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."
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:2, Funny)
I see... a methane burning engine, and "U of BC Engineers Go To Taco Bell".
I'd bet ya that a couple of Chimichanga Burrito Supream Stupidbigs would induce one human to produce enough methane to power a small 'copter for a 5 minute trip.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Look on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
The art of flying... (Score:5, Funny)
The art of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Re:The art of flying... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The art of flying... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The art of flying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Human combustion is still a risk (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not the only danger though. If you read the competition rules at vtol.org, it's clear that the crew is allowed to burn their clothes, hair, and limbs to generate lift.
Personally, I hope that none of them is quite that committed to the challange. Maybe if the prize were closer to a million
That's just silly (Score:2, Funny)
So no simulations or models or just spinning the rotors indicated this might happen?
Why did they bother in the first place? (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like this venture was well planned!
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.
That is how they did... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm all in favor of alternative energy sources (Score:5, Funny)
Captain, I fear we shan't make Wimbledon by Noon! (Score:2)
Re:I'm all in favor of alternative energy sources (Score:3, Funny)
Here's your fuel cycle:
Human -> Liposuction unit -> Biodiesel unit -> engine...The challenge then becomes one of shrinking the intermediate stages between human and engine. Fat is our highest energy density but we don't have the power density in our natural fat burning processes, hence, time for a little help from technology.
It would make the invention practical for most Americans. Maybe fast food chains would get behind the project... :-)
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.
If God meant for man to fly ... (Score:4, Funny)
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
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:No pretesting? (Score:3, Funny)
I thought that was what engineering is all about.
Not familiar with the Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster, are we?
Re:No pretesting? (Score:2)
There were alot of things which went wrong that could not be predicted/not worth predicting. The weather was less than perfect. A chain broke.
The real world does not reduce nicely down to simple formulas.
If anything, this is a sucess because it showed the students the difference between theroy and reality. It also showed the something about failure.
Re:No pretesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No pretesting? (Score:5, Informative)
It appears they were in error, or that there were other things (e.g., stability) that interfered. That's no reason to expect they won't improve the design and get it working, though. I think it's a pretty cool challenge and certainly beats the usual student project of "design another <known thing>".
Re:No pretesting? (Score:5, Informative)
This was the first time that they had the whole thing assembled, and in some ways you could tell. I think some simple resistance based testing would've shown that chain structure was too fragile to propel the wings properly ( either that or the chain was somehow damaged in the first crash where the blades ran into each other.)
It was also kind of obvious they had never practiced how they were going to start the thing. they had 4 volunteers, (one on the end of each rotor) running around helping the rotors get started. One of the guys on the lower blades was pulling too far down causing the other guy to let go. That is why the blades collided the first time, forget all this not enough lift on the top blade, it was human error.
The second attempt (after repairing the damage caused by the first attempt). looked more promising, the blades actually seemed to be moving quite well, and in fact the upper blade had started producing enough lift that it looked like there was no danger of hitting the bottom one ( even with human error) , but then they ran into the problems with the chain. Imagine the sound that your bike makes when you're in the wrong gear going up a hill. The skipping noises etc... it sounded just like that.
I left after the third attempt when the chain just came off. it didnt' look like they were going to get anywhere, and I'd already been there for about 2 hours.
As for why they'd never practiced with the thing beforehand, I speculate that it is because they didn't know if the thing would survive. If somehow it had gotten off the ground, only to crash after 30 seconds, they would've beaten the record, but wouldn't be able to recreate it. This way they would atleast have witnesses...
Re:No pretesting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they just did...
Re:No pretesting? (Score:5, Funny)
> There is simply no way a human can spin and keep them rotating
> for 1 minute at a speed sufficient for liftoff.
Yeah, but it's merely an engineering problem. All they have to do is reduce the blade profile by (thick/3.212) to get to (HUGE-SOMEWHATBIG)+3, give or take a few hundredths of a BIG and it just might work.
Could someone confirm my math?
Oh I admit, it LOOKS grim, but isn't it a bit presumptuous to be a naysayer without any real data?
They should hire Inspector Gadget (Score:2, Funny)
They hit eachother!? (Score:5, Funny)
I assume 'they' refers to the rotors, not the team...
Nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nitpick (Score:2)
-Jesse
Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Informative)
Heliman... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen machines in the past that are glider-based, and a human could actually keep them in the air for a fairly long time. But a helicopter? I wonder what they're trying to accomplish here. I mean, obviously the students are trying to win $27,000, but I have to wonder what the American Helicopter Society is thinking. Vertical flight always consumes a heck of a lot more energy than horizontal. I'd like to see more effort put in to human-powerd glider projects.
We tried to make a helicopter fly... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Just goes to show kids that the evils of marijuana make you fail at everything! Even making yourself fly high!
Does strike me as feasible (Score:3, Informative)
It's fun to see them try, but the physics say that the energy just isn't there. Perhaps if the copter weighed almost nothing, and it was constructed of super-strong materials. Of course, then we'd have unobtainium.
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:5, Informative)
That's not entirely accurate. I think the 200 watts is an approximation of the heat we emit in room temperatures. That's not the only source of power we have. We can also, for example, pedal.
Considering that we can run uphill fairly fast, the physics indeed says the power to overcome gravity most certainly is there, atleast for short periods of time. It's another question entirely wether we have the power to lift ourselves and the helicopter machinery using that technique. It will mostly depend on the efficiency vs the weight of the machinery.
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:2)
(Sorry if the following is confusing or hard to read, as I realize that english might not be your first language.)
Isn't running up hill, just breaking gravity for tiny (~2 secs) at a time? Each step you take is breaking gravity, but then it reclaims you as shift weight from one foot to another?
Would a better example be doing a chin-up and holding it at its zenith? Your arms are working against gravity lifting up your main trunk and legs? (The forearms are just dangling from the bar.)
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:5, Informative)
There is work being done on a microscopic scale in your muscles. You might need a background in muscle biology to completely understand this, but this [accessexcellence.org] is the modern theory of how actin and myosin (the two proteins which make your muscles work) actually cause muscle contraction.
Basically, your muscle fibers are made up of billions of tiny ratchets which cog against another fiber, kind of like a rack-and-pinion steering system. When your muscle is applying force to an object, say, when doing a chinup, the ratchet teeth "slip" and the fibers slide past each other. To counteract this, the ratchets must flex again to pull the fiber back. All this ratcheting work eventually winds up as heat in your muscles.
If your arms were made of steel, it would take no energy to hold a chinup. This is because steel arms have no moving parts. It is important to know that your muscles are indeed still "moving" while holding a chinup, but at a microscopic scale you are not aware of. That's why it requires an exertion of energy to maintain a flexed position.
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?
energy storage is forbidden (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:2, Interesting)
Here is a helicopter [rotor.com] with a dry weight of 254 pounds. It's engines generate 55 horsepower (41 kilowatts [google.com]) to get itself and one passenger off the ground.
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?
Of course. Watts is only a way of measuring constant energy flow. Convert to Joules and you can figure out what it would take to get off the ground. e.g. If we say we require 10 kw of power to get off the ground, we find:So assuming that we had a storage medium capable of containing the energy at 100% efficiency (not bloody likely), then our pilot would have to pedal for nearly a minute before takeoff.
The question is, what does he do once he's in the air? Once his stored energy is exhausted, he's back to using only what he can generate. If what he generates is insufficient to produce enough lift, he's coming down.
Now if you gave the thing wings and enough forward thrust, then he *might* be able to stay aloft on 200 watts. I still wouldn't count on it though. I remember a little 1 horsepower plane on the discovery channel, but that's still about four times the power a human generates!
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:2)
That should read average human body... (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the average human...
Lance Armstrong can sustain power outputs around 600 watts, and several people (most competative amatuer cyclists) are capable of a ~1 minute burst of over 1250 watts.
Re:That should read average human body... (Score:5, Interesting)
Your weight in lbs x floor to floor height in feet / seconds to climb / 550 = horsepower
Don't live in the US?
Your mass in kg x 9.82 x floor ht in meters/ seconds to climb = watts
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:2)
They should have used a quarter horse [quarterhorse.com]? (I _really_ don't want to know where the term "pleasure horse" came from...)
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:Does strike me as feasible (Score:3, Informative)
Even if we assume a constant 500 watts, we're still terminally short of what would be needed for rotationally powered flight. In addition, a person capable of 500 watts would have a much higher weight, thus offsetting some of his gains. In comparison, the smallest 1 person helicopter weighs in at 254 pounds, but produces 55 horsepower! A human can't (normally) even produce 1 horsepower, and if he can it's for a VERY short period.
Now if we were to talk about powering ultralight airplanes, then I'd be a bit more optimistic.
Re:Does strike me as feasible (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.lancearmstrong.com/faq.html [lancearmstrong.com] points out that Lance produces around 250 watts during an endurance ride (2-4 hours). For sustainable travel, I think that we can comfortably state that most potential helicopter pilots will not be in better shape than Lance.
His burstable power is around 600W, but there's no point in being able to get yourself 30 meters up off the ground and then need to take a break for a minute...
Materials Science, not Engineering challenge (Score:2, Interesting)
The only way I can imagine this working is with a really strong spring that weighs almost nothing being used to store a few hours of pedaling, to be released over a period of 3 minutes. Maybe in 100 years, when we have nano-technology to make everything out of carbon-nanotubes and diamond monofilament, okay, maybe then. But from the looks of it, they'll add that to the "cheats" list.
I'm surprised they didn't just come out and say "Make a working pedal-power helicopter out of granite and mud. You may use power tools, but only those made of pudding."
Climbing Mt Everest is a difficult, but sane, goal. Climbing the smoke from a campfire is nuts, no matter what school you're studying at. (yes, even MIT.) Anyone who has ever tried climb the rope in gym class knows how hard it is to lift oneself three feet off the ground. And that's with a nice, solid rope in your hands!
This reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where they are supposed to build an integrated global supply chain using only post-it notes and a toothpick.
This is a great argument against the use of psychedelics when reviewing project specifications. I'm sure the kids had fun, though. Good for them.
Design vs Implementation (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAAerospace Engineer.
From reading their Project Status/Schedule [mech.ubc.ca] page, it appears their problems may have arisen during the manufacturing stage:
July, 2004
It has been a while since our last update. We have been busy.
COMPOSITE SPAR MANUFACTURE/TESTING
All spars have been cooked including the tapered sections. Assembly of all this is complete for the four wings. Static testing was carried out for the assembled spars. All four eventually passed the test (see Thunderbird Projects - Picture gallery).
WING CONSTRUCTION
All four wings (for the two rotors) have been completed. This includes all wing parts (leading edges, trailing edges, suction side,
"Eventually passed the test"? Uh oh.
[There were no updates from December 2001 to July 2004]
December, 2001
COMPOSITE SPAR MANUFACTURE/TESTING
Static testing has been carried out for the CFRP spars. Static tests included both bending and torsion. A large effort was put in manufacturing the tapered mandrel for tapered composite spar production. One tapered spar has been manufactured with disastrous results. The tapered mandrel still requires some work (modifications). Composite spar manufacture continues (including straight sections).
It appears there were construction issues early in the project.
I am certainly not knocking their efforts. However, even the most elegant design can be compromised by sub-optimal manufacturing/implementation resources. I wish them the best in the next iteration.
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?
Re:What a shame (Score:2, Informative)
The torsion created by each set of rotors balance out, preventing the need for a tail rotor to prevent spinngin. It was one of the upper rotors that hit the lower rotors in this case, which is thought to be due in part to heat and humidity (probably since the top rotors were longer, the heat and humidity caused them to bow, and they didn't generate enough lift to pull themselves out of the way of the smaller lower rotors as they lifted up).
Some more info here [copters.com]
Re:What a shame (Score:2)
I think it was one of the lower roters that hit the upper roter.
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.
i have to wonder.... (Score:2)
Re:i have to wonder.... (Score:2)
Sooner or later someone will do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Over 100 Engineers... (Score:2, Funny)
All they had to do was have the outer wing on the bottom.
The chain broke? (Score:3, Funny)
I would suspect they would have to have gears to get the rotors up to speed but, judging from the picture, I guess they figured the pilot had enough to do, what between holding on for life, pedaling, and praying to the gods.
Possible? (Score:3, Interesting)
So once they figured this out, they thought it would be funny to watch people try? I'm having flashbacks to the movie "Chicken Run."
Re:Possible? (Score:2)
Rotors oscillating (Score:2)
It's been a while since my last fluid mechanics class, but wouldn't the low-pressure above the bottom rotor "suck" the top rotor downward every time the two rotors overlapped each other while spinning?... causing the top and bottom rotors to bounce (if ever so slightly) up and down?
Re:Rotors oscillating (Score:2)
Since the top rotor wasn't producing lift, the rotor would sag, while the lower rotor was, and straightened out, and *crunch*...
can't be all that bad... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=056899
h
http:
http://www.
http://www
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:My easy solution... (Score:2)
Previous attempts at such a prize (Score:3, Interesting)
Human Helicopters (Score:3, Interesting)
POINT 1: Can someone comment on the maximum sustained (3 minute duration) power output of a well trained human body? I believe it's less than one horsepower... ("he was stronger than a horse"), but not by much.
Regardless, it seems to me the components on a controllable helicopter include a Sikorski rotor assembly (that allows different angles to be put on a blad depending on it's position in a rotation). That dictates towards rotor blades that can occilate rapidly, and thus can very strongly stand up to high-speed torsions as well as flexing.
POINT 2: Since the blade structure is complex, and the rotors must be quite powerful, it seems to me that dictates tight restraints on design given the weight must be severely limited. Is there any discussion of exotic materials used in any other news article? I suspect a lot. What would the rotor blades be made from, standard materials like commerical helicopters?
POINT 3: I suppose the competition prevents someone from using a power storage device like a big battery or flywheel that a person can pump up to accumulate energy?
POINT 4: Does "Human Powered" mean chemically? Suppose I dried and accumulated enough of my own "dung", then burned it to distill alcohol, then used that alcohol as fuel in a conventional helicopter, it would be "human powered"... (grin).
At least they proved... (Score:5, Funny)
Damn (Score:2, Funny)
Wait a second... (Score:3, Funny)
Since when is Canada part of America?
=)
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:Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
> (don't reply with some smartass answer either)?
How about "a US citizen"?
blades not stiff enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
This aileron reversal effect is actually a fairly hot research topic in the rotorcraft community. People are trying to exploite it by using embeded actuators to control trailing edge flaps to create a pitching moment to twist rotor blades and thereby eliminate the swashplate for primary control.
maybe not human powered, but it's got pedals (Score:2)
and add wings...
then again, maybe it was Bob on a flying Schwinn, over Area 51, after all.
Props to Bob and his alien craft reverse engineering!
Idea (Score:2)
Crazy (Score:2, Interesting)
Can't tell from the pictures if there really is a gear shift but it doesn't look like it.
Add a gearshift and use one pair of lift blades as well as a tail rotor
Shorter blades are likely better. The long blades may require fewer RPMs but the tips of the long blades will be really moving (v = wr) anyways.
A reasonable design is to take a real helicopter, strip the engine and other paraphernalia out of it and install a multi-person pedal system. Then test the endurance of an average person carrying a weight up a flight of stairs for one minute. Take 1/2 to 2/3 (maybe 1/4 or 1/5 depending on helicopter efficiency) of the maximum weight carryable, divide the weight of the helicopter by this weight to obtain the number of people required to pedal
Re:Point? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, the Australian Parlament(sp?) past the free trade agreement, so we now have software patents, yay!
Re:Point? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Point? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Point? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Point? (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine that the purpose was to stimulate interest in:
-Helicopters
-Mechanical Engineering
-Engineering/Science generally - 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.
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.
You know (Score:3, Interesting)
As if high school didn't hold me back enough as it was... High school without even honors math/science? *shudder*.
Thank God for taking part-time classes at Rutgers my senior year of HS when I ran out of things to take there.
Re:Point? (Score:2, Funny)
To get the prize [vtol.org], dipshit.
Re:Point? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Will someone hep me? (Score:3, Funny)
Pilot 2 (using Scotty voice): "I can't take much more cap'n!"
SMACK!
They hit each other.
Re:Will someone hep me? (Score:2, Interesting)
Cheers,
Erick
Re:Will someone hep me? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Need a stronger human (Score:2, Funny)
"I need candy!"
(tig)
Re:Just a question... (Score:3, Informative)
100 of those and you've got yourself another 60 pounds you have to lift, plus the extra mounting brackets, cables, shifters, chance for breakage, etc.
Besides, having guys run in circles to get the thing up to speed brings back images of the good old days of push-start props on airplanes.
Re:Just a question... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an optimal range of rider cadence. For sustained riding, this is generally in the 80-11o rpm range. Experienced track cyclists can get to around 200rpm for short bursts.
There is also an optimal rpm for the rotors, based on airfoil shape(lift generated), rotor material strength, and amount of weight it has to lift.
Adjust the gear ratio as needed, to get the optimal rotor RPM at the same place at optimal sustained rider cadence.
Shifting gears as on a normal bike would serve no useful purpose. If they get the rotors to 1000 rpm, but they fly apart due to material failure, that's no good.
Re:Just a question... (Score:3, Informative)
Against the rules (Score:2)