How can we use maple seeds for personal transport?

In summary: Adding a generator to the blade would work, but it's not necessary.What are your thoughts on the feasibility of your design?I think it's a very interesting idea, and it could definitely be done. However, I am not sure if it would be effective or not.
  • #1
Miey7963
4
0
Hello
i just joined this forum because i had an idea that i think, if it hasnt already been thought of would be a unique mode of transport over short distances, its based on the maple seed, basically it would be a single seat mono blade helicopter, the actual blade would be above the pilot, who would be sat on a seat with footrests extending down and handles extending outwards from the central pole, i haven't done any drawings yet, this is basically just the idea based on what I've seen a maple seed do, i am unsure as to what span the blade would need to be in order to support the weight of a person, also unsure of how it could be made to turn, altho i suspect that something as simple as leaning as you would in a hang glider would possibly do it, please understand that i am basically not an engineer, i have ideas but that's why i have brought this to the attention of the forum, would very much like some feedback on this, unless its already been thought of.
i will run up some rough designs over the next few days, but it would be helpful to know what you guys with more knowledge than i have think.
Michael
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to PF.

How would you avoid making the occupant dizzy?
 
  • #3
russ_watters said:
How would you avoid making the occupant dizzy?

That was the first thing that came to my mind as well.
 
  • #4
russ_watters said:
Welcome to PF.

How would you avoid making the occupant dizzy?

Good point, but perhaps the least of his worries. I assume that something equivalent to a tail rotor would be utilized.
A maple seed behaves pretty much like an unguided autogyro or parachute. Gravity is its driving force, and it's always a one-way trip. It's like the weed equivalent of a flying squirrel.
 
  • #5
I think this is the sort of thing you're thinking of:



More of a personal helicopter though. The pilot tilts the rotor by a handle bar to control the craft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
hello Gentlemen and thankyou for taking the time to read and comment, to answer your questions i have run off some very basic drawings that i hope will answer these question, i will be designing a basic model in 3D and animating it so that it becomes clearer how i envision this working, the point about it being a downward only trip i think could be addressed with some sort of powered engine that would create more lift, but as i said i am no engineer.

http://mikey7963.deviantart.com/
 
  • #7
You have no way to counteract the torque generated by the rotor. As is, when the blade spins one way, the chair will spin the other direction at a rate that will match the torque of the blade. That is why modern helicopters have a tail rotor.
 
  • #8
so if i added a rotor blade behind the pilot that would solve that problem, correct, I'm also wondering, if its at all possible to have the main blade act as some sort of generator, not sure how this works, but if the blade spinning could be made to generate some form of power, that could then be used to power a secondary rotor could it not?
 
  • #9
boneh3ad said:
You have no way to counteract the torque generated by the rotor. As is, when the blade spins one way, the chair will spin the other direction at a rate that will match the torque of the blade. That is why modern helicopters have a tail rotor.

I must point to the video I posted. Did anyone watch it?

It is a personal flying machine (without tail rotor). Using counteracting rotor blades to remove torque issues.

Your mono blade design wouldn't be very effective - hence helicopters having a minimum of two.

Even with four engines and counteracting rotors (two blades per rotor assembly), the craft in the video isn't very powerful.

The design of your 'maple seed' craft is virtually identical to the one in the video, minus the mono blade design.

Miey7963 said:
so if i added a rotor blade behind the pilot that would solve that problem, correct, I'm also wondering, if its at all possible to have the main blade act as some sort of generator, not sure how this works, but if the blade spinning could be made to generate some form of power, that could then be used to power a secondary rotor could it not?

The rotor would solve torque issues.

The main blade acting as a generator would simply draw power from it, reducing the efficiency of the craft (engine turning main rotor which is then turning tail rotor). You would be better off using the engine to drive both from the start.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
jarednjames said:
It is a personal flying machine (without tail rotor). Using counteracting rotor blades to remove torque issues.

I have seen those before. They are certainly possible, but very complicated. The Soviets had a gunship that operated that way if I remember right but it didn't get very popular because it was complicated.

jarednjames said:
Your mono blade design wouldn't be very effective - hence helicopters having a minimum of two.

Not to mention it would likely have stability issues and efficiency issues. Those are other reasons for multiple blades.

Any reason why you would like to make a single-blade rotor instead of just using multiple blades like most helicopters?
 
  • #11
boneh3ad said:
I have seen those before. They are certainly possible, but very complicated. The Soviets had a gunship that operated that way if I remember right but it didn't get very popular because it was complicated.

I've never really looked at counter rotating prop systems in detail, but there are a few helicopters that use it and there are also a lot of toy rc models which utilise it. (Not saying that means it's simple).

Not to mention it would likely have stability issues and efficiency issues. Those are other reasons for multiple blades.

That's what I was going for.

Any reason why you would like to make a single-blade rotor instead of just using multiple blades like most helicopters?

I can't answer this for the OP, but my take on it would be:
If you look at the seeds falling, they are fairly stable and consistent in their descent. The rotor is balanced by the weight of the seed which provides stability.

If you were to try and force rotation via an engine and add controls, you would lose that stability. Controlling the craft would be a difficult task to achieve if everything isn't perfectly balanced.
 
  • #12
some very interesting points , i was thinking about the torque issue, and what keeps coming into my mind is this, the torque problem that needs the counter rotation to create stability, isn't that due to the rotor blades being physically attached to the body of the craft, this design doesn't have the mono blade anchored to the central column, its free floating in a magnetic field, I am probably mistaken but if the blade has no physical connection to the body of the craft wouldn't that eliminate the torque problem.
the reason i have gone for the single blade option rather than a dual bladed option is because its nature, and let's face it nature does produce some very efficient designs, what is concerning me is the potential span of the monoblade, its going to have to support the weight of a person, which makes me wonder how big this would have to be.
soon as i can get the design to a workable quality i am going to try and get a small prototype made so that weight tests can be done, i think once these have been done and the results are there it will be easier to see where this is heading, even if it can't be made into an actual transport system it could be used as a descent system, like a parachute, but for now , thankyou gents for all your input
 
  • #13
Nature made these seeds for small things which don't care if they are rotated :-)

But for the N-SAT to be blowed up in the Space Hose that I suggested maybe this could be an interesting alternative to the parachute and balloon I planned to use - it generates quite a lot of lift probably sufficient to keep the needed 10-20grams floating in the air moving upwards.

But I'm not sure if it would work at all airspeeds, because propellers normally are optimzed for a speciffic one, no matter if single or dual blade.

gutemine
 
  • #14
Do a google search on the word "Samara" as opposed to maple seed. The torque will still be an issue because of Newtons 3rd law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, magnetic field or not. The way around it is to have a reaction drive system. My friend is finishing his PhD on Maple seed UAVs. I helped him do some drop tests from an RC airplane.

http://www.avl.umd.edu/projects/proj11-robotic-samara.html
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Miey7963 said:
some very interesting points , i was thinking about the torque issue, and what keeps coming into my mind is this, the torque problem that needs the counter rotation to create stability, isn't that due to the rotor blades being physically attached to the body of the craft, this design doesn't have the mono blade anchored to the central column, its free floating in a magnetic field, I am probably mistaken but if the blade has no physical connection to the body of the craft wouldn't that eliminate the torque problem.

See Cyrus answer above.

the reason i have gone for the single blade option rather than a dual bladed option is because its nature, and let's face it nature does produce some very efficient designs, what is concerning me is the potential span of the monoblade, its going to have to support the weight of a person, which makes me wonder how big this would have to be.

The mono blade would have to produce enough lift to allow the vehicle to ascend (or simply descend in a controlled manner), remember, the maple seeds do not have a load to lift (nature has used the seed which is the load as a natural counterbalance). You would need such a counterbalance, plus additional blade span to support a load.

soon as i can get the design to a workable quality i am going to try and get a small prototype made so that weight tests can be done, i think once these have been done and the results are there it will be easier to see where this is heading, even if it can't be made into an actual transport system it could be used as a descent system, like a parachute, but for now , thankyou gents for all your input

Google "Monoblade Helicopter", there are plenty of model rc toys out there that employ this technique, but it's only on a small scale. And they don't really have full control.

It would be heavier, more expensive, more complex and more difficult to deploy than a parachute. I don't see it being a viable replacement. Perhaps as a bit of fun maybe, but not going to be in the hands of the SAS anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Miey7963 said:
the reason i have gone for the single blade option rather than a dual bladed option is because its nature, and let's face it nature does produce some very efficient designs, what is concerning me is the potential span of the monoblade, its going to have to support the weight of a person, which makes me wonder how big this would have to be.

Maple seeds also don't have an inner ear or a the capacity to vomit from rotation or the capacity to pass out from g-force. If you watch a maple samara fall, you can see that the seed itself (playing the part of the person in your craft) isn't stationary. When they spin, the center of mass is stationary, and that is not where the seed is. To counteract that, you would need a counterweight in your design so that the center of mass is along that center axis. That still doesn't solve the torque issue though.

jarednjames said:
I can't answer this for the OP

I can see how my post was confusing. I wasn't directing that question at you. I merely quoted you to expand on your thoughts. My mistake.
 
  • #17
By adding a second blade to a mono-blade helicopter, you just might generate twice the lift for nearly the same power output.
 
  • #18
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
By adding a second blade to a mono-blade helicopter, you just might generate twice the lift for nearly the same power output.

Might as well just make a helicopter then, eh? LOL.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
How would you avoid making the occupant dizzy?

With two of them, interlinked, and counterrotating.

The vibration would be something fierce, though, even with counterweights, as any adjustment to the blade angle would produce additional forces.

It sounds like an expensive and complex alternative to a simple and inexpensive ram-air sport parachute.
 
  • #20
I lost track of this thread, and therefore just now saw Miey's illustrations. I was quite mistaken in my visualization of what he wants to do. Now that it's clearer, I have a different concern than I did before.
Cyrus, the link that you provided looks suspiciously as if pursuing it will lead to a confrontation with math, so I'm going to stay away from it. :eek:
I'm going to quote just a wee bit of it, which I believe will fall within "fair use" boundaries of copyright, and which seems to be approaching the issue that I'm having trouble with.

The small perturbation equations of motion are used to calculate the forces necessary for flight along a trajectory recorded by a visual motion capture system. The result of this work is that the robotic samara is controllable in unpowered autorotation as well as hovering and directional flight.


We've all been discussing the necessary counteraction of rotor torque, but what about the shift of mass around the main column? (I'm thinking that such is the meaning of the "perturbation" mentioned in the quote.) Wouldn't the stresses be similar to those encountered by a hammer-thrower in an athletic competition, wherein the entire body will want to whomp about in a circle because the centre of mass isn't in the structural centre? I'm probably overlooking something simple here, but I can't figure out what that might be.
 
  • #21
Danger said:
I lost track of this thread, and therefore just now saw Miey's illustrations. I was quite mistaken in my visualization of what he wants to do. Now that it's clearer, I have a different concern than I did before.
Cyrus, the link that you provided looks suspiciously as if pursuing it will lead to a confrontation with math, so I'm going to stay away from it. :eek:
I'm going to quote just a wee bit of it, which I believe will fall within "fair use" boundaries of copyright, and which seems to be approaching the issue that I'm having trouble with.

The small perturbation equations of motion are used to calculate the forces necessary for flight along a trajectory recorded by a visual motion capture system. The result of this work is that the robotic samara is controllable in unpowered autorotation as well as hovering and directional flight.


We've all been discussing the necessary counteraction of rotor torque, but what about the shift of mass around the main column? (I'm thinking that such is the meaning of the "perturbation" mentioned in the quote.) Wouldn't the stresses be similar to those encountered by a hammer-thrower in an athletic competition, wherein the entire body will want to whomp about in a circle because the centre of mass isn't in the structural centre? I'm probably overlooking something simple here, but I can't figure out what that might be.

Actually, Cyrus' link has some videos of the designs used. Rather interesting.

You offset the mass issue you describe above with the use of a counterweight (as the seed would in nature).

His design won't work because there is no such counterweight. (Unless the pilots seat spins with the prop that is.)
 
  • #22
Thanks, Jared. I was thinking of a counterweight, and not seeing one there is what messed me up. Somehow, I didn't notice the video section of Cyrus' link. I'll check them out once "How It's Made" is over. Watching 2 things at once doesn't work too well for me.
 
  • #23
Can't say I find making wax candles too interesting myself. (Im assuming you're watching the same thing as me)
 
  • #24
Naw... this one is about cropdusters, briefcases, corn whiskey, and drag-race clutches.
 
  • #25
Danger said:
(I'm thinking that such is the meaning of the "perturbation" mentioned in the quote.)

On the contrary, the "perturbation" mentioned is referring to a rather beastly set of mathematical tricks usually used to describe motion under the influence of small perturbations, which are governed by large, unruly, nonlinear PDEs. Perturbation methods allow those problems to be solved analytically to within a small error. The line in that abstract likely means that the small but very real motion of the craft created by the imbalance inherent in a single blade design were taken into account in the dynamics analysis when designing the control system for the samara craft in question. That is definitely not a trivial or easy problem, which is most likely why it was somebody's dissertation.
 
  • #26
boneh3ad said:
On the contrary, the "perturbation" mentioned is referring to a rather beastly set of mathematical tricks usually used to describe motion under the influence of small perturbations, which are governed by large, unruly, nonlinear PDEs. Perturbation methods allow those problems to be solved analytically to within a small error. The line in that abstract likely means that the small but very real motion of the craft created by the imbalance inherent in a single blade design were taken into account in the dynamics analysis when designing the control system for the samara craft in question. That is definitely not a trivial or easy problem, which is most likely why it was somebody's dissertation.

Oh come on, it's not bad... (says the flight dynamicist). I believe he did SYSID on the VICON camera system to find the stability derivatives. We use those cameras for SYSID and state estimation. I take some minor issues with your wording on some things above, but meh. I don't care that much to correct it. :tongue2:
 
  • #27
Cyrus said:
Oh come on, it's not bad... (says the flight dynamicist). I believe he did SYSID on the VICON camera system to find the stability derivatives. We use those cameras for SYSID and state estimation. I take some minor issues with your wording on some things above, but meh. I don't care that much to correct it.

Like what, calling perturbation methods beastly? In all seriousness, I make no claim that all of my wording when it comes to the dynamics side of my response is 100% accurate the way I said it. I know perturbation methods from the stability (fluids) side of things. I don't have a clue what SYSID or VICON are, but regardless, perturbation methods, when done by hand (my only experience thus far), are pretty crazy!
 
  • #28
Can you guys "dummy this down" for me?
If a "perturbation" is not a movement resultant of an imbalance, as I understand the term from other fields such as meteorology or politics, then what is it? I'm quite confused at this point.
 
  • #29
A perturbation is just a small change in a state away from a nominal trim condition. If you are flying straight and level in cruise at 100kts, a perturbation would be a small delta, say 5 kts, or 100+/-5kts. We take the nonlinear equations of motion, and apply small perturbations around a trim condition (wings level, hover, steady decent, etc), to obtain a linearized model - basically a simplification. We can then perform things like stability analysis using the linear model - this is the same stability mentioned in that other thread.
 
  • #30
Thanks, Cyrus. For your purposes, then, does a perturbation have to be resultant of an inherent design feature as opposed to something caused by an external influence such as gusty conditions?
 
  • #31
The perturbations are a methodology to linearizing (simplifying) the nonlinear equations of motion. They are not inherently a design of any vehicle, the method is used on any/all vehicles, including a Cessna or 737, for example. With the linear model, you can do things like stability analysis and autopilot design. In the example of airspeed I gave above, the delta is not from a gust, its just a deviation from a nominal trim state.
 
  • #32
Okay, I think that I've got it now. (I'll never understand the field itself, of course, but the explanation makes sense.) Thanks.
 
  • #33
Wow did this thread take a right turn for the obscure. Haha. From a maple seed aircraft to discussing an advanced, borderline-magical mathematical trick.
 
  • #34
Dude, it's not magic. Honestly, it's straight forward and simple.
 
  • #35
Multiple scales, for example, is pretty simple. There are other methods that are ridiculously complicated if you want to understand how they actually work. Some of the things in perturbation you just have to take on faith.

For me, multiple scales and matched asymptotic expansions are both not too bad. There are other ones though that were mug more of a black box because they are based on one or two guys' lives' work. Those you had to just kind of take on faith alone.
 
<h2>1. How do maple seeds work for personal transport?</h2><p>Maple seeds have a unique shape and structure that allows them to spin as they fall to the ground. This spinning motion creates a lift force, similar to that of a helicopter rotor, which allows them to travel through the air and potentially be used for personal transport.</p><h2>2. Can maple seeds support the weight of a person?</h2><p>While maple seeds are capable of carrying their own weight, they are not strong enough to support the weight of a person. However, with advancements in technology and engineering, it may be possible to create a larger, stronger version of a maple seed that could potentially support the weight of a person.</p><h2>3. How fast can maple seeds travel?</h2><p>The speed at which a maple seed can travel is dependent on several factors, such as wind speed and the angle at which it falls. On average, maple seeds can travel at speeds of 20-30 feet per second, which is not fast enough for personal transport. However, with modifications and improvements, this speed could potentially be increased.</p><h2>4. Are there any risks associated with using maple seeds for personal transport?</h2><p>At this time, there are no known risks associated with using maple seeds for personal transport. However, as with any new form of transportation, thorough testing and safety measures would need to be implemented to ensure the safety of individuals using this method of transport.</p><h2>5. How can we make maple seeds more efficient for personal transport?</h2><p>There are several ways in which maple seeds could potentially be made more efficient for personal transport. This could include modifying the shape and size of the seeds, as well as incorporating advanced technology and materials to enhance their aerodynamics and strength. Further research and experimentation would be needed to determine the most effective methods for improving the efficiency of maple seeds for personal transport.</p>

1. How do maple seeds work for personal transport?

Maple seeds have a unique shape and structure that allows them to spin as they fall to the ground. This spinning motion creates a lift force, similar to that of a helicopter rotor, which allows them to travel through the air and potentially be used for personal transport.

2. Can maple seeds support the weight of a person?

While maple seeds are capable of carrying their own weight, they are not strong enough to support the weight of a person. However, with advancements in technology and engineering, it may be possible to create a larger, stronger version of a maple seed that could potentially support the weight of a person.

3. How fast can maple seeds travel?

The speed at which a maple seed can travel is dependent on several factors, such as wind speed and the angle at which it falls. On average, maple seeds can travel at speeds of 20-30 feet per second, which is not fast enough for personal transport. However, with modifications and improvements, this speed could potentially be increased.

4. Are there any risks associated with using maple seeds for personal transport?

At this time, there are no known risks associated with using maple seeds for personal transport. However, as with any new form of transportation, thorough testing and safety measures would need to be implemented to ensure the safety of individuals using this method of transport.

5. How can we make maple seeds more efficient for personal transport?

There are several ways in which maple seeds could potentially be made more efficient for personal transport. This could include modifying the shape and size of the seeds, as well as incorporating advanced technology and materials to enhance their aerodynamics and strength. Further research and experimentation would be needed to determine the most effective methods for improving the efficiency of maple seeds for personal transport.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
19K
Writing: Input Wanted Captain's choices on colony ships
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Biology and Chemistry Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top