Slashdot Mirror


Human-powered Helicopter Fails to Lift Off

Peter writes "The Human-powered helicopter didn't even get off the ground. A team of University of British Columbia engineering students tried to win the $20,000 US prize offered by the American Helicopter Society. Three metres off the ground and hover for a minute was the challenge. But before the rotors were able to produce enough buoyant force they hit each other. More details: Vancouver Sun."

26 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. No pretesting? by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How could they not know that this was going to fail so completely? The article did not state whether or not they had done any test flights before the public demonstration. If they did, and it worked, than maybe it was just the temp/humidity as stated. It was interesting to read:

    "My feeling at the moment is that the machine is actually quite unstable," said Mike Georgallis, leader of the team that has been working on the project for six years.

    Maybe they did know that this wasn't likely to be a success.

    Cheers,

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:No pretesting? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      did you do the calculations then, just now, and know that is impossible with their wing profile, or are you just saying so because you got a gut feeling that it wouldn't work?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:No pretesting? by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How could they not know that this was going to fail so completely? The article did not state whether or not they had done any test flights before the public demonstration. If they did, and it worked, than maybe it was just the temp/humidity as stated. It was interesting to read:

      Very probably, they didn't really expect it to work the first time (although I'm sure they had hopes). But hey, it's a university, so there's no real reason to hide the failures behind closed doors, and good educational reasons to do it in public. After all, failing and going on is a legitimate part of the development process.

    3. Re:No pretesting? by rtz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh, people are so stupid. Test things you morons!.

      Well, they just did...

  2. Nitpick by TamMan2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is kind of a nitpick, but buoyant force has nothing to do with how helicopters work, blimps and boats use buoyancy, helicopters and planes use aerodynamic lift.

    --
    "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    1. Re:Nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sailboats sink when there's no wind? That's news to me...

  3. Re:Point? by storl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm guessing that the point of this is that a bunch of really bright (ok, maybe not so bright in this case) people are thinking of a way to solve a problem. Think about how useful a human-powered helicopter would be. Not only that, but how many failed attempts were there before the first successful airplane? Maybe someday someone will get it right, and you'll be able to pedal through the air to work. This helps people think up unusual solutions to interesting problems. Having a generation of people that are taught to think shouldn't be a bad thing in a free society.

  4. What a shame by azbot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow did you see the size of the rotors on that thing?

    Its a real shame that it didn't work, sounds like the team have been working on it for a long time, which makes me wonder, wheres the tail rotor?

  5. Competition rules url by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    here are the rules of the competition.

    The obvious cheats (lighter than air gases, storing energy in a battery) are banned, but you could 'cheat' by using a human to store up a lot of energy in a low-drag rotor that then changes angle of attack to convert the stored energy to lift.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  6. Re:Point? by dykofone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ah yes, "The Point," what is it and why should anything be attempted if "The Point" isn't clearly defined in a two-page, three-color brochure accompanying a 10 slide powerpoint presentation (with plenty of cute sounds and clip-art) and of course complimentary box lunches.

    BECAUSE it's cool, because I look at it and go "damn, that would be quite the engineering accomplishment right there," because college isn't all about inventing things that need to be invented, it's about expanding the mind to accomplish abstract ideas. Think of every lab that students do in their science courses: what's the point of those? It's old technology, it's certainly been done before. Why aren't freshman chemistry students working on cold fusion or something else the military will jump all over?

    Besides, this is impressive science, since the human legs can put out a sustainable 100W, it's the attempt to built something light enough to get off with minimal power. And the $175,000 they've spent over 6 years to educate students and built a prototype is cheap in the education world.

  7. Sooner or later someone will do it. by runner_one · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity. For many years the thought of sustainable human powered flight of any kind was considered an impossibility but in 1979 we saw the Gossamer Albatross cross the English Channel. I believe that sooner or later someone will manage to meet the requirements to win this American Helicopter Society prize. However without a doubt even then human powered flight will be just an interesting curiosity and not of any practical use.

  8. Re:Does strike me as feasible by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A human generally is lighter than a combustion engine.

    Look at the Vancouver article, the helicopter looks more like a glider.

    And couldn't they store up the energy into a big rubber-band, by ten minutes of human energy, let it go and add more energy as it goes up?

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  9. Re:Point? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.

    Screw the subjects... I'd be happy if we could at least get back to the point where we're not intentionally holding brighter people back or trying to keep their accomplishments covered up so we don't hurt the dumb and average people's feelings.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  10. My easy solution... by TheCaptain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The weight isn't as important as a little forethought.

    It has to be human powered? Fine...put Joe Powersource on it...let him peddle like mad. Store that up in a flywheel or other such reservoir. Let Joe keep peddling one more minute while you tap the flywheel to get the darn thing in the air and help hold it there for a minute.

    Eh...then again, I didn't read the rules for this thing - but I'd be looking for the easiest solution the rules will allow rather than the most elegant one. You are trying to win 20k...not the nobel prize.

  11. Re:Does strike me as feasible by KjetilK · · Score: 4, Insightful
    RTFWS... I have personally small problems sustaining 400 Watts over a period of a few minutes, and I can probably get somewhat higher since I have a pretty good anaerobic capacity.

    They have done their tests, and they have a guy which can do well beyond 500 watts, that's a lot.

    The next thing is of course to make the helicopter lighter, and optimize everything for efficiency.

    At some point, energy demands will get low enough, and then you may have liftoff. I think you're a bit too pessimistic. It's not easy, but that's not why they do it.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  12. Re:Point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just imagine how more evolved the today bicycles are compared to the ones 100 years ago, and how many people now go at work with a bicycle compared to those 100 years ago...

  13. Re:Why did they bother in the first place? by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Right now we're all taking bets on what's going to fail first"
    Sounds like this venture was well planned!
    Actually, that's how you engineer something for the lightest possible weight. If nothing fails, you've overbuilt the whole structure. If something fails you beef that part up a little and try again. I imagine that light weight is really critical with this design, even if you can find a really brawny little bike racer to pump the thing. One of those guys that basically a pair of legs supporting a pair of lungs . . . .

    Of course, you do it differently if there's human life involved, but I can't imagine a human-powered helicopter getting high enough for this to be a major concern.

  14. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uhhh... Since when is "America" only the United States of America? In most parts of the world, "The Americas" stretch from the southernmost points in Chile to the northernmost parts of CANADA.

    It always ticks me off when "Americans" think that "America" is the name of their country. I mean, if I were to form a country in Europe, and call it the "United States of Europe", I would have a heck of a time convincing the rest of Europe that they weren't Europeans, and they could no longer be part of "Europe" since that was now the most obvious short form of my new country. Unfortunately the world has allowed the United States of America to do just this. Of course, I can intentionally annoy the USA and be safe because I know I don't have any WMDs... wait a minute...

  15. Re:The art of flying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Re:The art of flying... (Score:2, Informative)
    by jcostantino (585892) on Friday August 13, @10:19AM (#9958367)
    Informative? That should be moderated Funny.


    Informative? That should be moderated Funny.

  16. Re:The art of flying... by jcostantino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish I had a mod point to give you, I'd break the cycle and moderate it "insightful."

    --
    Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  17. Re:Heliman... by ericpi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that it's unlikely that human-powered vertical flight is quite unlikely to be practical anywhere outside of engineering demonstrations.

    However, I would think that the point of the excercise is to lean new insights into helicopter design. It's (relatively) easy to get a copter off the ground with a nice, powerful turbine engine. But, if you want to get something working with 1/4 horsepower, you have to re-think a lot of 'accepted' designs in order to improve efficiency, reduce weight, etc.

    The whole project helps the designers think outside the box, and may, if lucky, help create something inovative / new, that might benefit more mainstream helicopters.
  18. Re:The art of flying... by tylernt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You get no karma for Funny (which, incidentally, is a dumb move), so some mods give people other moderations to reward witticisms.

    --
    DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
  19. Re:Will someone hep me? by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Did you read the article?

    "The result was an ugly collision between the two less than one minute after the team made its first attempt at flight, around 11 a.m. Seventeen minutes later -- after a roll of cellophane was used to repair the damaged wing -- the team tried again."

    That doesn't sound like massive damage to me, if they were able to patch it up with a roll of cellophane -- in 17 minutes. Sounds like part of the blade cracked or got smashed in, and that's it.

    At which point, they continued the test:

    "This time, the chain connecting pilot Peter Hudson's pedals to the top rotor snapped. Continued problems with the chain led Georgallis to finally abort the day's mission."

    Sounds like they decided to give up before they did any real damage to the helicopter. So, rendering thousands of hours at $30,000 dollars wasted? I don't think so.

    People have a way of blowing things way out of proportion, don't they?

  20. Re:Wait a second... by JCholewa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > What word do you suggest replacing the "American" in "I am American"
    > (don't reply with some smartass answer either)?

    How about "a US citizen"?

  21. Re:I'm all in favor of alternative energy sources by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I find it amusing that liberals are the only ones who say we went to Iraq for oil. We were big customers of Iraq before the war, and we still are. We don't really care all that much about the regime of a country we buy from.


    Then why did we go to Iraq? Every reason the Bush administration gave as a justification (WMDs, ties to Al-Quaeda, Iraqis wanted to be 'liberated') turned out to be false, so what does that leave? Was it all really just a colossal mistake? Or did Bush have a deep burning need to "save" the Iraqi people from their government -- so much that he felt the need to distort intelligence and fabricate exaggerated threats to in order to justify his actions? If that is the case, why aren't we "liberating" Sudan right now? (The genocide there is arguably worse, and unlike Saddam's past genocides, there is still time to do something about it)


    I don't know the real reasons why we invaded Iraq, and neither do you. All I know is that the official reasons given by the Bush administration don't pass the sniff test, and therefore the real reasons must be something else. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and doublespeak, and their incestuous ties to the oil industry, it's not a surprise that oil comes to mind.


    As for WMDs, the millions of Iraqi dead during Husseins reign as 'president' of Iraq don't bother you? Oh right - malevolent dictators can do no wrong!


    The Bush administration claimed that Iraq possessed WMDs that could give America "a day of horror such as it has never known", and that "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud". Saddam slaughtering Kurds is a terrible thing, but it has nothing to do with cities being destroyed in the United States. If Bush wanted to invade Iraq based solely on humanitarian grounds, he should have made that argument and let the people decide whether it was worth it. But that was not the argument he made, so it's disingenuous to pretend now that it was.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  22. Re:The art of flying... by loucura! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know they do, I was just being an ass, as the parent responded to himself to avoid my response.

    --
    Black and grey are both shades of white.