ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Cycloidal propellers, or cyclo rotors, have become quite the talk of the town due to their high maneuverability and wide array of uses! Despite being considered a technological breakthrough; Cycloidal Propellers have been present since the early 20th century! After a hiatus in development of over 100 years, this radical rotor design is getting popular because of the never-ending rise of VTOL aircraft!
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??
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.🎯
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.
Tugs use these propellers for their manoeuvrability. In an aircraft they are far heavier than a traditional propeller.
Very good reason these never took off ( pun inc ) they have far to many parts with failure ever present.
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.
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.
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
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.
Zasto sada ? Kad je to mnogo ranije otkriveno? Pogledajte samo Schraubergera?
Elliptical loads create vibration. I imagine the harmonics of this design are an issue.
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.
I cant imagine it being able to lift much compared ro normal rotors
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
Because unguarded rotating machinery says " hey stupid touch me"
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.
Turn these sideways and that’s what many high tech tug boats are using. 360 degree thrust vectoring instantly.
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?
Fabulous idea, but the video wastes time talking about the past. Talk about the future uses. 😊😊
Maximum complicated self disassemble toy prop
“Cycloideeeeal”
Pre-Industrial Revolution water wheel!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how stably it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
How loud is it?
I think a flapper that folds up ^ and then flattens down _
how about using that for a wind turbine?
NO GLIDING to a safer landing... You just FAIL out of the sky
Can these be used in water?
Yes, starting at 4:11 the video goes over them extensively.
I wonder if Captain Sully could glide one to a safe water landing after the bird strike. Naaa
😊 just otter the fin, sure can fly
I assume if there is lack of rotor power
Then the blades stop turning, and complete lift is gone, and depending on the aircraft,
One can expect a direct nose dive that goes splat !
I would not want to be traveling in such an aircraft
Neat.
There's no 'i' before the 'a'.
Id say a propeller has less surface area for a bird strike 😮
Interesting but Personally I will stick to first principles/KISS principles.
bird strike doh
😮Tento system sa hodi aj ku generatoru ktori viuziva stenu na ktorej je namontovana zaluzia z 30cm plastov ak fuka vietor tlaci vzduch hore a tam ho moze zbierat vhodne nastaveny generator podla syli vetra nastavenim optimalne .Ak fuka slabsi vietor je mozne pridat k hornej casti mali motorcek co zabezpeci spolu z vetrom optimalnu virobu energie.Tu sa moze viuzit elektromotorcek z elektro bycigla ktori dokaze pomoct podla syli vetra ak fuka viac aj motorcek pomoze viac ak fuka menej aj motorcek zaberie menej alebo vobec.Prvi nasvete mozte viskusat mate energiu aj pri slabsom vetre a pri sylnom zvisuje tie vykon aj ho optimalizuje .
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?
what happens to that carbon fiber propeller when it sucks in a rock ???? just like OceanGate, straight down.
This is all very nice, but show us a real scale prototype lifting 2 people, like the flying taxis in china and then we talk. Until that happens powerpoint presentations are just that.
greek or turk ? just amazing tec.
The experimental aircraft company I worked with in the early 2000s attempted to develop this technology.
Didn't prove to be efficient or promising at all.
so they are inefficient, too complex, and high failure rate. Maybe why they are not being used. ;D
Definitely horse poo! Coaxial stress increase equals massive wear on parts! If it was feasible then it would have been implemented long ago. There would be more paddle boats like the ones used on the Mississippi! Just like hydrogen fusion is a myth.
Your statement, " If it was feasible then it would have been implemented long ago," is so incredibly narrow minded and not true at all.
All that to say they don't work.
Seems like the same issues once faced by helicopters...
STOP with AI GPT videos! BARF!
It's alright, I have better.
I have a better one as well.
why does he have to mispronounce cycloidal EVERY TIME
not to mention aerOfoil
I prefer he just shut up and show better how they work.
Ai voice duummbbaaaaazzzzz
Ai tends to do that. It’s your first clue it’s an AI narrator
This is not can break the aviation air was completely work well,,, you just make a terrible dream on that way,,, 😂
to many moving parts
You drive a car right 🤔
Flying cars aren't realistic. They take to many resources and could you imagine putting the highway idiots in the air. No thanks.
Yeah... good luck... but NAH!
This is invention Russia 👈
Being CO2 free is unimportant. Safety is paramount.
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.
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.
Right, let's get this sorted now... Is the voiceover pronouncing it incorrectly or should it be spelled 'cycloidial'?
Usefulness in densely populated areas will partly depend on how well it handles air turbulence around buildings, no?
1 plane = aircraft
Multiple aircraft = aircraft
Multiple aircraft types = aircrafts
1 fish = fish
multiple fish = fish
multiple species of fish = fishes
Inflammable means flammable.
Why is cycloidal now pronounced cycloidial?
Squirrel cage fans are awesome
I think the design might change, I saw at the beginning of the video a complex interesting design.
Thank you for this video 👍🏻
Free Energy Spoiler.
Love it, the rotor is carbon free, made from carbon fibre.
Electric cars were around in the late 1800's and pretty much went away and were replaced by combustion engines. There are gas, diesel, propane, and now back to electric motors.
Different forms of technologies are always more beneficial in different ways. Doesn't mean that all of the others should be scrapped or not further examined. This is a closed mind, my idea is better, way of thinking that actually inhibits growth and understanding.
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.
lol very ancient tek..the new tek is MHD and actually tested, no move part..
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.
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.
Expensive, cumbersome, inefficient and tend to explode. Sounds great! BWAhahahaha
It doesn't look sporty, or attractive. Years ago, the average Automobile, used to be basic...but look at how sleak and streamlined they are now.
...This idea, will probably need to be stream-lined, to attract the average buyer...🤨
Cycloidal props would be ideal for airships and luxury airship cruising.
These work fantastic under tug boats, but this presentation pretty much layed out all reasons why these would suck for aircraft. applications! I'm convinced. Not gunna fly!
Any “scientist” who says electric is carbon dioxide free has lost all credibility to me.
Stick the fan in a box & have it blow air out of slots in a hollow ring, call it a Dycyson.
This will not come off the ground anytime soon
Video, sound, and a strong smell of bullshit!
Looks like an old steamboat wheel lol
how loud are they
Cyclo-rotors?
How about boat ?
Шмолджад😂
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.
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.
No. Maybe for small drones or possible wind turbines.
Could prove the concept by building a desk fan with it.
Do I hear titanium additive manufacturing in the near future?
you will never get rid of the axel bending
Rotisserie chicken.
Nothing electric is CO2 free!
Nothing is CO2 free.
Cycloidal propellers have many small moving parts, any one of which is a point of failure. Also, even small cycloidal propellers sound like a large jet engine.
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 .
It's a SCAM Don't invest in this garbage.
He say co2 free,,,,what a b.s.😂👆🏻