DaVinci-style drone with 600-year-old screw rotor design
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
The Levant was immensely prosperous afaik.
There is also the statue of a Buddha found in Sweden! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helgö#Excavations_at_Helgo
Ancient Chinese Historian Describes The Roman Empire // 3rd century AD "Weilüe" // Primary Source
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XdPodNwSGU
It's amazing how a shallow knowledge of history can make these sorts of things seem so impossible for some reason. People definitely knew way more than I'd given them credit for.
Marco Polo lived from the mid-13th to early-14th centuries. Chinese merchants were trading with the West from at least the date of the founding of Rome, and likely earlier, 800-750BC. Greeks were traveling to China by 230BC, and the Han Dynasty officially opened trade with the West utilizing Silk Road routes by 130BC.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=maple+seed+helicopter&iax=i...
humanity united through maple seeds
(The article is completely choked with overlapping autoplaying video ads.)
The team is from Alfred Gessow Rotorcraft Center Department of Aerospace Engineering University of Maryland. The PDF below [1] is very detailed and comes from a design competition there [2].
0. https://vtol.org/events/2022-transformative-vertical-flight
It's cool that DaVinci got to the conclusion that if moves water it can move air, thou.
There original design used materials from the time, but with an enough powerful engine you can probably make it fly.
Using a helix as a simple machine is an old concept and probably predates writing; that's about as much of a common ancestor as they share.
Archimedes just had the idea to wrap it around a post.
FliteTest does this regularly, here flying an Ikea chair https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlKC5qUS80o or Santa's Sleigh a month ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9IlkYnx-34
Because they had no calculus.
https://www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F16436679...
I’d expect a screw to be the degenerate case and probably worse than a conventional many-bladed prop.
Am I totally off here?
It was hypothesized that a down facing lip would prevent air from escaping radially outward from the rotor, but this was proven incorrect. All rotors tested (3,4 and 5 in Figure 2.2) have 1 turn, a pitch of 100 mm (3.94 in), a radius of 76 mm (3 in), and a 1:1 taper ratio.
A downward facing lip showed reduced thrust and an upward facing lip showed negligible impact on thrust in Figure 2.7.
Flow visualization conducted during this trial revealed that air was being ingested radially inward during operation of the no lip and up facing lip aerial screws, and that this flow was disrupted by the down facing lip. These results support the findings of the CFD studies detailed in Chapter 3.
Figure 2.8 indicates that the presence of a lip in either direction increased the power requirement of the rotor. Figure 2.9 shows that the presence of a lip in either direction also reduced the FM of the aerial screw. Therefore, a lip is not a useful design feature at all, and was discarded.
Do ducted fans have similar changes in load-to-thrust ratio given an increase in blade count?
The key to this is that, for both ducted fans and props, a larger swept area is more efficient, while # of blades simply changes the torque/rpm ratio with negligible effect on efficiency. Thus, for a given torque, it's always better to drive two longer blades, than 3 shorter ones.
If you enjoy looking at pictures of WW2 fighters, you'll notice that the early planes had 2 bladed props, the midwar ones had 3 bladed props, and right at the end they jump to 4 and 5 blades - the reason being that the better engines got, the more torque they had to dissipate, and you can only make a propeller so big before you hit ground clearance problems. Helicopters, on the other hand, can make their rotors as large as they like - and so they do, and typically only have 2 blades. Only on helicopters like the Chinook, where they made the blades as long as they could feasibly engineer and still had torque to spare, do you see 3.
> Do ducted fans have similar changes in load-to-thrust ratio given an increase in blade count?
Not really. The parameter that describes how many blades are in a ducted fan is known as "solidity", and while it does have minor implications for blade shape the general efficiency is excellent no matter what. It's actually surprisingly insensitive - you can take a ducted fan designed with a 5 bladed rotor and just slap a 7 bladed rotor in there instead, without even redesigning the blades, and provided the power source is equally efficient at a somewhat lower RPM you basically won't be able to measure any difference in performance at all. Ducted fans can turn shaft power into air momentum with about 90% efficiency.
The reason that large swept areas are more efficient than small ones is simple physics and geometry. Energy (the thing you put in) is 1/2 mv^2, while momentum (the thing you get out) is simply mv. So for best efficiency you want to keep v as low as possible. It's better to get your momentum by moving a lot of air slowly, than a little air quickly.
Thrust, not RPM. Efficiency for any actuator is defined by (work done)/(power in). You could replace the Archimedes screw with a simple axle, and it would be much easier to maintain RPM - however it would move no air no matter how much power you dumped into it, and so would have 0% efficiency.
> So given rotational speed 4k conventional is 50g thrust and DaVinci 75ish g, if conventional costs 10amp then DaVinci would be less efficient if it uses more than 15 amps?
Not quite. Thrust / power for disk-shaped actuators is not a constant ratio, but a curve - an x^(3/2) power law, to be exact. You need exponentially more power to maintain a linear increase in thrust. So while it's correct that thrust/amps[note] describes the efficiency, it's not fair to compare conventional at 50g and DaVinci at 75g.
However I guarantee you if you put the same power into this rotor, you'll get less thrust than if you put it into a regular prop.
[note] Watts, really, but same thing if voltage is held constant
Fun pedantic correction, it would move air via the Magnus effect [1], but of course it would be orthogonal to the direction you want it to be moved!
See the Turbosail [2] for a fun application of that effect.
Also seems like the screw shape could be less prone to breakage.
see users guide here for details.
https://www.tytorobotics.com/products/thrust-stand-series-15...
it's basically a load cell and an inline DC ammeter with some logging software.
usually denoted as g/w or kg/w on big things.
Is 7K RPM supposed to be an impressively high number?
7K strikes me as an exceptionally slow hobbyist scale electric motor, not the kind of thing I'd point out as capable of making anything fly.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
https://instructional-resources.physics.uiowa.edu/demos/10c1...
Given how simple the toy is, I wouldn't be surprised to find out it dates back 500 or even 5000 years or more, even if it had to be re-invented several times in between.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo-copter
Edit: This Chinese helicopter toy was introduced into Europe and "made its earliest appearances in Renaissance European paintings and in the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci."
https://instructional-resources.physics.uiowa.edu/demos/10c1...
Just a stick with a 2-blade prop on the end. You spin the stick between your hands and see how high it'll go. But that got boring real quick! The real fun was trying to shred your friends' faces with it at 10 paces away.
Archimedes, Da Vinci and Einstein walked into a bar...
Come on, it's Friday, we are having fun, give me your best punch line :)
Down voting me for tryig to have fun...
ahhhh,
Loging out for the next 3 months, HN on time out..