Human-powered Helicopter Fails to Lift Off 410
Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other. More details: Vancouver Sun."
No pretesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
"My feeling at the moment is that the machine is actually quite unstable," said Mike Georgallis, leader of the team that has been working on the project for six years.
Maybe they did know that this wasn't likely to be a success.
Cheers,
Erick
Nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Point? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a shame (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a real shame that it didn't work, sounds like the team have been working on it for a long time, which makes me wonder, wheres the tail rotor?
Competition rules url (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious cheats (lighter than air gases, storing energy in a battery) are banned, but you could 'cheat' by using a human to store up a lot of energy in a low-drag rotor that then changes angle of attack to convert the stored energy to lift.
Re:Point? (Score:5, Insightful)
BECAUSE it's cool, because I look at it and go "damn, that would be quite the engineering accomplishment right there," because college isn't all about inventing things that need to be invented, it's about expanding the mind to accomplish abstract ideas. Think of every lab that students do in their science courses: what's the point of those? It's old technology, it's certainly been done before. Why aren't freshman chemistry students working on cold fusion or something else the military will jump all over?
Besides, this is impressive science, since the human legs can put out a sustainable 100W, it's the attempt to built something light enough to get off with minimal power. And the $175,000 they've spent over 6 years to educate students and built a prototype is cheap in the education world.
Sooner or later someone will do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the Vancouver article, the helicopter looks more like a glider.
And couldn't they store up the energy into a big rubber-band, by ten minutes of human energy, let it go and add more energy as it goes up?
Re:Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.
Screw the subjects... I'd be happy if we could at least get back to the point where we're not intentionally holding brighter people back or trying to keep their accomplishments covered up so we don't hurt the dumb and average people's feelings.
My easy solution... (Score:2, Insightful)
It has to be human powered? Fine...put Joe Powersource on it...let him peddle like mad. Store that up in a flywheel or other such reservoir. Let Joe keep peddling one more minute while you tap the flywheel to get the darn thing in the air and help hold it there for a minute.
Eh...then again, I didn't read the rules for this thing - but I'd be looking for the easiest solution the rules will allow rather than the most elegant one. You are trying to win 20k...not the nobel prize.
Re:Nitpick (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
They have done their tests, and they have a guy which can do well beyond 500 watts, that's a lot.
The next thing is of course to make the helicopter lighter, and optimize everything for efficiency.
At some point, energy demands will get low enough, and then you may have liftoff. I think you're a bit too pessimistic. It's not easy, but that's not why they do it.
Re:Point? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No pretesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why did they bother in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, you do it differently if there's human life involved, but I can't imagine a human-powered helicopter getting high enough for this to be a major concern.
Re:No pretesting? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very probably, they didn't really expect it to work the first time (although I'm sure they had hopes). But hey, it's a university, so there's no real reason to hide the failures behind closed doors, and good educational reasons to do it in public. After all, failing and going on is a legitimate part of the development process.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
It always ticks me off when "Americans" think that "America" is the name of their country. I mean, if I were to form a country in Europe, and call it the "United States of Europe", I would have a heck of a time convincing the rest of Europe that they weren't Europeans, and they could no longer be part of "Europe" since that was now the most obvious short form of my new country. Unfortunately the world has allowed the United States of America to do just this. Of course, I can intentionally annoy the USA and be safe because I know I don't have any WMDs... wait a minute...
Re:The art of flying... (Score:1, Insightful)
by jcostantino (585892) on Friday August 13, @10:19AM (#9958367)
Informative? That should be moderated Funny.
Informative? That should be moderated Funny.
Re:The art of flying... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heliman... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that it's unlikely that human-powered vertical flight is quite unlikely to be practical anywhere outside of engineering demonstrations.
However, I would think that the point of the excercise is to lean new insights into helicopter design. It's (relatively) easy to get a copter off the ground with a nice, powerful turbine engine. But, if you want to get something working with 1/4 horsepower, you have to re-think a lot of 'accepted' designs in order to improve efficiency, reduce weight, etc.
The whole project helps the designers think outside the box, and may, if lucky, help create something inovative / new, that might benefit more mainstream helicopters.Re:The art of flying... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will someone hep me? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The result was an ugly collision between the two less than one minute after the team made its first attempt at flight, around 11 a.m. Seventeen minutes later -- after a roll of cellophane was used to repair the damaged wing -- the team tried again."
That doesn't sound like massive damage to me, if they were able to patch it up with a roll of cellophane -- in 17 minutes. Sounds like part of the blade cracked or got smashed in, and that's it.
At which point, they continued the test:
"This time, the chain connecting pilot Peter Hudson's pedals to the top rotor snapped. Continued problems with the chain led Georgallis to finally abort the day's mission."
Sounds like they decided to give up before they did any real damage to the helicopter. So, rendering thousands of hours at $30,000 dollars wasted? I don't think so.
People have a way of blowing things way out of proportion, don't they?
Re:No pretesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they just did...
Re:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
> (don't reply with some smartass answer either)?
How about "a US citizen"?
Re:I'm all in favor of alternative energy sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why did we go to Iraq? Every reason the Bush administration gave as a justification (WMDs, ties to Al-Quaeda, Iraqis wanted to be 'liberated') turned out to be false, so what does that leave? Was it all really just a colossal mistake? Or did Bush have a deep burning need to "save" the Iraqi people from their government -- so much that he felt the need to distort intelligence and fabricate exaggerated threats to in order to justify his actions? If that is the case, why aren't we "liberating" Sudan right now? (The genocide there is arguably worse, and unlike Saddam's past genocides, there is still time to do something about it)
I don't know the real reasons why we invaded Iraq, and neither do you. All I know is that the official reasons given by the Bush administration don't pass the sniff test, and therefore the real reasons must be something else. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and doublespeak, and their incestuous ties to the oil industry, it's not a surprise that oil comes to mind.
As for WMDs, the millions of Iraqi dead during Husseins reign as 'president' of Iraq don't bother you? Oh right - malevolent dictators can do no wrong!
The Bush administration claimed that Iraq possessed WMDs that could give America "a day of horror such as it has never known", and that "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud". Saddam slaughtering Kurds is a terrible thing, but it has nothing to do with cities being destroyed in the United States. If Bush wanted to invade Iraq based solely on humanitarian grounds, he should have made that argument and let the people decide whether it was worth it. But that was not the argument he made, so it's disingenuous to pretend now that it was.
Re:The art of flying... (Score:3, Insightful)