then a plane would only need to store and supply energy equal to what is needed for takeoff and climb to altitude.

    Not wanting to give up too much of my thinking, that might have a speck of value, i'm still looking for a time and place to share what i can in a way that might be worthwhile to any involved.

    Pro's and con's please, anyone!


    RonL
     
  2. Jan 19, 2007 #2

    CAB

    CAB

    CAB

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Colorado
    One thing I love about this particular Forum is that most folks here keep their flamethrowers on low.:gig: Whatever you got, hell, just throw it out there. Lord knows I've asked a buncha dumb questions!

    CAB
    Bearhawk#862
     
  3. Jan 19, 2007 #3

    etterre

    etterre

    etterre

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    +2 on what CAB said...
    People replying on these boards really want to help you out. I've been amazed at how much thought/effort/teaching goes into the replies that I've seen. I'm sure I'll have plenty of dumb questions to ask in the future, but for right now I'm keeping busy with collecting and reading books that were mentioned here. That way I can ask really long, complicated, but still dumb questions. :)
     
  4. Jan 19, 2007 #4

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    You bring up two interesting points above so I'll try to briefly address them without going into a long discussion. First, the PAV program - for most of us in the industry, this is sort of a governmental joke. Or maybe to put it better, what they propose the contractors to deliver is the joke. NASA has come under fire the last decade or so since in their operations they seemed to have distanced themselves away from the second letter in their name - aeronautics. As such, within the last two to three years or so they hurriedly belched forth a number of programs, most of which will of course never see the light of day. The main reason: Simple - there's no money to do anything to a sufficient level of development so that it could be spun-off to everyday application.

    The ideas proposed for investigation under the PAV program are interesting (and a few even worthwhile) but due to the issues involved, I think the industry will be reluctant to adopt them, even if some serious development does take place. The chief reason for this is that the stated goal for several of the investigations is to develop a transportation system where less and less skill is required of the pilot or operator. One document I saw actually states that the goal is to have no pilots on board these airborne transportation systems at all. From a personal standpoint, no thanks. We have enough examples from the NTSB where pilots, in an emergency, start flying the radio (or some other gizmo) rather than fulfilling their primary purpose - flying the airplane. Trying to make the airplane a fool-proof non-piloted system seems to be nothing more than an ill-advised program that will result in high levels of technology and occupant protoplasm to be strewn all over the countryside.

    But from a more immediate and practical standpoint, the main problem of the proposed contract work is the very small award. The program actually requires the participants to deliver a workable system for evaluation, including some form of prototype. But, if selected, the monetary value of the contract is so small it most likely wouldn't cover the effort it took to write the proposal. As such, the participants will most likely be those who are already working on the technologies proposed (most likely the list of technologies or suggestions came from the industry in the first place), who are already funded either through in-house sources or by their customers. As such, the only way you might get involved in any of this is to find a list of contributors and then simply see if you could land a job with any of them. I think it is highly unlikely that too many individuals or small companies will be working toward this on their own.

    Regarding input to this board, all airplane related subjects are fair game. But, as you've already found out, it is very difficult to come up with too fresh an idea as many have already been investigated (and even patented). As an example, I have maybe a dozen folks call every year thinking that they stumbled on a new technology or idea that will "revolutionize" the art of airplane design and flying. But in the twenty five years I've been in the business I've seen less than half dozen that truly had a unique, feasible and worthwhile idea.

    The rest fall into two categories: The first is where the individual suggesting the idea really has no background in engineering or design and is proposing an idea or mechanism that simply contradicts the laws of physics. Those folks usually base their technology on having faith in it (or they just know it will work), rather than presenting any science or technical knowhow that would support their idea with any credibility.

    The second category encompasses those ideas that have, at one time or another, been already investigated by others. As such, the designs or the technologies have most likely already been incorporated into products or, have been dismissed as unworkable. And I'm sure that with the level of participation herein, if it's been done, someone here will have ran across it at one time or another. Historical example is actually a good place to start. Granted, aviation is only about one hundred years old so we do have a long way to go, but there are sufficient precedents already to clearly demonstrate what works and what doesn't.

    Now, this is not to discourage you (or anyone else), it's just an observation that maybe suggests that anyone proposing something new does a good amount of research before getting on his or her soapbox. But in all cases, even the lunatic fringe of ideas is fun to discuss.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2007
  5. Jan 21, 2007 #5

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Well yesterday i fried my brain, spent more time than i'll admit to, trying to condense too much information.:dis:

    As Orion has said on many of his post, there is no way to cover the detail of somethings on an open forum.

    So my thoughts presented in support of electric powered flight will be in topic highlites only.

    1. As stated to Jman, the use of laminated aluminum foil, built up to form a strong structural shape, that also acts as a "capacitor", storing electrical energy. My guess is more than half of a plane's airframe would be usable.

    2. Propellers being driven by an electric power system, at speed, can be used as "wind turbines" to return power to these capacitors, in switched pulses of micro-second timeing, an effect that would be unnoticable by our physical senses.
    This would in essence be an "electronic tank circuit" in motion.

    3. Electric motors allowing rotation of both, housing and armature, in opposite directions, will make possible the use of higher voltages, thus more power per size unit. Controll of rpm's on either rotating part, would be based on thrust of propeller or fan used.
    ( a large prop driven by housing, producing low speed thrust, would cause a smaller fan on the armature to run at a much higher speed untill equal thrust is obtained ).

    4. A ducted fan system, of proper design, working along with propellers could allow some energy added, by thermal transfer. Also air flow of large mass would be needed for cooling.

    As stated before energy stored on board, for takeoff and climb to altitude, would be needed.:depressed

    Based on the very large expansion of electric powered models, in the last few years, electric flight is well within our reach. I think this can be carried over to full sized aircraft.

    The use of electromagnetic functions, is what i believe to be near to, taking advantage of Newton's law "every action has a equal and opposite reaction" and turning "action" and "reaction" into same direction thrust.:ban:

    My efforts at building these designs into a giant scale airframe "F-82 twin mustang" and/or an "A-26 twin engine bomber", both of which have wing spans of over 100" inches, has helped in keeping size and cost within my budget.:ban:

    Might not have said it all, but there is plenty here to get some thoughts :ponder: kicked off. Thanks

    RonL
     
  6. Jan 21, 2007 #6

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Before I answer here, I guess I should point out that outside of basic circuits, my expertise in electronics is limited to keeping my finger out of electrical sockets. But there are simple foundational issues that can be addressed here so I'll try not to stick my foot in too deep.

    1) I am generally familiar with the basics of capacitor configuration - the application of such to fuselage construction and electric flight is an intriguing concept however, given the combination of flight, operational and structural requirements, I'd guess it would be a very interesting (translated - complicated) exercise. The optimization of skin gages, supporting structures, isolation from other areas of the body, discharge control (don't want to electrocute anyone on the ground), etc. might make any design an order of magnitude more involved than just developing a straight forward flight structure. At best, I would guess the weight penalty might be significant.

    2) This is a simple issue of physics - in flight, there is no such thing as free air. Extracting energy during cruise flight, regardless of how you go about doing it, is simply an exercise of extracting "work" from the air flowing around the aircraft. Simply stated, extracting this "work" from a flowing fluid is drag. The only time that this work could be extracted without penalty is during descent where, like in regenerative braking on an electric car, the air flow could be used to drive the motor in a generating cycle. Trying to do something like this in cruise is simply like driving down the freeway with the brakes on.

    3) The higher the voltage, the lower the circuit losses - this holds true in electrical circuits as it does in mechanical or hydraulic equivalents. But again the critical issue of operational design would be the protection of the occupants or ground crew. Imagine if during a crash the occupants survived but then got electrocuted because some part of the electrical system made contact with something it shouldn't have.

    4) Generally, ducted fans are very inefficient forms of propulsion. Shrouded propellers can achieve slightly better propulsive efficiencies (a "shroud' is generally defined as half the prop diameter or less in chord length) but only up to about 120 mph. After that the surrounding structure poses a significant source of wetted area drag. At the higher speeds the shrouds add little or no performance benefit to the prop. At best, the addition of ducted or shrouded propulsion is a significant compromise from an optimum condition.
     
  7. Jan 22, 2007 #7

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Thanks for the input
    Well as i mentioned, this is only a very shallow presentation of the basic concept, there are a number of additional components, that each can add it's own input to the overall power system.

    Before going into the gruesome details of anything, i'd like to see if anyone else adds their input.

    It's my observation, that any power system, when bolted to a non-moveable surface, loses a portion of it's reactive energy to a non-useable sink. It's in this area of preventing or recovering lost energy.
     
  8. Jan 22, 2007 #8

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    preventing or recovering lost energy in a system is my main focus.

    Hit the submit button by mistake

    RonL
     
  9. Jan 29, 2007 #9

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    Well it looks as if this thread cleared the hanger, guess even the mice left.

    Thanks all, for the comments. I'll back off for now, and possibly have some progress to report in the future, first i'll have to learn to take pictures and post on the forum, hope to do this in the near future.

    The information and comments by all, in this forum, really help in evaluating a plan or project, and i extend my thanks to Jake for his time and effort, and especially all the moderators.

    An exciteing day, saturday, found my way into the hanger of a "Confederate Air Force" group, near where i live, and was invited to go up in an AT-6 Trainer, they were doing formation practice, and it was to me,very much of a thrill.

    Again thanks RonL
     
  10. Jan 29, 2007 #10

    Rhino

    Rhino

    Rhino

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    771
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    SW Ohio
    Just for future reference, if your original post is less than a few days old, you can simply click the "Edit" button to edit, add or delete text. A second post should therefore not be necessary.
     
  11. Jan 29, 2007 #11

    RonL

    RonL

    RonL

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Texas
    THANKS Rhino

    I've made that mistake a couple of times.
    Just found the page that explains how to get around in the forum. Time to do some studying.

    RonL
     

Share This Page



arrow_white