Slashdot Mirror


Human Powered Helicopter

marcopo writes "In response to a 24 year old prize challenge from the American Helicopter Society, a number of engineering students at the University of British Columbia have designed a human powered helicopter. The prize requirements are 3 minutes flight at 3 meters, with only human power, and the team, led by UBC's Mike Georgallis, plans a test flight next Tuesday. The Vancouver Sun also has the story."

209 comments

  1. The Fred Flintstone Chopper by mfh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yaba-Daba-Dooooo!!!!! ~~~~~*Sppppppplat*

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:The Fred Flintstone Chopper by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      I think it was called Dodolus.

    2. Re:The Fred Flintstone Chopper by plover · · Score: 5, Funny
      More like the Fred Flintstone web server.

      "Pedal faster, Barney, we're getting slashdotted!"

      "Uh, gee, Fred, I don't think we should pedal any faster in this thing..."

      "Just shut up and pedal, Barney, we'll be -- "

      "FRED FLINTSTONE! YOU COME DOWN FROM THERE RIGHT THIS INSTANT!!"

      "But Wilma, the slashdotters want to see our pictures."

      "THIS INSTANT!"

      "Yes, Wilma."

      [ mechanical sproink sound ]

      "Aww, gee, Fred, I told you this thing wouldn't last."

      --
      John
    3. Re:The Fred Flintstone Chopper by BerntB · · Score: 1
      The idea of a web site powered as by Fred Flinta...

      You deserve more than a 5.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  2. How much? by agraupe · · Score: 2

    If it's $1000, and you don't need a helicopter pilot's license, I'll buy one. If it works, that is.

    1. Re:How much? by c_oflynn · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is this? The linked page had a section CLEARLY TITLED "Project Cost"? Oh but no one would read that...

      Well it says about $29000 Canadian.

    2. Re:How much? by lou2112 · · Score: 1

      You're buying the proof-of-concept? You must be a programmer.

    3. Re:How much? by agraupe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, project cost is ambigous, as it may include research and things like that. The cost to produce another might be less.

    4. Re:How much? by op00to · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's actually over $70k unless you have some hookups at Boeing to give you the composite material for free...

    5. Re:How much? by JPriest · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They spent 30 grand for a device that will stay off the ground for 3 minutes with a pilot that probably is no doubt, more capable running this thing than most of us.

      This was only a concept flight, you would be better off saving money with cheaper heavier material and adding an engine.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    6. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or waiting until the price of ultra-lightweight material drops (it'll happen - really!)

    7. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a matter of fact, I do.

    8. Re:How much? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      about $29000 Canadian

      The price will go down as they start making production quantities for sale to all those commuters who live three blocks for work.
      ...or when the Canadians inherit the Earth.

    9. Re:How much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      $29,000 Canadian, so yeah, that's about what, $1000 US?

  3. Wings by panxerox · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Those wings have a huge volume, you should be able to get pretty good lift if you filled them with helium. Of course I don't know what the rules would say.

    --
    "It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
    1. Re:Wings by NeoThermic · · Score: 1

      Speaking of wings/rotors, what is the maths required to work out how much they can lift?
      I noted that they specified that on the page, but no information as to how they arrived at the figure.

      NeoThermic

      --
      Use my link above, or to view my server, NeoThermic.com
    2. Re:Wings by KillerCow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those wings have a huge volume, you should be able to get pretty good lift if you filled them with helium. Of course I don't know what the rules would say.

      From the rules:

      4.1.1 The machine shall be a heavier-than-air machine. The use of lighter-than- air gases shall be prohibited.

    3. Re:Wings by thinwater · · Score: 1

      Nor do you know anything about physics. Do a little thought experiment, a tiny 1 gram balloon needs an increase in volume of several hundred percent to wobble upwards, so how much lift do you really think would occur if the wings were filled with helium (or even hydrogen)? To say nothing that it's a losing proposition since the weight added to make the wings gas tight would easily outweigh the amount of lift that small volume of gas would generate. Physic's rule!

    4. Re:Wings by Alien+Being · · Score: 1


      By multiplying the swept area of the rotors by the maximum velocity achieved by an athlete, taking into account the wheaties factor, and applying Bernoulli's principle we can deduce that the total lift capacity is gl-a--a-a-avin.

    5. Re:Wings by LauraScudder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technique usually used for this I understand is conformal mapping. There's a little spiel and animation about it here. The calculation itself isn't really that fun, at least from what I remember from my homework assignments, but its pretty cool that it can be done systematically for all these airfoils.

      If you are into the details, from the the Riemann theorem quoted in the wikipedia link, any simply connected subset of the complex plane can be mapped onto a disk, and since it's easy to conformally map from a disk to the complex plane minus that disk - like in the figure on the second linked page - then once you know that first mapping for whatever shape your airfoil is (the hard part) you can figure out all the fluid flows around that shape. Of course, this entire technique only works for infinitely long airfoils, since the complex plane just represents a cross-section. If you dislike math and want the actual figure you can just stick it into an air-tunnel and skip the calculation. But you get the idea.

    6. Re:Wings by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      What about a vacuum then? That would still lower the total density, making it more boyant in air.

      Of course, the weight of the structure required to maintain the shape would probably kill that idea...
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:Wings by Thagg · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, but what if you could fill the wings with vacuum? Huh? How about that? Lighter than helium, even!

      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    8. Re:Wings by eingram · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not sure what the average weight of vaccums are, but looking at my hand-me-down, just one would add an easy 50 pounds.

    9. Re:Wings by Arngautr · · Score: 1

      no, because you won't be achieving a perfect vacuum, hence, your "vacuum" is in fact a "lighter than air gas"

    10. Re:Wings by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      No it's not. The gas is still air (a mix of Nitrogen, Oxygen, C02 and a few others...) there's just less of it.

      =Smidge=

    11. Re:Wings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      air (esp. #1b)

    12. Re:Wings by kundor · · Score: 1

      Who is this Physic, and what is his rule?

  4. Wait by Quasar1999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can they use a battery? As in charge the battery using human power and then run the motor off the battery power???

    --

    ---
    Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    1. Re:Wait by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Losing, what? 40% of the energy in the process?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    2. Re:Wait by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      True, but if your losing 40% of 10 hours effort and the remaining 6 hours effort stored in the battery was used over 6 minutes you get a bit more energy per minute of flight.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    3. Re:Wait by KillerCow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can they use a battery? As in charge the battery using human power and then run the motor off the battery power???

      From the rules:

      4.1.4 No devices for storing energy either for takeoff or for use in flight shall be permitted. Rotating aerodynamic components, such as rotor blades, used for lift and/or control are exempt from consideration as energy storing devices.,

    4. Re:Wait by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Making your system a human powered generator and an electric powered helicopter.

      Not nearly as technically interesting as a human powered helicopter.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says it has to be a chemical battery? You could use a flywheel for example.

    6. Re:Wait by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      AHA, I see a fatal flaw in there plan, just use two large rotors, which when turned up to speed act as a flyweel that can be engauged with some gearing to spin a smaller rotor

      Seriously though, this is a bloddy difficult contest, I think the best bet is burning dead bodies as mentioned earlier...

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    7. Re:Wait by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because it's a great idea to have a big ass flywheel on an aircraft, because it's not like a slight change in attitude would cause the gyroscope to precess and crash the whole works into the ground or anything.

      That's a really bad idea.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    8. Re:Wait by torpor · · Score: 1


      yeah, brilliant. i don't think you understand the words "no device for storing energy", but anyway ...

      if you're taking away 'stored energy' from the one thing thats giving you lift, in order to use it to gain lift from that same device, whats going to happen?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    9. Re:Wait by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      True, very true. It was just silly nitpick type thing(bad habbit of mine), no harm meant.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  5. Interesting FAQ Question by danratherfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    12.) WILL IT FLY? The machine is heavier than originally designed... The unknown at the moment is whether the machine will break up prior to lift off. Whether or not any system will break up becomes all the more relevant when it involves humans and rotating blades.

  6. Bah, fraternities have had this for a long time by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instruction manual:
    1. Place helmet on head. Take a swig from your hip flask. Decide you don't need the helmet.
    2. Spread arms parallel to ground.
    3. Hum 'whirrrr' as you spin yourself to speed.
    4. Upon striking your head on the floor on the way down, remark how free you feel in the open air.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:Bah, fraternities have had this for a long time by shfted! · · Score: 1

      I think I might try that. I've been fixing windows machines all day.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    2. Re:Bah, fraternities have had this for a long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. What a trippy idea.

      Really... who though this was a good concept? Does someone have an idea that human power can be efficiently transferred to a helicopter? Is it going to get better in the next years?
      Helicopters are not that efficient. In fact, they're more convenient than efficient. Why would you want a human powered helicopter? Human powered airplane... maximum lift area, streamlined, low drag, all of these things are capable today. But a helicopter? Gas powered helicopters are a waste of money and time. They have short range... and they can't lift much. They don't fly very fast, and they don't glide very well. What's the point? Except to just say, Look, we can pedal like crazy, and stay aloft for 3 minutes. We didn't go very far... but we were able to go up.

      Pedal a bike, or anything that moves forward, and you've accomplished a lot more.

      The best part of this is that there are idiots out there that think this is a great accomplishment. Curing cancer would be a great accomplishment. This is... a waste of time and money.

    3. Re:Bah, fraternities have had this for a long time by NewNole2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would you want a human powered helicopter?

      Uhm, because... Sometimes, you just do something for the sake of doing it.
      Seriously. How is it a waste of time or money? The people who are doing this probably have no medical knowledge that could help cure cancer.
      Speaking of a waste of time, back to reading more inane comments on /.

  7. OH NO! by schnits0r · · Score: 4, Funny

    First the machines use us to power helecopers! Soon they will have us power all their functions after we scortch the sun! Who is with me? We must stop this to save Zion!

    1. Re:OH NO! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Who is with me? We must stop this to save Zion!

      I'll be there! Heavily armed with spoons...
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  8. Do corpses burn hot enough for a steam engine? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's the only real question. They should be more careful wording the requirement.

    1. Re:Do corpses burn hot enough for a steam engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      Yes of course corpses burn, here's a quote from an expert
      I shall only say that the fuel they use for the locomotive is composed of mummies three thousand years old, purchased by the ton or by the graveyard for that purpose, and that sometimes one hears the profane engineer call out
      pettishly, "D--n these plebeians, they don't burn worth a cent--pass out a King;"

      Mark Twain
      I am willing to believe it. An AC can believe any thing.
    2. Re:Do corpses burn hot enough for a steam engine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      From the rules:
      4.2.2 No member of the crew shall be permitted to leave or enter the aircraft at any time during takeoff or flight.
      Drifting away as smoke and ash is probably included ...
    3. Re:Do corpses burn hot enough for a steam engine? by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now that's what I call thinking outside the box!

      To the AC that also responded: Just capture the smoke and ash with a filter, so it stays onboard.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Do corpses burn hot enough for a steam engine? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      They're fuel, not crew!

  9. That was quick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 comments and it's already slashdotted to oblivion

  10. Long way. by Malicious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    3 Meters is a pretty high distance to fall from, even without being surrounded by fast moving metal, cogs, and chains. Considering that they'll want to optimize the weight of the machine, there will almost certainly be no safety cage or equipment.
    I sure as hell wouldn't want to pilot it.

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Long way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I sure as hell wouldn't want to pilot it.

      That's why you're posting on Slashdot and not doing anything useful. Same with me.

    2. Re:Long way. by lommer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First of all, three meters isn't all that much, it's roughly 10 feet. Second, you're not surrounded by that much metal cogs and chains. As you pointed out they want to reduce weight, so almost the entire thing is built of composites. Further, if you read about the design, they are favouring larger, slower-moving rotors and associated equipment over faster smaller ones. Thirdly, any engineer worth his salt would take time to make sure that if the machine DID fall from 3 meters, the supports for the person/seat could be constructed to collapse and absorb the shock.

      Finally, as with most under-powered helicopters, the most likely mode of failure is only being able to hop a couple feet off the ground, if they can lift off at all. Read up some helicopter flying books sometime, it's pretty inderesting how much more the ground effect affects them than fixed wing aircraft. This post is much longer than inteded, so I'll cut here with the conclusion that I if I could fly helicopters, I'd jump on this opportunity in seconds. That said, flying a helicopter is probably one of the hardest things I've ever tried to do (I'm a fixed-wing pilot).

    3. Re:Long way. by Quirk · · Score: 1

      The Workman's Compensation Board of British Columbia (where this is scheduled to take place) regulations state safety gear must be in place to "... ensure that a fall protection system is in place when employees or students work at elevations greater than 3 m (10ft) or where a fall from a lesser height involves an unusual risk of injury."

      --
      "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
      Cohen
    4. Re:Long way. by Malicious · · Score: 1

      3 Meters/10 Feet is the top of a 1 storey house. Lets put you in a chair and drop you straight down, see how well you fare.
      If you read about the design, you'd know that the gear and rotor mechanism is DIRECTLY above the pilot, and in the event of a fall from 3 meters, would land directly upon him.

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    5. Re:Long way. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the machine breaks apart, then yes, you are probably in trouble. But if all that happens is a chain slips, pilot get tired, etc, then the craft will autogyro in. That is the spinning blades will allow the pilot down much easier.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Long way. by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lets put you in a chair and drop you straight down, see how well you fare.

      If the occupant instantly lost absolutely all lift, they'd hit the ground at about 27 km/h - fairly hard, but certainly not fatal or serious on most surfaces (I'd presume they'd do this over grass or the like). Of course in reality it's highly unlikely that absolutely all lift would disappear (the thing would have to get itself up to 3 meters - if it lost lift, it'd more likely be a gradual reduction), so the much more likely scenario is a signficantly slower impact. Maybe someone will twist an ankle or pull a joint, but it's hardly life threatening.

    7. Re:Long way. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I know several people who have fallen off a house, the lucky ones were able to continue work that day. It happens every once in a while in construction. Not something you want to happen to you, but rarely deadly. Often you will strain something, or break a bone. However if they have done their engineering correctly the total damage compared to the risk means that this really isn't something to worry about.

    8. Re:Long way. by Jardine · · Score: 1

      safety gear must be in place to "... ensure that a fall protection system is in place when employees or students work at elevations greater than 3 m (10ft) or where a fall from a lesser height involves an unusual risk of injury."

      That's mostly for people working on ladders, scissor lifts, or on top of buildings. It means you wear a harness so if you fall you don't hit the ground. What kind of safety system does a regular helicopter or other vehicle that flies under its own power have? I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking seatbelt (or 5 point harness) and maybe webbing at the doors.

      Not to mention that I'm not sure if Workmen's Comp has jurisdiction over this.

    9. Re:Long way. by evilWurst · · Score: 1

      Additionally, I don't think there's anything that says the whole thing can't be roped to the ground over a giant springy safety mat. It's only required to go up, there's no requirement that it move around while it's up there. This thing might not even have a seat, it might look more like a pogo stick with pedals at the bottom and a big propeller on the top, taking off from a holder on the ground.

      Not *practical* I admit, but it sounds like a hell of a lot of fun anyway...

    10. Re:Long way. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      3 Meters is a pretty high distance to fall from
      Bah! I've fallen a bit further than that, without warning, without being buckled to a chair, etc. The worst thing that happened was a minor concussion (eg. just didn't remember a few minutes).

      Yeah, it's not something I'd like to do over and over again, but the vague potential of having to fall from that distance is little deterant to doing something important. Just look at all the people willing to take that risk when they go up on top of their houses, climb a ladder, etc.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Long way. by Dever · · Score: 1
      autogyro? i think you mean auto-rotate. and if i'm correct in my memory (i suppose i may not be) it's not likely that you'd be able to get enough speed up in 10 feet of vertical height. in the world of real helicopters.

      to auto rotate you pitch the rotors back and use your (hopefully enough) forward speed to rotate the rotors. it is however a case of diminishing returns, as auto rotating is only good for getting back to the ground at slightly less than deathly speeds. from 10 feet, well, it wouldn't be deathly any way.

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
    12. Re:Long way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost all of this thread has been dominated by metric units...did something happen to America and I missed it?

    13. Re:Long way. by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      3 Meters is a pretty high distance to fall from
      You do know it's only 10 feet?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. The server is human powered too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Zero comments on this story and the link is already /.'d; the kid running the server must be tired. Somebody get him a coffee and some smokes.

    1. Re:The server is human powered too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you - are - a - retard.

      Every link right now works perfect.

  12. Why bother? by foidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    You already have the world's best human helicopter in Inspector Gadget.

  13. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by Snover · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh man, their project is named Thunderbird. Quick, Mozilla Foundation! Send our your legions of lawyers! We must stop this blatant misuse of your trademarks!!

    --

    [insert witty comment here]
    1. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by otlg · · Score: 1

      Did we learn nothing from the threads of the last 2 days of Trademark and Copyright law? (note for the humour impared, this is a joke!)

    2. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering that the UBC athletes have been called THUNDERBIRDS for quite some time, if this naming interferes with the MF's trademark, the MF has already lost it for not defending their trademark beforehand.

    3. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or they could...

      change the name to "Thunderfox"

    4. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by devilspgd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damnit, now we have to get FireSomething ported into ThunderSomething.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    5. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thunderbird" is the logo for pretty much all of the sports teams at UBC: hockey, football, ballhockey, etc., etc. There is a lot of reference to First Nation's culture in Canada, especially on the west coast.

    6. Re:TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT! by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      UBC had Thunderbirds long before Mozilla was even an inspiration in the original developers minds....

  14. impossible? by nbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    afaik it's quite hard to build a human powered plane (yes, someone made it from France to England many years ago). A helicopter is much trickier, because the pilot must run two rotors at the same time. It's not easy to transfer human energy to two places without adding much weight. I'm not an expert in helicopters, but it's kinda obvious to me that the pilot would have to use extraordinary effort to stay above the ground for 3 minutes.

    1. Re:impossible? by Jason+Zaman · · Score: 1

      The challenge says that it just has to hover so is the little rotor really necessary? sure the thing will spin around like mad but it could save lots of extra work

    2. Re:impossible? by nbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it will indeed spin around like mad if the little rotor existant. I already stated that I'm not into helicopters, but isn't it quite obvious that a helicopter can't fly if most of the energy is used for spinning the cockpit? Even if it would work it would be quite unlikely that the pilot could take it.

    3. Re:impossible? by Jason+Zaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      hmm ... i must admit that i did not think about the wasted energy for the spinning cockpit. and it took a while to find this:

      4.1.2 [...] and at least one member of the crew shall be non-rotating.

      which makes the whole idea stupid, except maybe for a roller-coaster replacment :)

    4. Re:impossible? by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 1

      In a 'normal' helio, the main rotor is driven from the center. Because of all that action-reaction stuff, you need another rotor in the rear to keep the fuslage from spinning one way as the rotors spin the other.

      As for a lightweight, low-power helio, the best bet is to drive both rotors from the tips. If you affix small propellers to the tips of the blades, the only rotation you'll get in the fuselage is from friction in the main bearings.

      I saw a design several years ago where they used a drum in the rotor tips. This drum was wound with several hundred yards of thin kevlar string. The drum was also attached to a gearing system that went to small props on the tips of the blades. The other end of the kevlar went to a drum at the rotor hub. When the pilot pedaled, the kevlar unwound from the tips and wound to the drum in the center. It looked to be a nifty design, but it took them too long (both in time and kevlar string) to get up to speed.

      My point is this: If you drive from the tips vice the hub, there is no real need to have a tail rotor.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    5. Re:impossible? by GrayWing · · Score: 1

      Hokum. Use two counterspinning main rotors. Probably easier than a main rotor and a tail rotor.

  15. The next bicycle? by Savet+Hegar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could something like this eventually be as common as the bicycle? I, for one, think it would be pretty cool to fly to work everyday.

    Reminds me of watching the Jetsons as a kid LOL

    --
    Mod points are pointless when you browse at -1.
    1. Re:The next bicycle? by tracker1972 · · Score: 1

      Something like it, but much smaller, I might not enjoy my cycling when I am on roads with a 36 meter span! Might be a bit more tricky to park as well.

      Like the one that crossed the English Channel, the problem I guess is making it efficient enough to support the weight, now if you could power a couple of ultra efficient ducted fans, what was that thing, Solotrek?

      Tracker.

    2. Re:The next bicycle? by Dark$ide · · Score: 1
      Could something like this eventually be as common as the bicycle? I, for one, think it would be pretty cool to fly to work everyday.

      I don't even think Lance Armstrong (cyclist) or Matt Pinsentt (olympic rower) could produce a constant 400 watts for very long. That's just about excercising at VO2 max levels. Your power output dies off very quickly at that level.

      If they could build a chopper that could be powered in the aerobic threshold level (<85% peak heart rate) then it might be a practical option.

      The graph on Human Factor Testing and Search for Pilots shows some interesting figures for power required for one minute of flight.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  16. The George Jetson Chopper by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Jane, get me off this crazy thing! JAAAAANE!!!" ~~~~~~~~ *Spppppplat*

  17. Thinking Outside The Box by SEWilco · · Score: 0

    The room will be falling for four minutes.

  18. more efficient by prockcore · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wouldn't it be more efficient to just burn humans for fuel?

    1. Re:more efficient by Soko · · Score: 1

      /BOFH mode on

      Wouldn't it be more efficient to just burn humans for fuel?

      Most humans==lusers, so we finally have a legitamate use for them. Sweet.

      Then again, there might not be much energy in a luser, since most burn so dim...

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more more more
      dogs dogs dogs


      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3. Re:more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, we are best used for soylent green.

    4. Re:more efficient by neehnahw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should just harness the power of the human fart instead. It requires less effort--you just have to eat lots of eggs and nuts.

    5. Re:more efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you think they use these ovens for.

  19. Re:JPEG noobs by nbert · · Score: 2
    However, some of us aren't still stuck with 14.4 modems, so feel free to use less compression next time you make a site.
    some of us still use 14.4's. Apart from that I prefer whacky logos when it comes to slashdotted sites. They apparently care more about helicopters than a fancy presentation. I don't know what's wrong about that.
  20. Re:JPEG noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well aren't you just a whiny little piece of shite.

  21. RTFA? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What a boneheaded idea to point the article link to the splash page showing a cute jpg logo.

    We don't want to steal the bandwidth. We want to read the article AND steal the bandwidth. No, nevermind, I don't think they want to read the article either.

    Nice font on the picture.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:RTFA? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Move the mouse until the cursor on the monitor is roughly above the top of the logo. Press the button on the top left hand corner of the mouse (try not to move the mouse too much at the same time).

      Ta-Da.

      Or if you're really lazy or fail to keep the mouse steady while pressing the button, you can still try here. /sarcasm

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:RTFA? by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the /sarcasm tag. I forgot my /humor tag, I thought it wasn't needed.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  22. Re:JPEG noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially since that graphic would have looked perfect and taken up much less space as a GIF or PNG.

  23. recumbent postion by frankmu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i wonder why they went with the recombent position rather than a upright postion. i would imagine you get a little extra power upright. you're not worried about airdynamics when hovering also.

    --
    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    1. Re:recumbent postion by nbert · · Score: 0, Redundant
      i wonder why they went with the recombent position rather than a upright postion. i would imagine you get a little extra power upright. you're not worried about airdynamics when hovering also.
      comparing normal bicycles with those which require you to take a recumbent position it's quite obvious (you're much faster if you use the latter).
    2. Re:recumbent postion by stienman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The only reason you might get more power upright than recumbent is if you depend on gravity to force your body down so your legs have something (your weight) to react against.

      However, to generate 500 watts of power you need more than just your weight to push against. The pilot will likely be strapped into place, or at least have some sort of harness or surface to push their shoulders against, and someplace to put their hands.

      It's also possible, though not likely, that in a recumbent position the pilot could exert more energy with abdominal and arm muscles, since the torso would not necessarily be fixed on a seat.

      Imagine 5 100W light bulbs. Now imagine converting that light and heat into enough physical force to lift 200 pounds of stuff off the ground. Very interesting challenge.

      -Adam

    3. Re:recumbent postion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... Lance Armstrong, if his power meter readings and various stories are to be belived, does put out more than 600W of power during a time trial. Jan Ulrich can put out more, but he weighs more. There are programs out there to work out how much power it takes to move a cyclist at 36 mph...

      A slight enough Cat1 racer will probably do for a motor, much like the cyclist who flew Paul McCready's plane across the English Channel. Maybe a kilo or 4K TT racer from the track...

      Funny thing is, can't seem to have seen a cyclist using a seat belt to keep their ass on their seat to generate power.

      Maybe the moment of inertia for the recumbent cyclist helps offset more of the generated torque from the prop more than an upright cyclist would.

    4. Re:recumbent postion by blancolioni · · Score: 3, Informative
      According to TFA:

      Results also show that for pilots tested in both vertical and recumbent positions, power output was very close. Recumbent position then is a benefit since it takes advantage of In Ground Effect (lower support structure).

    5. Re:recumbent postion by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The maximum force a person in an upright position can apply to the pedals is his own weight. A recumbant person can generate far more force because he can push against the back of the seat.

    6. Re:recumbent postion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hi, i am on the ubc hph team, some of the reasons give here already all factored into the design.. on top of that.. the way the transmission was designed it would be far more challenging and probably heavier to design a chassis that would have supported an upright rider, especially when u factor in all the connection gears and chains. thanks

    7. Re:recumbent postion by Dark$ide · · Score: 1
      Recumbent uses the leg muscle groups in a different way. If you compare a club road biker to a recumbent rider (of the same ability), you'll see a marked difference in the size of the quadriceps on the recumbent user (much bigger).

      With the right set of gears a recumbent rider can ride at 40 mph on the flat. I'd love to be able to maintain that kind of speed on my road bike.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    8. Re:recumbent postion by grumling · · Score: 1
      Are you sure about that? What about pulling on the handlebars while cranking, which I do all the time when climbing hills? Seems to make a big difference...

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    9. Re:recumbent postion by stienman · · Score: 1

      I do a little bit of ultra marathon cycling on the side, so while I can sprint my main ability lies in distance with moderate speed (24 hour races, 100-500 mile races, etc).

      Racing road cycles are designed to be very uncomfortable for simply tooling along. Only when you are putting out enough power to support your upper body while it's leaning over the handle bars are you comfortable. You don't generally want to support your entire body weight on your legs. Perhaps a better description could be:

      Imagine you are fixed at the seat with a pivot. Imagine no handle bars. Now imagine putting out enough force in the pedals to support your upper body while it's extended over the bike. Your arms are really not holding anything, thye are for steering.

      Lance armstrong cannot put out the 600W or so of power in that position. You'll see him and the other races rise out of the seat, and you'll see their arms completely tense up. At this point they are using gravity to as much advantage as possible, but it's not nearly enough. They are using their arms to to react against the handle bars in order to get the necessary force.

      Now, if they were required to put out that amount of power during the entire race then the bicycle would be redically different - it wouldn't have a seat, for one thing. 99% of the race is in the seat, putting out a moderate amount of power within the pack. It's only the last 1% of the race that you see them using the bike in a way that it is not fully optimized for.

      The helicopter ride is going to be flat out pedaling. There is no reason to make it so the rider is comfortable. A siting position, such as on a bike, would be useless. A standing position would be better, but I imagine for engineering reason (shorter drivetraing and shorter overall height) a horizontal position can be just as effective.

      Gravity doesn't need to play a role if he's strapped in or has something to push against. The should straps provide all the 'gravity' he needs in the direction it needs to be applied.

      I do wonder, however, if it would be better to place him vertically so he has a lower cross-section directly in the path of the downwards moving air. Perhaps he's placed in a non critical area where the air flow isn't needed...

      -Adam

    10. Re:recumbent postion by uberdave · · Score: 1

      More than likely all you're doing is pulling yourself up/forward so that more of your weight is directly over the pedals. To gain any additional force, you have to somehow push the handlebars away from the pedals. Anyways, it is trivial. Think about how much you can leg press vs how much you can chest pull.

  24. Re:JPEG noobs by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I get a whole 28.8 (somtimes just 26.4).
    Seriously though, most don't have broadband. So do you do a website for the small percentage who do, or for everyone?

    Mycroft
    (and no, I can't get a better connection without HUGE expense)

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  25. Alex Kidd already invented this! by GnomeAttic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everyone knows Alex Kidd invented the pedicopter in 1983.

  26. 500 Watts by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In case anyone here doesnt know about generating watts, 500 sustained for over 3 minutes is quite a task. I have been rowing for 7 years and this year our team had physiological testing where we started at 200 watts and increased by 50 every 2 minutes. I last about 8 minutes and managed to hit about 400 watts but couldnt hold it long enough to be allowed to continue to 450. We increased in this manner in order to find our VO2 maxes, and certainly had I started at 500 watts I could have held it for a while, maybe a minute and a half. But 3 minutes is just sick. Especially since this was on the rowing machine which uses all muscles and this guy is only uses his legs, no back and arms. This 3 minute test will generate enough lactic acid to kill the average 60 year old man, and will certainly leave him in excruciating pain if he is able to do it at all.

    1. Re:500 Watts by emeitner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, the competition seems to require alot of the pilots. From the FAQ:
      We have built our own test rig that measures power output of a pilot over a minute duration. We have plotted the results of numerous potential pilots against their weight. A successful candidate is one that falls above a power requirement curve (power vs. weight). ... We have had people vomit after these one-minute tests. In similar tests in the United States they have had one person have a mild heart attack.

      Vomit AND rotating blades, nice.

      --
      Guru Meditation #6d416769.21610a21
    2. Re:500 Watts by the+pickle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The students on the team, according to the Vancouver Sun article, underwent extensive testing to see if any of them were up to it. The test pilot says he's been doing a LOT of cycling over the last five years as conditioning and practise.

      Even if he can't, I'll bet money that Lance Armstrong or a similarly well-conditioned pro cyclist can hold this thing off the ground easily.

      p

    3. Re:500 Watts by Zooka · · Score: 5, Informative
      Even if he can't, I'll bet money that Lance Armstrong or a similarly well-conditioned pro cyclist can hold this thing off the ground easily.
      I bet it will indeed take an exceptional athlete such as Armstrong to measure up to the task.
      Example:
      "Data from several researchers shows that professional cyclists produce power outputs of between 320 and 450 watts during time trials ranging from 5 to 70 km in major tours."
      "Dr. Alejandro Lucia, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain, has predicted that Lance Armstrong on his ascent of the Alpe D&#185;Huez (a 14 km climb of 8% mean gradient) in the 2001 Tour de France produced one of the greatest performances in the history of cycling: 38 minutes of near-maximal to maximal effort at an estimated mean power output as high as 475-500 watts! His average speed was 22 kilometers/hour, which he reached at a mean cadence of about 100-rpm using a 39 x 23 gear. Lance would have been averaging about 7 watts/kg."
      http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/powerkit/Article2 .asp
    4. Re:500 Watts by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another way to look at it is that 500 watts is almost exactly 2/3 horsepower.

    5. Re:500 Watts by rutwms · · Score: 1

      The summary is wrong. A 1-minute hover is all that is needed.

    6. Re:500 Watts by flibberdi · · Score: 1

      I was stunned when reading the TORQUE requirements. 485Nm each pair??? Thats 970Nm ??? How is ANY one supposed to cranc out 970Nm for 3 minutes??? Load them full of halo, tren, thg, hgh + t3 and whatnot, I belive it when I see it.

    7. Re:500 Watts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, arbituary torque can be generated with a sufficient lever (gear). The 'm' in 'Nm' is pretty easy to play with. Ultimately, it's the energy output over time (power) that's going to matter.

    8. Re:500 Watts by blancolioni · · Score: 1

      Chris Boardman apparently produced around 440 watts during his hour record ride (riding around a velodrome for an hour and going as far as you can -- in Boardman's case, 56.375km, about 35 miles for the yanks).

      So I imagine a top cyclist could generate 500 watts for a shorter time. But I am certainly not a sports physician (although I am a cyclist).

    9. Re:500 Watts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I read that Tour de France cyclists output something around 700 Watts during sprints, but they can maintain this power for only a couple of minutes. So a world class cyclist could get the copter off the ground, but anyone less will have a hard time.

    10. Re:500 Watts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But still the rules require that you dont take stimulation drugs.

    11. Re:500 Watts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Armstrong can sustain in excess of 750 watts for over 6 hours. Basically any Tour de France rider probably actually fly this thing around like a normal heli if it works as intended.

  27. Pedalling.... by wpiman · · Score: 0
    Does the pilot have to pass a piss test or anything? I wonder what the one ball wonder is up to later this summer?

    The physical part of this is probably just as challenging as the engineering aspect.

  28. Can't mod, but love this. Can we vote for who? by CFD339 · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking we can round up a whole bunch right in Washington DC.

    Anyway, all that "human powered" pedaling sounds like work to me.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
  29. don't panic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry people, they didn't crach, it's only their server..

  30. Call me when it WINS by angrist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    BAH, we have one of these teams at my school too (University of Michigan).

    Although i will admit i didn't RTFA, it's not news unless it actually FLIES. This has been tried and failed many many times already.

  31. Reminds me of... by rubberbando · · Score: 1

    That old Disney Movie called "The Monkey's Uncle" about a college wiz kid named Merlin Jones who has to build a human powered flying machine to save his college's football program. After many problems he gets it to work by using another one of his inventions (liquid strength) to boost his stamina to keep the machine going for the specified amount of time.

    --
    DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
    1. Re:Reminds me of... by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      .. one of his inventions (liquid strength).. ...Now widely known as EPO...

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  32. Re:JPEG noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SHUT IT YOU CUNT

  33. Re:JPEG noobs by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    The submitter should have posted this URL instead:

    http://batman.mech.ubc.ca/~hph/index2.html

    That bypasses the huge intro graphic and reduces the load on the server.

  34. Wow... by Dejohn · · Score: 1

    Some poor sap's legs are going to be sore as hell the next day.

    1. Re:Wow... by grolschie · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Well I just flew in from Atlanta, and boy my arms^H^H^H^Hlegs are tired" /insert drum fill here/

  35. Simple! by enginuitor · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just put the human(s), bald and naked, into liquid-filled pods and wire 'em up for electrical power! Then build some hovering tentacled robots to do maintenance. Then... ...Or you could do it the boring way -- you know, pedals and the like...

  36. and twenty-four years ago by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

    I proposed to build this very thing.

    Of course, I was only 10 at the time, and had no clue about mechanical engineering. Still, it's good to see someone else wanted to, and now someone will.

    1. Re:and twenty-four years ago by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Well, now, you should have patented it...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:and twenty-four years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, now, you should have patented it...

      Well, I did. But I'm waiting with the announcement until the athlete is high enough to find my invention indispensable and to be really worth my little extortion fee. Is it my fault that they didn't read up on my idea before they went ahead and invested years of engineering and training into my monopoly?

    3. Re:and twenty-four years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Leonardo da Vinci beat you to it by 400 years or there abouts

  37. People from BC need no damn helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone in BC flies just smoking POT the first export product from BC.

  38. you're a terrible writer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aside from that, let me attack your points.

    I consider 10 feet or 3 meters to be high enough to cause significant injury to a simple terran.

    The gears and chains are made out of metal if you look at the pictures. Have you ever heard of such things being made of composites? That would be quite bizarre.

    Ground effect is the only decent bit of info you mention. For those who aren't aware, ground effect is the phenomenon by which a helicopter rests on a cushion of air bounded by the ground and the rotor disc. The area in which it is useful exists roughly at an altitude equal to the diameter of the rotor disc. It's essential for all low-powered flight, especially an emergency autorotation landing in something over than an autogyro.

    "Helicopter flying books?" I assume you mean rotary-wing aerodynamics books. I've read some; they're quite good.

    1. Re:you're a terrible writer by caswelmo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've got to remember it's a college. Heck, give a guy enough beer and he/she will definitely pedal their butt off for a while a 3 meters. Heck, I was subjected to much worse than a 3-meter, gyro-slowed decent in college. I survived. Although many brian cells unfortunately did not.

    2. Re:you're a terrible writer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's essential for all low-powered flight, especially an emergency autorotation landing in something over than an autogyro.

      Oh, you're a much better writer. Perhaps you mean "other"?

    3. Re:you're a terrible writer by BostonPilot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "ground effect... essential for... especially an emergency autorotation landing in something [other] than an autogyro".

      Not sure why you think this. During an autorotation in a helicopter or an autogyro, airflow is upward through the rotor. Even during the flare phase, airflow is upward, and thus ground effect does not apply. During the landing phase (hovering autorotation) the airflow is briefly downward, but I doubt that ground effect has much effect - this phase only lasts 2-5 seconds. I've never seen any studies, but I doubt you get much of a vortex going in that amount of time. Besides which - you usually have enough forward airspeed to be in translational lift, even at touchdown.

      Experience: helicopter CFI/CFII for the last 25 years...

      Check out my website sometime if you are interested in helicopters. www.copters.com.

      Paul

    4. Re:you're a terrible writer by lommer · · Score: 1

      cool site - very informative. I'd love to get my helicopter rating someday but at this point I can barely afford to be slowly upgrading my fixed-wing licence and keeping it current.

  39. I'll Wait. by the+pickle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...for a motorised version.

    Whilst there's something undeniably cool about what basically amounts to an airborne bicycle, I'd settle for an airborne moped. Using a small (~1-2 bhp) moped engine would make for only a minor weight increase, and it would surely make for less sweat ;)

    I'm a certificated pilot (fixed-wing) who's flown helicopters (a Robinson R22 Beta) once, and that was so incredibly fun that I'd hop in an ultralight homebuilt chopper in a second. Just let me know where to buy the kit.

    p

    1. Re:I'll Wait. by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Here you go: http://www.rotorway.com/

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:I'll Wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:I'll Wait. by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That actually looks really interesting!

      I gots to get me a G-1...

      p

    4. Re:I'll Wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just let me know where to buy the kit.

      Google for "Helicopter Kit" to find: this and this

    5. Re:I'll Wait. by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Apparently some of you ACs don't know the definition of "ultralight."

      While these $50,000-sans-engine homebuilt helicopter kits are cool, if I had that much money, I'd buy a used Robinson, which has the added benefit of being certified for commercial ops, possibly IFR, etc.

      The FAA defines "ultralight" as a powered aircraft with an empty weight of 254 pounds or less, 5 gallons or less of fuel capacity, a maximum airspeed of 55 knots at full power in level flight, and a power-off stall speed of greater than 24 knots.

      AC103-7 explains all of it. Check paragraph 12 for the definitions, which are based on 14 CFR Part 103 (aka FAR 103).

      The Rotorway and Ace Helicopter kits are most definitely NOT ultralights.

      p

    6. Re:I'll Wait. by xenophrak · · Score: 1

      Some places you might want to check out are:

      The Mosquito helicopter, a true ultra-light helicopter as designated by the FAA

      The HeliCycle, which is the worlds smallest turbine-powered rotorcraft capable of transporting a person.

      I would steer clear of Rotorways, I know several people who have crashed theirs. The fault always is in the engine with those kits.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
    7. Re:I'll Wait. by ballpoint · · Score: 1

      IFR in an R22/R44 ? No way. Our R44 has dual horizons and other redundancies, but IFR it ain't though you _can_ pretend to do IFR for training.

      Your advise of buying an used Robinson is a good one. Get one who has 200-500 hours and 2-3 years time left before overhaul; that should give you ample private flying time. If you like it, you can overhaul it, or rinse & repeat.

      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    8. Re:I'll Wait. by chl · · Score: 1

      Surely

    9. Re:I'll Wait. by chl · · Score: 1
      You mean a stall speed of LESS than 24 knots, as it says in the FAR, you just forgot to invert that part of the phrase.

      A lower stall speed is better/safer than a higher one, since it increases the speed range at which the airplane can be operated. Below the stall speed, no lift is generated, so you want that to happen either when you are very high (so you can recover) or very low (as the final part of your landing.)

      It is actually the angle-of-attack of the wings that determines when the plane stalls. It is just the case that the slower you get, the less lift you get and the faster the plane moves downward, so the plane sees a wind that comes from the front and from below, which results in an increased angle-of-attack. While the stall speed can vary with different conditions, the maximum angle-of-attack at which the plane stalls is always the same for a specific plane.

      chl

    10. Re:I'll Wait. by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, "less" is exactly what I meant. Oops. :)

      p

    11. Re:I'll Wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's REAL good you don't need no edumacation to be no certificated pilot....

  40. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God I hate you 791k's.

  41. UM HPH by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Yep, and I'm about to become a part of it...

    (told u i was hardcore)

  42. Really? by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    That's very interesting. You've contributed valuably to this discussion.

  43. Re:JPEG noobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Canadians with internet access have broadband. What backwater country are you from?

  44. silly nigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? I proposed to build a time machine, and in 40 years, somebody else will.

  45. *whips out cluestick* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. The helicopter team has a longer history with the thunderbird name
    2. Since the products are different in nature (browser vs helicopter) neither is infringing on the other
    3. If there *was* a trademark dispute, then by de facto law, the Mozilla Foundation will have to change their product name, not some other organization. Haven't you been following /.?
  46. Re:Can't mod, but love this. Can we vote for who? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    No this is Sloshdat - I suggest Darl...

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  47. slashdotted by nanojath · · Score: 2, Funny

    maybe they need to have a contest where college kids build a webserver that can stand up to a slashdot link for more than 5 minutes...

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  48. Re:JPEG noobs by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

    The first country to even HAVE phone service. Thus most of the infrastructure is OLD tech indeed. And since most of the data goes over the patchwork systems that started out as a phone system we have major early adopter problems. We're also pretty spread out.
    Also most of Canada's population is somewhat better distributed for the purposes of broadband.
    Add in the fact that MOST people do NOT have broad band, designing a site just for those that do is not a good idea unless your site caters to broadband users.

    Mycroft

    --
    https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
  49. Interesting by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    This Human Powered Helicopter project is undoubtedly very interesting. What I would really like to see, though, is a Helicopter Powered Human. I've heard some rumors that scientists in Soviet Russia might be already working on it as we speak.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  50. Would a more efficient gyrocopter be allowed? by zymano · · Score: 0

    With bigger blades for lift acting more like a plane.

    I doubt they would accept it but it blurs the line.

  51. ol' standby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just flew in from Vancouver, and boy are my legs tired!

  52. launch point suggestion by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

    if they launch from Wreck Beach they should be able to safe a couple of (possibly critical) ounces of takeof weight.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  53. RTFA already would you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    where does everyone come up with this 3 minute hover stuff?

    if you had read the rules of the contest, or the story from the paper (which i read IN the paper), you dorks would have seen its a 1 minute hover requirement, not 3.

    why bother even putting links to the info if no one is going to read it?

    oh, i forgot, i am new here, and this is slashdot. idiots.

    1. Re:RTFA already would you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "oh, i forgot, i am new here, and this is slashdot. idiots."

      So your inability to locate the "shift" key makes you so much more intellectually superior...?

    2. Re:RTFA already would you? by Trackster · · Score: 1
      Thanks for your kind spirited post! (/sarcasm)

      :-)

  54. All they need is a set of 30-weight ball bearings by Fletch · · Score: 1

    It's all ball bearings nowadays.

  55. flugtag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man i bet these guys would whup butt at the redbull flugtag.... if it works that is

  56. If the UBC engineers have any sense of history... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the end result would like a cross between a beer bong and Volkswagen Bug with rotors.

    While a human powered helicopter is impressive, I have a feeling the UBC engineers won't feel accomplished until they hang the thing underneath some bridge.

  57. What about monkeys? by shubert1966 · · Score: 1

    Why are we so homocentric? Aren't monkeys lighter than us and much stronger? I think watching a monkey try to fly a helicopter would be really funny too.

    Maybe the 1 minute hover constraint is a little on the wishful side - but I just want to see the look on the monkey's face as it 'accidentally' veers into a helpless crowd of onlookers in bermuda shorts.

    --
    Stuff that matters.
    1. Re:What about monkeys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if we used the monkeys' arms to power the contraption.

  58. Re:JPEG noobs by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Uh, maybe they were more worried about making their helicopter work. Assclown.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  59. Don't forget about... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    ... Ford Thunderbird. Would end up being mass chaos of who coined the term first. Rediculous.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  60. gears? by leperkuhn · · Score: 1

    so i guess no one else thought a transmission might get used huh?

    --
    http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
  61. well actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IAAA (I am an aerodynamicist)...

    Helicopters do have one advantage, power-wise, over fixed-wing. The limiting factor with fixed-wing craft is the strength of the wings in bending. If the wings could be made much longer, then less power would be required, but they cannot be made longer without becoming much more massive to support the increased bending load.

    In a helicopter, centripetal acceleration helps keep the blades straight, so less bending strength would be necessary; tensile strength, which is a lot easier (and lighter) to build in, should suffice.

    Not clear in practice how much that would help, but there is at least one advantage, anyway!

    1. Re:well actually... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So how would the upcoming advances in carbon nanotubes affect this? IIRC they have much higher tensile strength/weight than any other known material.

  62. It's close.... by HFShadow · · Score: 1

    Considering it's only 10 minutes away from my house, me a friend will be going to see it. Hopefully we'll get some good pics to follow up with.

  63. Re:If the UBC engineers have any sense of history. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this thing won't be hung from a bridge haha, its too valuable and took too long to built..it'll proly be placed in some museum hopefully~

  64. Age of pilot; age of contest by westendgirl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Both the pilot and the contest are 24. I suspect UBC's genetic engineering program started on the engineer when the contest was first announced....It has nothing to do with the chopper design and everything to do with the pilot. ;-)

    --

    -- SYS 64738 --

  65. Slightly suspicious... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    ... of the given speeds of rotation. 3 and 6 rpm? So the blades really turn once every 20 or 10 seconds?

  66. Motivation by sploxx · · Score: 1

    It's amazing that they get such a big team together (there is a list of the members on the website) and all are working motivated towards this goal... sadly, this is very rare.

    I only know very few people who have an interested in building things, educated tinkering etc. And as a physics student, I have many contacts to people who should(*) be interested in such things.

    (*) - IMHO, at least some of them should...

  67. Up next on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    University based team attempts suborbitable spaceflight with only human power.

  68. Technical Journal paper by scattol · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a link to a SAMPE journal paper describing the project in details.

  69. ThunderFox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll have to change the name before they can fly.

  70. Helps initial takeoff by BennyB2k4 · · Score: 1

    This means that the initial takeoff shouldn't be as difficult as expected if the pitch of the blades is controllable. The pilot can get the rotors spinning more freely, pull on the 'collective' (blade angle control) and the momentum of the rotors will help pop it into the air. The problem I see is that the energy required to spin up the rotors doesn't count towards the timed flight, so once you're in the air you're already at a disadvantage.

    1. Re:Helps initial takeoff by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Which means extra weight for the blade pitch control assembly. Everything's a tradeoff.

  71. ...when monkeys fly out my butt. by SharkJumper · · Score: 1

    This will never work. Some PC, animal-loving, left-wing jerk will throw a wrench in the works.

    SharkJumper

    1. Re:...when monkeys fly out my butt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you have no humanity does not make people who do into jerks.

  72. At 3m by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    At 3m, won't they still be in "ground effect"?

  73. not doing anything useful by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    I am not hundred percent sure that this qualifies as useful.

    What they could do is allow the human to pedal to power a generator and put the equivalent mass on board of the helicopter, put an electrical motor on the helicopter and save the pilot in case of an accident.

  74. Thunderfox by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

    you knew it would come to this, right?

  75. Re:All they need is a set of 30-weight ball bearin by brainsic · · Score: 1

    What are they doing? Some *stunt flying* or something?!

    Then they just gave me that look.

    Yeah...the look.

  76. Off-topic - your quiz link by Skater · · Score: 1

    Why is it that I can't select anything other than "Agree" for that quiz?

    (Of course, the questions are worded in such a way that it's difficult to disagree with them, but that's a separate issue.)

    --RJ

  77. more cool tech 'just coz', or something worse? by torpor · · Score: 1

    yes, this is a cool project. its wonderful what can happen when kids get the free time to really create, and stand on the shoulders of generations before them. hats off to the thunderbird team, and those who follow in their footsteps ...

    but what happens when the plans for this human-powered flight system make their way to the teething masses of starving humanity, who are able, using their ultra-limited resources, to build their own free wings outta nowhere?

    if you can pedal yourself over the ocean, the whole 'nation' game is over. the technologists won.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  78. Thunderbird project??? by jbayes · · Score: 1

    Great, now the Mozilla mail reader's going to need yet another new name...

    --

    "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton