@@nobodyknows3180 Hydroelectric also has carbon footprint. You need to build the dam or dams first. You need to transport a lot of concrete and steel bar for construction. There cannot be no carbon footprint. You can argue that it is smaller.
I have a "book" which was published in 1978, which explained pretty much everything you would want to know about Rotors. This company is trying to push a Savonius Rotor which rarely has a specific power coefficient above about 0.15, but is very good at moving large masses of material, at slow speeds (as used to position ships and oil platforms). For practical purposes, it is just an1800 paddle-wheel river boat. In contrast, the competing Darrieus Rotor (invented about 2000-years ago), has about three times the energy efficiency, but requires high speed flow from the media (wind or water). On the Inet, some companies have combined these into a single structure, to maximize the advantages of both, AND their combined power efficiency is about that of the early American Farm Turbines, used for well pumping of water. Ordinary two-blade propellers have useage coefficients of about 0.5 (as used on small airplanes), and the the better 4-to-6-blade AI designs, have useage coefficients of about 0.6-to-0.7 (as used on military heavy airplanes, and newest open-rotor designs for low-carbon airplanes). Modern electric power gathering turbines are somewhere in between, and are limited by having to be high above the ground, requiring massive towers & huge infrastructure logistics, so are limited by external factors. The CEO of the company depicted in this video is a complete idiot, and obviously not smart enough to just go look at some ancient history. We are being forced to re-live "dreams from losers" about fundamental physics. PassItOn. Please.
Having spent many years driving next to other human beings on the roads, the thought of many of those people flying personal air vehicles gives me the screaming meemees.
@@Israelipropaganda There will also be an onboard AI named HAL, but I understand there is a glitch with his software that prevents him from opening the doors.
This concept has been used as propulsion in shipping since 1926. Developed and manufactured by the company Voith in Heidenheim, Germany and called Voith-Schneider-Propeller.
@@Marcel-e5h Agreed that it exists. Agreed that it may have specific application benefits. Mass replacement or substitution for other propulsion technologies with VSP/cycloidal propulsion is just fantasy. Again, 90 year old tech that is not adopted as safe, reliable, efficient, & affordable is probably not those things. Only in a corrupted government model do those technologies (safe, reliable, efficient, affordable) not rise to the top/majority of usage.
@@AnthonyBennettKYYou are right👍 In Shipping it is most commonly used as propulsion on Harbour towing vehicles for beeing able to seamlessly change the vector of the propulsion. I have not heard of it for beeing better in terms of fuel consumption or sth else.
So what did your great grandfather tell Orville & Wilbur Wright in 1902?? 😉 Just joshing. Wonder how many told the Wrights to their face they were nutty??
An aircraft in a hover has a zero energy efficiency. Anything that makes lift from thrust has the same limitation. Therefore this idea is equally bad but is far worse. As stated, its limitation make more inefficient that a conventional helicopter. These designers need to understand the concept of thrust efficiency which favors the biggest propeller area, and the lowest possible thrust velocity. Sorry but this concept will ultimately fail as a practical aircraft propulsion method
Se questo è vero, perché tutto questo sviluppo sui droni per fare riprese , rilievi, foto e quant’altro? Non si potevano già fare con un normale elicottero?
Not true; Propeller design: Quadcopters typically use smaller, more efficient propellers compared to the large main rotor of a helicopter. Smaller propellers require less power to generate the necessary lift. Distributed thrust: A quadcopter distributes the thrust across four motors, whereas a helicopter concentrates all the thrust on a single main rotor. The distributed design of a quadcopter is more efficient. Control mechanism: Quadcopters use electronic flight control systems that can precisely adjust the speed of each motor, optimizing power usage. Helicopters rely more on mechanical linkages, which are less efficient. Aerodynamics: The compact, symmetric design of a quadcopter has less aerodynamic drag compared to the bulky fuselage and exposed rotor system of a helicopter. Overall, the combination of these factors makes quadcopters substantially more energy-efficient than helicopters when carrying similar payloads. The power efficiency advantage of quadcopters is a key reason for their widespread use in commercial and recreational drone applications
This is a pipe dream. It's so complex and fragile that it would never be safe or reliable for human flight. My plane has a variable pitch prop which is ridiculously simple by comparison, yet you can easily feel the massive change in force on the prop with even tiny changes in pitch. There is a point of diminishing returns in aviation, and cycloidal props are one of them.
@@binarybox.binarybox Had the same thing in the 70s - great for kites appearently but not so great for aeroplanes, for which it had been used also in the very beginning of humans building machines that can fly. Its also good for low velocity room fans.
The efficiency of any wing-lift device relies on the minimum disc/wing loading. These stubby blades with their rapidly changing angles of attack are going to suffer from very high wing loading but also suffer from shock-stalling due to the rapidly changing angles of attack. No doubt the idea can be made to function but in my opinion it will be fearfully inefficient as a means of providing lift.
Can't wait to be all hype about this technology, only for the hype to die down and then to never hear about it ever again, which seems to happen an awful lot with these breaking technologies
It will be mentioned again but it will be a tough road. Even towards the video end he talks about the really high speeds these units require, but those speeds tear apart the materials. Helicopters and auto gyros were crazy concepts at one time, especially the helo which I still don't trust especially if its a Huey operated by the US Army Guard forces.
You better wear hearing protection if you get near these cyclo rotors. I can just imagine your neighbor taking off in one of these things and waking the entire neighborhood.
Yeah they claim they'll be quieter, but ya can see from the high rotational speed that they won't be quieter at all without even needing to hear them. 🙉🎧😂🤣
I'm always a big fan of cooperative hybridization. Instead of trying to fully rely on one singular method or tool as a "one-size-fits-all" solution, I prefer to employ a combination of approaches, each bringing their own particular strengths to the table and combining in such a way that the whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts. As such, I think the approach of using the Cyclo-Rotors to generate the _lift,_ is not a good use for them. That's not playing to their strengths properly; there are *already* far better options available to get pure lifting power. Instead, the ability to re-direct thrust should be employed in stearing and maneuvering, and maybe adding to forward movement. I recall seeing another company working with "off-center" propellers that were _not_ radially symmetric. I could see something like _that_ used primarily for VTol, lift, and hovering; and then employing the omnidirectional advantage of Cyclo-Rotors, maybe even scaled down since they won't need to generate full _lift,_ only maneuvering thrust, for small trajectory adjustments. And when not needed for such, they can contribute with additional forward thrust for plain ol' speed. Another interesting technology I recall seeing used the same principle as in a Dyson Fan. A confined fan that compressed air and sent it through a ring-shaped outlet to create a high-speed "tube" of air. This, in turn, created a low-pressure vortex which pulled in air and forced it through the ring, compressing it and increasing its speed, thus generating thrust. It doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive sort of "you're only allowed _one_ technology, choose wisely" matter; a good designer and engineer ought to be able to incorporate whichever and as many of these are needed to get the job done. I can easily conceptualize a craft using a set of asymmetrical props for VTol and primary lift and secondary forward thrust, an internal "Dyson Fan" for primary forward thrust and secondary lift, and Cyclo-Props for primary maneuvering and secondary forward thrust.
Cycloidal props work well in water....not well in air as they're too small and need to spin too fast. Big thrust needs big bite and surface area engaging the air and cycloidal props just don't have it.
Yeah, the moving parts in the propeller plus the vortex forces.It's just too unstable.I feel like. The only benefit it has to the propeller is no spinning blade.
These probably would be great in thicker atmosphere like that of Venus where you could achieve good thrust at much lower RPMs. Imagine you stick these into an airliner. The amount of wear and tear in bearings, pitch control mechanism will be too much.
Safety? Using cyclo rotors for propulsion is one thing, but using them lift is another thing entirely. A fixed wing aircraft can be landed "dead stick" in the event of engine failure, and even a rotary wing aircraft can execute a autorotation landing in the event of engine failure, but an aircraft relying on cycol rotors for lift, would fall like a brick if the power source was to fail.
When it gets the magic formula dialed in, it will be of interest. Until then it is only a novelty in flying machines where progress has often been measured in blood from test pilots.
The cyclic pitch control in a helicopter is achieved by changing the angle of attack of the blades over the revolution of the rotor. It is controlled by the swash plate (or azimuthal star) and it is the single greatest vulnerability of a chopper. You want to add 4-5 of those mechanical units per rotor and 4-8 rotors per aircraft. This will give you an unprecedented chance of failure and a very short MTBF. Your craft may also fail catastrophically, if a single blade control unit fails. Reliability and safety are enormous concerns by drone-like designs, as they usually do not survive the failure of a single rotor drive. And you take this risk to an all new height. Also keep in mind that helicopters waste 10-15% of their drive power in adjusting airblades at such high speeds. And that for about 100-180 degrees of the turn, the blades are at a suboptimal angle of attack. You basically advocate for replacing the propeller of the ship by a paddle wheel again. Add to this, that no one needs 360 degrees thrust distribution. You need 80%-90% downwash at all times and then the rest in forward or brake thrust. Unless you aim at inverted flight you solve a problem no one has.
In the beginning you said they create high thrust at a very low rotation , then in the end , you said one of there downfalls is because of the high rotation ?
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Everyone is talking about this "new" technology but, in 1963 my father bought me a kit based on this design. How is it that it's new technology?
Had a kids toy in the 70's that was based on a plastic plane body with a set of these rotors on and worked like a kite , flew way better than a std kite and looked way cooler .
there have been many prototypes over the last 90 years, but none of them seems to have worked very well, if they had worked as stated here they would be flying all around us
how the HELL does one 'destroy' an industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BY MAKING IT OVER 200% MORE EFFICIENT IN A VITAL PART OF IT?????????????
Reminds me of the Mazda rotary motor . That I truly enjoyed without any needed motor work and sold it still in perfect running shape for a large farm truck . But was truly happy to have such a perfect fast running car that only the breaks and a battery work besides tires and oil change for 16 years . I hope this would also help in perhaps providing electricity as well as a light weight motor configuration in the propeller. As it’s very smooth running through five gears manual transmission. That allowed better snow front wheel use that ran around many cars crashing on Colorado hills with over a foot snow and Ice conditions. Having all weather tires as well as the weight over the front wheel drive was like a four wheel vehicle somehow . Anyway this new use of the blades may be a great investment as costs go up and alternative use techniques are having to be revisited especially with new materials and manufacturing printing parts that allow automatic driving car technology more adaptable especially if they are able to be quiet in normal use .
I have often wondered if there was a better way to propel a boat in the water, a way that would be less damaging to fish and or manatees and whales. I don’t believe this is the answer to that problem but it would come in handy for local commuting.
I'm not to fond of the open blade ship propellers. I see those as being Whale Killers. I think Azipods and Bow Thrusters are more efficient and don't require addition draft depth.
The concept of being able to change directions by altering the angle of each blade,, is also used on farm equipment! Combines, haybines and hay rakes use that and could not work without modifying the angle of each blade. However, this is all at low speed,, I wonder how wear and tear would be at High speed? You have two to four bearings for each blade, plus one on each side of the drum. The two biggest issues to overcome is wear and maintenance!😮😢😊
Follow the general rule. From pre WWI through 1960, the best technical minds and efforts in the country were devoted to aviation. They knew what they were doing and none of them opted for this propeller nor for any of the zillions of other half-baked novelties. In short if it was not adopted, it wasn’t worth adopting.
@@crhu319 Absolutely. The engineers who work on engines thoroughly understand thermodynamics. They know that the combination of high energy per pound of jet fuel and the light weight of jet engines make everything else a nonstarter. Last year an amonia engine enthusiast happliy told me that amonia engines only increase the fuel load by 30%. But that would mean that a trans Pacific flight could carry no passengers. Or, i suppose, they could take out the seats and maybe carrying a few anorexic teenagers.
@@dancarter482 probably the best engineering in the WORLD. Two pieces of evidence. WWI was fought with biplanes…WWII was fought by P51s, Zeros and ME109s. AND 2, the modern jet plane and the old C130 did not appear by magic.
The high prices will destroy aviation. $50k + for a factory rebuilt 160 hp Lycoming is absolutely ridiculous and that’s if you have a core. If you have an engine that doesn’t meet core status you can add an additional $23k to the cost. Lycoming and others should be ashamed of them selves. They better get it together otherwise they’ll be out of a job. In this economy, there's no such thing as “ too big to fail”
With the burgeoning of industrial production of graphene in the EU, metal fatigue on the rotors will history. When it comes to security issues, c'mon, never heard about BRS (ballistic Recovery System)? It's already mandatory on light aircraft in several countries
This seems less safe then a helicopter as it doesn't appear that autorotating the rotor isn't an option in motor failure event.... which you now have a 4x chance of.
Who wrote the title? It will destroy the aviation industry if adopted. Maybe someone with a working brain should do the article or report headline. Something like revolutionize, change, even disrupt?
Los rusos siempre han sido muy creativos en sus soluciones, pero la visión torcida de EEUU e Inglaterra, ha frenado al mundo, segado y nublado la visión y la tecnología
Lots of fishing gear that will disable those ships , lot’s of whale deaths from those ship’s , in aircraft wouldn’t they suck up birds and can you still fly and land safely if a bird takes out one of these
Once the _Unobtainium_ mines are up and running and the _Unexplainium_ equations are all solved we can use this stuff for sight seeing trips to the Sun!
![Gucci Mane & Sexyy Red - You Don't Love Me [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/j7IBqyFKT4c/mqdefault.jpg)
![Diggy Graves - Red Vineyard [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8Ro085T0mnQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Any “scientist” who says electric is carbon dioxide free has lost all credibility to me.
Except for hydroelectric. Even solar and wind have an enormous carbon footprint because of what it takes to produce the components.
@@nobodyknows3180 Hydroelectric also has carbon footprint. You need to build the dam or dams first. You need to transport a lot of concrete and steel bar for construction. There cannot be no carbon footprint. You can argue that it is smaller.
well, you are basically tard then.
I have a "book" which was published in 1978, which explained pretty much everything you would want to know about Rotors. This company is trying to push a Savonius Rotor which rarely has a specific power coefficient above about 0.15, but is very good at moving large masses of material, at slow speeds (as used to position ships and oil platforms). For practical purposes, it is just an1800 paddle-wheel river boat. In contrast, the competing Darrieus Rotor (invented about 2000-years ago), has about three times the energy efficiency, but requires high speed flow from the media (wind or water). On the Inet, some companies have combined these into a single structure, to maximize the advantages of both, AND their combined power efficiency is about that of the early American Farm Turbines, used for well pumping of water. Ordinary two-blade propellers have useage coefficients of about 0.5 (as used on small airplanes), and the the better 4-to-6-blade AI designs, have useage coefficients of about 0.6-to-0.7 (as used on military heavy airplanes, and newest open-rotor designs for low-carbon airplanes). Modern electric power gathering turbines are somewhere in between, and are limited by having to be high above the ground, requiring massive towers & huge infrastructure logistics, so are limited by external factors. The CEO of the company depicted in this video is a complete idiot, and obviously not smart enough to just go look at some ancient history. We are being forced to re-live "dreams from losers" about fundamental physics. PassItOn. Please.
Having spent many years driving next to other human beings on the roads, the thought of many of those people flying personal air vehicles gives me the screaming meemees.
It will be Cyberdyne systems controlling the flight so you should be fine, isn't that right arnold.
@@Israelipropaganda There will also be an onboard AI named HAL, but I understand there is a glitch with his software that prevents him from opening the doors.
If it worked efficiently and was safe & reliable it would be everywhere by now. That tells you everything.
This concept has been used as propulsion in shipping since 1926. Developed and manufactured by the company Voith in Heidenheim, Germany and called Voith-Schneider-Propeller.
@@Marcel-e5h
Agreed that it exists. Agreed that it may have specific application benefits. Mass replacement or substitution for other propulsion technologies with VSP/cycloidal propulsion is just fantasy.
Again, 90 year old tech that is not adopted as safe, reliable, efficient, & affordable is probably not those things. Only in a corrupted government model do those technologies (safe, reliable, efficient, affordable) not rise to the top/majority of usage.
@@AnthonyBennettKYYou are right👍 In Shipping it is most commonly used as propulsion on Harbour towing vehicles for beeing able to seamlessly change the vector of the propulsion. I have not heard of it for beeing better in terms of fuel consumption or sth else.
@@Marcel-e5h Please advise just which ships use it, Have not seen any evidence to date.
So what did your great grandfather tell Orville & Wilbur Wright in 1902?? 😉 Just joshing. Wonder how many told the Wrights to their face they were nutty??
An aircraft in a hover has a zero energy efficiency. Anything that makes lift from thrust has the same limitation. Therefore this idea is equally bad but is far worse. As stated, its limitation make more inefficient that a conventional helicopter. These designers need to understand the concept of thrust efficiency which favors the biggest propeller area, and the lowest possible thrust velocity. Sorry but this concept will ultimately fail as a practical aircraft propulsion method
Se questo è vero, perché tutto questo sviluppo sui droni per fare riprese , rilievi, foto e quant’altro? Non si potevano già fare con un normale elicottero?
Not true;
Propeller design: Quadcopters typically use smaller, more efficient propellers compared to the large main rotor of a helicopter. Smaller propellers require less power to generate the necessary lift.
Distributed thrust: A quadcopter distributes the thrust across four motors, whereas a helicopter concentrates all the thrust on a single main rotor. The distributed design of a quadcopter is more efficient.
Control mechanism: Quadcopters use electronic flight control systems that can precisely adjust the speed of each motor, optimizing power usage. Helicopters rely more on mechanical linkages, which are less efficient.
Aerodynamics: The compact, symmetric design of a quadcopter has less aerodynamic drag compared to the bulky fuselage and exposed rotor system of a helicopter.
Overall, the combination of these factors makes quadcopters substantially more energy-efficient than helicopters when carrying similar payloads. The power efficiency advantage of quadcopters is a key reason for their widespread use in commercial and recreational drone applications
@@cinemoriahFPV Grazie per la risposta, è quello che sostengo anche io.
Propellers produce less thrust towards the center, these are towards the outside
Maybe when they inject vaxxsheens in it it will be the most efficient aka healthy option.
This is a pipe dream. It's so complex and fragile that it would never be safe or reliable for human flight. My plane has a variable pitch prop which is ridiculously simple by comparison, yet you can easily feel the massive change in force on the prop with even tiny changes in pitch. There is a point of diminishing returns in aviation, and cycloidal props are one of them.
Had a toy aircraft that worked on the principle of revolving wings when used as a kite, this was in 1955. Phil.
I had a kite with rotating wings around the 50s...it was called Revojet.
@@binarybox.binarybox Had the same thing in the 70s - great for kites appearently but not so great for aeroplanes, for which it had been used also in the very beginning of humans building machines that can fly. Its also good for low velocity room fans.
@@binarybox.binarybox Yeah, my aircraft/kite was branded Rotaflyer.
The efficiency of any wing-lift device relies on the minimum disc/wing loading. These stubby blades with their rapidly changing angles of attack are going to suffer from very high wing loading but also suffer from shock-stalling due to the rapidly changing angles of attack. No doubt the idea can be made to function but in my opinion it will be fearfully inefficient as a means of providing lift.
very good argument ... possibly u can invent a material that handles this well but it will always be the weak-point of this tech.
Yeah. Seems like a lot of wasted power doing what it does. And horrible during wind turbulence.
But I don't know. Not an engineer.
>we have helicopters
>nobody:
>this!
I want to hear the dBA of one of these things 😂😂😂
Bitcoin fuel will make it work.
Can't wait to be all hype about this technology, only for the hype to die down and then to never hear about it ever again, which seems to happen an awful lot with these breaking technologies
They're too loud. I won't work
Agreed.🎯
Wait ? It’s already old 😅
Tugs use these propellers for their manoeuvrability. In an aircraft they are far heavier than a traditional propeller.
Yet another miracle that will never be seen or mentioned again.
It will be mentioned again but it will be a tough road. Even towards the video end he talks about the really high speeds these units require, but those speeds tear apart the materials.
Helicopters and auto gyros were crazy concepts at one time, especially the helo which I still don't trust especially if its a Huey operated by the US Army Guard forces.
@@LuvBorderCollies I'm with you on helicopters being very dangerous. Auto-gyros are interesting and much safer.
You better wear hearing protection if you get near these cyclo rotors. I can just imagine your neighbor taking off in one of these things and waking the entire neighborhood.
Yeah they claim they'll be quieter, but ya can see from the high rotational speed that they won't be quieter at all without even needing to hear them. 🙉🎧😂🤣
NO GLIDING to a safer landing... You just FAIL out of the sky
@@etyrnal Falling = failing 🤣🤣 Gravity always wins
I'm always a big fan of cooperative hybridization. Instead of trying to fully rely on one singular method or tool as a "one-size-fits-all" solution, I prefer to employ a combination of approaches, each bringing their own particular strengths to the table and combining in such a way that the whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts.
As such, I think the approach of using the Cyclo-Rotors to generate the _lift,_ is not a good use for them. That's not playing to their strengths properly; there are *already* far better options available to get pure lifting power. Instead, the ability to re-direct thrust should be employed in stearing and maneuvering, and maybe adding to forward movement.
I recall seeing another company working with "off-center" propellers that were _not_ radially symmetric. I could see something like _that_ used primarily for VTol, lift, and hovering; and then employing the omnidirectional advantage of Cyclo-Rotors, maybe even scaled down since they won't need to generate full _lift,_ only maneuvering thrust, for small trajectory adjustments. And when not needed for such, they can contribute with additional forward thrust for plain ol' speed.
Another interesting technology I recall seeing used the same principle as in a Dyson Fan. A confined fan that compressed air and sent it through a ring-shaped outlet to create a high-speed "tube" of air. This, in turn, created a low-pressure vortex which pulled in air and forced it through the ring, compressing it and increasing its speed, thus generating thrust.
It doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive sort of "you're only allowed _one_ technology, choose wisely" matter; a good designer and engineer ought to be able to incorporate whichever and as many of these are needed to get the job done.
I can easily conceptualize a craft using a set of asymmetrical props for VTol and primary lift and secondary forward thrust, an internal "Dyson Fan" for primary forward thrust and secondary lift, and Cyclo-Props for primary maneuvering and secondary forward thrust.
1 plane = aircraft
Multiple aircraft = aircraft
Multiple aircraft types = aircrafts
1 fish = fish
multiple fish = fish
multiple species of fish = fishes
Inflammable means flammable.
Yes, aircraft!
@@Famous-Potatoes
1 deer = deer
Multiple deer = deer
I think the design might change, I saw at the beginning of the video a complex interesting design.
Thank you for this video 👍🏻
Cycloidal props work well in water....not well in air as they're too small and need to spin too fast. Big thrust needs big bite and surface area engaging the air and cycloidal props just don't have it.
Yeah, the moving parts in the propeller plus the vortex forces.It's just too unstable.I feel like. The only benefit it has to the propeller is no spinning blade.
@@recoilrob324 & due to the ridiculous rotational speed the noise and gyroscopic effects would be fearsome
My dog made me watch this. I have no opinion, one way or the other. Woof.
These probably would be great in thicker atmosphere like that of Venus where you could achieve good thrust at much lower RPMs. Imagine you stick these into an airliner. The amount of wear and tear in bearings, pitch control mechanism will be too much.
Could prove the concept by building a desk fan with it.
Can't wait to see DUI with these machines.
Safety? Using cyclo rotors for propulsion is one thing, but using them lift is another thing entirely. A fixed wing aircraft can be landed "dead stick" in the event of engine failure, and even a rotary wing aircraft can execute a autorotation landing in the event of engine failure, but an aircraft relying on cycol rotors for lift, would fall like a brick if the power source was to fail.
Stick the fan in a box & have it blow air out of slots in a hollow ring, call it a Dycyson.
When it gets the magic formula dialed in, it will be of interest. Until then it is only a novelty in flying machines where progress has often been measured in blood from test pilots.
_V22 Osprey!_
Zasto sada ? Kad je to mnogo ranije otkriveno? Pogledajte samo Schraubergera?
Cycloidal props would be ideal for airships and luxury airship cruising.
Im surprised that they havent made them so they retract into the crafit when not needed. Or have they?
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how well it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
Bless his heart. Still watches the JETSONS.
The cyclic pitch control in a helicopter is achieved by changing the angle of attack of the blades over the revolution of the rotor. It is controlled by the swash plate (or azimuthal star) and it is the single greatest vulnerability of a chopper.
You want to add 4-5 of those mechanical units per rotor and 4-8 rotors per aircraft. This will give you an unprecedented chance of failure and a very short MTBF.
Your craft may also fail catastrophically, if a single blade control unit fails. Reliability and safety are enormous concerns by drone-like designs, as they usually do not survive the failure of a single rotor drive. And you take this risk to an all new height.
Also keep in mind that helicopters waste 10-15% of their drive power in adjusting airblades at such high speeds. And that for about 100-180 degrees of the turn, the blades are at a suboptimal angle of attack. You basically advocate for replacing the propeller of the ship by a paddle wheel again.
Add to this, that no one needs 360 degrees thrust distribution. You need 80%-90% downwash at all times and then the rest in forward or brake thrust. Unless you aim at inverted flight you solve a problem no one has.
Elliptical loads create vibration. I imagine the harmonics of this design are an issue.
One of these you showed looks a lot like a ancient piece in Egypt museum that nobody can figure out what it was used for.
In the beginning you said they create high thrust at a very low rotation , then in the end , you said one of there downfalls is because of the high rotation ?
Sorry, but I just don't get it. Everyone is talking about this "new" technology but, in 1963 my father bought me a kit based on this design. How is it that it's new technology?
If we applied this to a racing car wheel, with rubber either side of the wheel, with the blades in the middle, will this increase the drivers thrust.
I am so glad that I skipped to the end after watching for a couple moments 😂😂😂
you're not going to have flying cars until FSD is perfected.
Easy solution. Instead of Vanos veins keep them static rotate your housing as nozzles
Being CO2 free is unimportant. Safety is paramount.
Had a kids toy in the 70's that was based on a plastic plane body with a set of these rotors on and worked like a kite , flew way better than a std kite and looked way cooler .
I'd like to see a working prototype.
there have been many prototypes over the last 90 years, but none of them seems to have worked very well, if they had worked as stated here they would be flying all around us
How loud is it?
Fabulous idea, but the video wastes time talking about the past. Talk about the future uses. 😊😊
Very good reason these never took off ( pun inc ) they have far to many parts with failure ever present.
"Will Destroy The Aviation Industry"
At my age, I no longer need to fly anywhere.
I wouldn’t worry, nobody is going to be flying anywhere with this nonsense.
how the HELL does one 'destroy' an industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BY MAKING IT OVER 200% MORE EFFICIENT IN A VITAL PART OF IT?????????????
What about for Windmills?
I sometimes wonder whether a screw shaped rotating magnetic field might also work?
Pilot here, cant really see how
In a plasma environment, or ionized solution in liquid maybe?
Why is cycloidal now pronounced cycloidial?
I'm imagining the glide path if it loses power. Yikes.
Reminds me of the Mazda rotary motor . That I truly enjoyed without any needed motor work and sold it still in perfect running shape for a large farm truck . But was truly happy to have such a perfect fast running car that only the breaks and a battery work besides tires and oil change for 16 years . I hope this would also help in perhaps providing electricity as well as a light weight motor configuration in the propeller. As it’s very smooth running through five gears manual transmission. That allowed better snow front wheel use that ran around many cars crashing on Colorado hills with over a foot snow and Ice conditions. Having all weather tires as well as the weight over the front wheel drive was like a four wheel vehicle somehow . Anyway this new use of the blades may be a great investment as costs go up and alternative use techniques are having to be revisited especially with new materials and manufacturing printing parts that allow automatic driving car technology more adaptable especially if they are able to be quiet in normal use .
Why have an 80 pound solid propeller with no moving parts when you can have six sixty pound propellers with hundreds of moving parts?
Looks like the kind of propellers that George Jetson used in the cartoon or even Steve zodiac and the puppet cartoon Fireball xl5 😯😀👍
Actually, every detail of this propeller was developes in the 19th century to propell paddlewheel steamships.
Squirrel cage fans are awesome
Last century mechanic nightmare
Maybe the Police Spinner from Blade Runner is not far off?
you will never get rid of the axel bending
I cant imagine it being able to lift much compared ro normal rotors
Right, let's get this sorted now... Is the voiceover pronouncing it incorrectly or should it be spelled 'cycloidial'?
How about Cyclorotors for Wind Power Generators!
Can these be used in water?
Yes, starting at 4:11 the video goes over them extensively.
I have often wondered if there was a better way to propel a boat in the water, a way that would be less damaging to fish and or manatees and whales. I don’t believe this is the answer to that problem but it would come in handy for local commuting.
At first they are extremely optimistic, then reality sets in when the disadvantages are mentioned 🤷♂️
GREAT
Because unguarded rotating machinery says " hey stupid touch me"
how loud are they
Love it, the rotor is carbon free, made from carbon fibre.
I'm not to fond of the open blade ship propellers. I see those as being Whale Killers. I think Azipods and Bow Thrusters are more efficient and don't require addition draft depth.
Statistics on the whales injured by propellers please
@@SnowTiger45 Some do have a disk shaped lower cover,
Marine versions look incredibly vulnerable to damage - which will be catastrophic and irrecoverable as the blades systematically destroy each other.
Not to mention the capacity to damage wildlife.
It sounds like it would be more suited to the renewable energy sector, as a V.A.W.T.
how about using that for a wind turbine?
Cool and all.... but, what happens when a bird goes into one?
Looks like an old steamboat wheel lol
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how stably it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
Wonder how they glide
I think a flapper that folds up ^ and then flattens down _
The concept of being able to change directions by altering the angle of each blade,, is also used on farm equipment! Combines, haybines and hay rakes use that and could not work without modifying the angle of each blade. However, this is all at low speed,, I wonder how wear and tear would be at High speed? You have two to four bearings for each blade, plus one on each side of the drum. The two biggest issues to overcome is wear and maintenance!😮😢😊
With the terminal velocity of the average bullion vault, it's doubtful anyone would have time for unexplainium equations!
Follow the general rule. From pre WWI through 1960, the best technical minds and efforts in the country were devoted to aviation. They knew what they were doing and none of them opted for this propeller nor for any of the zillions of other half-baked novelties.
In short if it was not adopted, it wasn’t worth adopting.
Same for all the "new" hydrogen and ammonia engines 😂
@@crhu319 Absolutely. The engineers who work on engines thoroughly understand thermodynamics. They know that the combination of high energy per pound of jet fuel and the light weight of jet engines make everything else a nonstarter. Last year an amonia engine enthusiast happliy told me that amonia engines only increase the fuel load by 30%. But that would mean that a trans Pacific flight could carry no passengers. Or, i suppose, they could take out the seats and maybe carrying a few anorexic teenagers.
"The country" - _Really?_
@@dancarter482 probably the best engineering in the WORLD. Two pieces of evidence. WWI was fought with biplanes…WWII was fought by P51s, Zeros and ME109s. AND 2, the modern jet plane and the old C130 did not appear by magic.
@@piperg6179 Mitchel (Spitfire) English. Whittle (Jet) English. Rolls/Royce (Merlin engine used in the P51 etc.) English. W.von Braun (Rockets) German.
Turn these sideways and that’s what many high tech tug boats are using. 360 degree thrust vectoring instantly.
No. Maybe for small drones or possible wind turbines.
The high prices will destroy aviation. $50k + for a factory rebuilt 160 hp Lycoming is absolutely ridiculous and that’s if you have a core. If you have an engine that doesn’t meet core status you can add an additional $23k to the cost. Lycoming and others should be ashamed of them selves. They better get it together otherwise they’ll be out of a job. In this economy, there's no such thing as “ too big to fail”
So....... A high tech paddle boat that flys? Ish..
SQUARL CAGE
With the burgeoning of industrial production of graphene in the EU, metal fatigue on the rotors will history.
When it comes to security issues, c'mon, never heard about BRS (ballistic Recovery System)? It's already mandatory on light aircraft in several countries
This seems less safe then a helicopter as it doesn't appear that autorotating the rotor isn't an option in motor failure event.... which you now have a 4x chance of.
This will not come off the ground anytime soon
Id say a propeller has less surface area for a bird strike 😮
Who wrote the title? It will destroy the aviation industry if adopted. Maybe someone with a working brain should do the article or report headline. Something like revolutionize, change, even disrupt?
Two words terrace Howard
These propellers are not a technological breakthrough, they have been using them on tugboats for over 30 years!
Exactly! I saw one the other day flying over a job site I was at.
Neat.
Pre-Industrial Revolution water wheel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maximum complicated self disassemble toy prop
Los rusos siempre han sido muy creativos en sus soluciones, pero la visión torcida de EEUU e Inglaterra, ha frenado al mundo, segado y nublado la visión y la tecnología
Gracias a Dios están en decadencia, y el mundo pronto podrá vivir libre de su oscurantismo y violencia, y florecer en prosperidad
“Cycloideeeeal”
Yeah, hard to be more impressed by their technical knowledge when they're evidently too lazy to consult a dictionary.
Why would they destroy the aviation industry? If they are that good, wouldn't they benefit the aviation industry?
Lots of fishing gear that will disable those ships , lot’s of whale deaths from those ship’s , in aircraft wouldn’t they suck up birds and can you still fly and land safely if a bird takes out one of these
This is like the fusion reactor thing! If it worked we would see it everywhere! The Truth is that does not work well like fusion will not work.
Once the _Unobtainium_ mines are up and running and the _Unexplainium_ equations are all solved we can use this stuff for sight seeing trips to the Sun!
Do I hear titanium additive manufacturing in the near future?