Pelican Parts Forums - Who invented it

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Who invented it - FIRST? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/346648-who-invented-first.html)

Who invented it - FIRST?

The Airplane:

John Stringfellow (1848), Sir Hiram Maxim (1893), and Samuel Pierpoint Langley(1898?)
http://oldenginehouse.users.btopenworld.com/flight.htm

Gustave Whitehead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Whitehead

Quote:

On August 14, 1901 in Fairfield, Connecticut Whitehead reportedly flew his engine powered Number 21 800 m at 15 m height, according to articles in the Bridgeport Herald, the New York Herald and the Boston Transcript. (See References below for a link to the full article.) No photographs were taken, but a sketch of the plane in the air was made by Dick Howell of the Bridgeport Herald, who was present. This flight precedes the Wright brothers' Kitty Hawk, North Carolina flight by more than two years.

The Wright brothers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers

Quote:

The Wright brothers, Orville (August 19, 1871 – January 30, 1948) and Wilbur (April 16, 1867 – May 30, 1912), were two Americans generally credited with building the world's first successful airplane and making the first controlled, powered and heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903. In the two years afterward, they developed their flying machine into the world's first practical fixed-wing aircraft.

The Hovercraft:

Christopher Cockerell
http://www.hovercraft-museum.org/cockerell.html

Melville Whitnel Beardsley:
http://www.geneabase.com/ACV/acv.htm

Walter A. Crowley:
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7987

Charles J. Fletcher
http://www.njinvent.org/1993/inductees_1993/fletcher.html

Quote:

While serving as a pilot in the U.S. Navy in Norfolk, Va., Charles J. Fletcher sketched the design for a vehicle envisioned to rise above the water or terrain (approximately 10 inches to two feet) depending on available horsepower. The vehicle would generate an airflow trapped against a uniform surface such as the ground or water, freeing it from the surface and eliminating friction. Positive control and movement would be attained using aircraft control techniques and the release of air. What Fletcher called the "Glidemobile" is known today ad the hovercraft. The hovercraft has proven to be a major advance in military land assault vehicles and modern inter-waterway travel. Hovercrafts are manufactured in the U.S. today and by Bell Aerosystems and sell for between $800,00 and $1.5 million each. Fletcher's claim as an inventor of the hovercraft, undocumented because the U.S. military suppressed the patent to keep the idea a secret, was recently validated during resolution of a lawsuit brought by British Hovercraft Ltd. against the United States, seeking royalties of $104 million. Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice found a 1960 edition of Design News which featured an article on Fletcher's hovercraft. Fletcher was tracked down and his records on the project which included 16 mm films of the "Glidemobile," documentation regarding his conceptual drawings, subsequent work, model flight trials, and various news articles proved easy to destroy the Hovercraft Ltd. case. Fletcher earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering from the academy of Aeronautics at New York University in 1950. He holds 17 aeronautical patents on vertical lift and rocket engines plus five additional patents for industrial products.

Vladimir Levlov
http://milparade.udm.ru/32/062.htm

Quote:

On October 2, 1935, state trials of the L-1 air-skimmer (this was the official term adopted for the craft) began on the Pleshcheyevo Lake (the Jaroslavl Region, Russia).

http://milparade.udm.ru/32/0621.jpg

http://milparade.udm.ru/32/0622.jpg

http://milparade.udm.ru/32/0623.jpg

Sir John Isaac Thornycroft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercraft

Quote:

In the mid-1870s, the British engineer Sir John Isaac Thornycroft built a number of ground effect machine test models based on his idea of using air between the hull of a boat and the water to reduce drag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercraft
DI Toivo J. Kaario

Quote:

Finnish engineer DI Toivo J. Kaario, head inspector of Valtion Lentokonetehdas (VL) airplane engine workshop, began to design an air cushion craft in 1931. He constructed and tested his craft, dubbed pintaliitäjä (Surface Glider), and received its Finnish patents 18630 and 26122. Kaario is considered to have designed and built the first functional ground effect vehicle, but his invention did not receive sufficient funds for further development.

As for the airplane, there have been several rival claims for first powered flight. There was a guy in Australia who made a similar claim. Recognition for the first powered flight took a while and was subject to very intense investigation at the time. It took years before the Wright Brothers were universally recognized. There is still some lingering traces of that investigation. Europe recognized the Wright Brothers well before the US, and their Flyer was exhibited in Europe for many years before it was displayed at the Smithsonian. Although it is one of the prize exhibits there, the Wright family refused for many years to allow it to be displayed t the Smithsonian because of hard feelings over their early refusal to recognize the Wright Brothers' claim. Even today the Flyer is merely on loan to the Smithsonian, and could be sent back to Europe upon request.

Anyway, the competing claims have been evaluated closely but the Wright Brothers' claim has stood the test of time. The key appears to be that the Wright brothers were the only ones to have a completely powered flight, taking off from land, showing actual climbing and distance from the propulsion of the engine rather than any gliding. My understanding is that the competing claims all had some element of gliding or non-powered flight that assisted the powered flight. That's my understanding of the debate, I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure.

"Since none of Whitehead's flights were well recorded and no photographs remain, it is very difficult to substantiate many of these reports."

lead to...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fr6Na4NH7J8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fr6Na4NH7J8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

bit of a sidetrack but I met the first man to build an airplane in Cuba and saw his original plans. Interesting drawings but alzheimers had him and he couldn't explain anything about it to me. Professional guitarist in Cuba also but that too was gone. maybe I could get a copy of the drawings from his family one day

Quote:

Originally posted by MRM

Anyway, the competing claims have been evaluated closely but the Wright Brothers' claim has stood the test of time. The key appears to be that the Wright brothers were the only ones to have a completely powered flight, taking off from land, showing actual climbing and distance from the propulsion of the engine rather than any gliding. My understanding is that the competing claims all had some element of gliding or non-powered flight that assisted the powered flight. That's my understanding of the debate, I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure.

IIRC the early Wright flyer could not take off under it's own power and need to be catapulted into the air FWIW.

At least we all know who invented the radio and light bulb ;)

Not so fast, at least where the radio is concerned. The first Radio voice Broadcast was accomplished by R.A. Fessenden on Christmas eve, 1906, but Marconi, et. al. are generally give the credit for the invention of the radio.

Quote:

Originally posted by jmaxwell
Not so fast, at least where the radio is concerned. The first Radio voice Broadcast was accomplished by R.A. Fessenden on Christmas eve, 1906, but Marconi, et. al. are generally give the credit for the invention of the radio.

I'm sorry I was being sarcastic... it has been some time since I read on the subject but I do remember there was a controversy over the invention of the radio and the light bulb.

Tesla invented the radio and patented it first, which Marconi stole.

As for flight, anybody remember DaVinci?

History is written by the victor.
And inventions are built by those who can afford to patent them.
Not by those who actually built it first.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
Right, many credit DaVinci for discovering the principles behind flight...

-Wayne

Oh wait.. what about the birds? ...teradactiles? .... mosquito's?

Who (or what) really was first to flight.? :rolleyes:

Seriously, anyone with a good grasp on history of flight will see that the Wrights were far far ahead, in so many technical aspects of powered human flight. (while the others were out with 'you got like 3 feet of air' ;) )

Back on 2/27/07 I had an idea for a new type of fan or propeller blade (for a hovercraft), based on the posts I did in the middle of this page:

Link:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9630&page=19&highlight=tubercles

My sketch hangs on my wall, another great idea I don't have the time, money and expertise to pursue. Today I read this story, and think maybe I'm not so crazy afterall.:)

Quote:

TheStar.com - Business - A whale of a tale
Humpback flipper may be the key to better wind turbines.
May 14, 2007
Tyler Hamilton

A local company has designed a new type of wind-turbine blade that mimics the aerodynamic performance of a humpback whale's flipper, allowing a turbine to capture more of the wind's energy at much lower speeds.

The odd-looking blades, which have teeth-like bumps along their leading edge, are a dramatic departure from the smooth and sleek design that graces most wind turbines.

But Stephen Dewar, co-founder of Toronto-based WhalePower Corp., says the new approach could have a profound impact on wind-energy economics.

It means turbines manufactured with WhalePower blades would be capable of capturing energy where the wind is less strong, as conventional turbines tend to stall when wind speeds fall too low. Not only would this improve the business case for individual wind farms, it broadens the natural geography suitable for large-scale wind generation.

"This changes the game," says Dewar, adding that any system using a fan or turbine could also benefit from the new design. This includes everything from better turbines for hydroelectric generation to residential ceiling fans that use less electricity. "If we've got what we think we've got, then the range of applications is staggering."

The potential was enough for the Ontario Centres of Excellence and the Ontario Power Authority to contribute about $70,000 in early-stage research funding, and to encourage collaboration with the wind-engineering group at the University of Western Ontario. Independent third-party verification of the new blade's performance will be a crucial step toward commercial production.

"It's high risk, high return," says Ben Greenhouse, a manager of business development at OCE. "The business models will depend on how well this works."

Marine scientists have long marvelled at the acrobatics and agility of humpback whales, given these monster swimmers can reach 16 metres in length and weigh as much as 13 Hummer SUVs. Despite their enormous size, humpbacks are efficient hunters able to make sharp, tight turns.

It turns out the key to a humpback's agility lies in its long flippers, which feature a unique row of bumps or "tubercles" along their leading edge that give the wing-like appendages a serrated look. Researchers such as Frank Fish, a professor of biology at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, have found that the tubercles dramatically increase the whale's aerodynamic efficiency.

In one particular study conducted inside a controlled wind tunnel, Fish and research colleagues at Duke University and the U.S. Naval Academy saw 32 per cent lower drag and an 8 per cent improvement in lift from a flipper with tubercles compared to a smooth flipper found on other whales.

They also discovered that the angle of attack of the bump-lined flipper could be 40 per cent steeper than a smooth flipper before reaching stall – that is, before seeing a dramatic loss in lift and increase in drag. In an airplane scenario, that's typically when you lose control and crash.

"That stall typically occurs on most wings at 11 or 12 degrees at the angle of attack," says Fish, adding that with the humpback design "stall occurred much later, at about 17 or 18 degrees of attack. So the stall is being delayed."

The implications are potentially enormous. Delayed stall on airplane wings can improve safety and make planes much more manoeuvrable and fuel-efficient. The same benefits can also be found on ship and submarine rudders, which explains the U.S. Navy's quiet involvement.

Dewar, a former broadcast journalist and co-producer of the 1980s nature series Lorne Greene's New Wilderness, is also a self-taught student of science with a fascination for linear and non-linear physics. He'd heard about Fish's research and, after a few chats over the phone, raised the idea of using the humpback design for wind turbines.

"I saw it as a natural application of this technology," recalls Fish.

One thing led to another and the duo formed WhalePower, with Fish taking on the role of president and Dewar handling business development and R&D from a headquarters in Toronto. Laurens Howle, Fish's research partner from Duke University, is an adviser and shareholder in the company who has contributed software for designing the new blades.

"We have an international patent going through everywhere," says Dewar. "It applies to all forms of turbines, compressors, pumps and fans."

WhalePower can retrofit blades on existing turbines or build new blades from scratch. Dewar says prototype tests to date have demonstrated "outstanding performance," most importantly during light winds, with the tubercle-lined blades capable of more than doubling performance at wind speeds of 8 metres per second.

"In fact, we're getting the kind of power (regular blades) produce at 8 metres per second at 5 metres per second," says Dewar, describing the results as "spooky" because of the dramatic improvement.

Fish says the better performance at low speeds is what makes the design stand out. "Since there are probably more days when you don't have gusty winds but instead have lower wind speeds, that means you can generate electricity on those lower energy days."

The reason is because the tubercles channel the wind as it hits the front or "leading" edge of the blade. The channels cause separate wind streams to accelerate across the surface of the blade in organized, rotating flows. These energy-packed vortexes seem to increase the lift force on the blade.

As well, the channels prevent airflow from moving along the span of the blade and past its tip, a troubling situation on smooth blades that can cause noise, instability and lead to a loss of energy. By keeping the airflow channelled, more of the wind is captured and noise is greatly reduced.

Dewar says the same aerodynamic principle applies to water flow through hydroelectric turbines – in other words, more electricity can be generated at lower water speeds, making it possible, particularly in a water-rich province like Ontario, to reconsider hydroelectric or pump-storage sites previously thought uneconomic for power generation.

"I'm honestly scared of making claims at this point," says Dewar. "The results are so good that we know everybody who knows anything about aerodynamics will think we're salting the goldmine." That's why third-party verification will be essential. The research, he says, has to be "bullet proof."

But even if WhalePower can prove beyond a doubt that its blade design is better, it doesn't necessarily ensure success. Wind-turbine manufacturers can't keep up with demand for current product, so there's little incentive to dramatically alter the design of their blades – at least not yet. There's also no incentive for banks to lend money to wind-farm projects taking a risk on a new blade design.

"It's like trying to break into the semiconductor business," says Kerry Adler, chief executive of Toronto-based wind developer SkyPower Corp.

"You're going to be hard-pressed to convince Dell Computer to put a new processing chip on their motherboards, particularly if it's not proven. In the wind industry, you'll have to have a thousand turbines in the ground before anybody gives (a technology) a second look."

WhalePower's hope of retrofitting existing turbine blades – an estimated $50 billion worth around the world – could also prove a tough sell. Adler says retrofitting a blade with tubercles would void the warranty. "Who's going to take that chance?"

Fish appreciates that WhalePower's approach may be considered radical, and he understands that many wind-turbine manufacturers will operate on the premise: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. But he says any business will change its course if the economic benefits are compelling enough.

"It takes a while to get any sort of new technology into the marketplace," says Fish, at the same time convinced that the study of biomimicry – the melding of biology and engineering – will help shape the future of energy production, transportation and medicine.

"We're starting to see more and more engineers grabbing on to this."

You know what?

My sketch is very different from what these guys ended up with.:confused:

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/213475
http://www.thestar.com/images/assets/225165_3.JPG

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:WhalePower_Corp#Company:_WhalePower_Corp .
http://peswiki.com/images/9/99/Smoot...models_200.jpg
Smooth (left) and scalloped (right) idealized humpback whale flipper models used for wind tunnel testing of lift, drag, efficiency, and stall behavior. While testing, only one of the models is mounted in the wind tunnel. These idealized, scale models, milled from clear polycarbonate sheet, use a NACA 0020 sectional profile (20% thick).

http://peswiki.com/images/e/ea/Whale...42401_150w.gif

http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/index.php?story=156

Quote:

The tests were reported by biomechanicist Frank Fish of West Chester University, Pa., fluid dynamics engineer Laurens Howle of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University and David Miklosovic and Mark Murray at the U.S. Naval Academy. They reported their findings in the May 2004 issue of Physics of Fluids, published in advance online on March 15, 2004.

http://www.pratt.duke.edu/images/pic...hale_howle.jpg

Patent:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2006042401

What is claimed is:

1. A turbine/compressor comprising: at least one magneto-electric device; a drive train coupled to said magneto-electric device; and at least one rotor blade coupled to said drive train, said rotor blade having a shaped leading edge configured to enhance lift and reduce drag.

2. A turbine/compressor according to claim 1 wherein said leading edge includes a series of spaced tubercles formed therealong.

3. A turbine/compressor according to claim 2 further comprising a control system to adjust the orientation of said rotor blade so that said rotor blade faces incoming fluid flow.

4. A turbine/compressor according to claim 3 further comprising a second control system to alter the shape of said rotor blade.

5. A turbine/compressor according to claim 4 wherein said second control system alters the pitch of said rotor blade.

6. A turbine/compressor according to claim 4 wherein said second control system alters the spacing and/or shape of said tubercles.

7. A turbine/compressor according to claim 1 wherein said drive train is a shaft directly coupling said rotor blade and said magneto-electric device.

8. A turbine/compressor according to claim 1 wherein said drive train includes a drive shaft and transmission arrangement acting between said rotor blade and magneto-electric device.

9. A turbine/compressor according to claim 8 further comprising a control system to adjust the orientation of said rotor blade so that said rotor blade faces incoming fluid flow.

10. A turbine/compressor according to claim 9 further comprising a second control system to alter the shape of said rotor blade.

11. A turbine/compressor according to claim 10 wherein said second control system alters the pitch of said rotor blade.

12. A turbine/compressor according to claim 11 wherein said second control system alters the spacing and/or shape of said tubercles.

13. A turbine comprising: at least one generator; a drive train coupled to said generator; and at least one rotor blade coupled to said drive train, said rotor blade having a shaped leading edge with a series of spaced tubercles formed therealong.

14. A turbine according to claim 13 further comprising a control system to adjust the orientation of said rotor blade so that said rotor blade faces incoming fluid flow.

15. A turbine according to claim 14 further comprising a second control system to alter the shape of said rotor blade.

16. A turbine according to claim 15 wherein said drive train is a shaft directly coupling said rotor blade and said generator.

17. A turbine according to claim 15 wherein said drive train includes a drive shaft and transmission arrangement acting between said rotor blade and

generator.

18. A turbine according to claim 17 further comprising a plurality of linked generators.

19. A turbine according to claim 18 wherein said linked generators are in¬ line.

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-IMAGES...gz_fr.x4-b.jpg

Neat kach!

I believe I have a great new idea on a food process technique that could be used in restaurants, fast food restaurants and at home. It could be sold by a Kraft type company.

I don't have the time or money to get the appropriate patents, so the idea may never come to fruition.