http://fuellessflight.com/

Interesting concept being developed on this website.

Earlier, Stewart Kissel wrote:

>http://fuellessflight.com/
>
>Interesting concept being developed on this website.

Oh, that's truly a hoot. I just emailed that link to
a couple of my engineer friends (ones who don't follow
RAS). We're all standing by to see if the three laws
of thermodynamics start showing up on milk cartons.

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

Bob K

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> http://fuellessflight.com/
>
> Interesting concept being developed on this website.
>
>
>
This a varient of a concept that has already been used in water. See
http://www.apl.washington.edu/projects/seaglider/summary.html

As Bob notes, the "second law" says you can't win; the "third law" says you
can't break even. It is very hard to break these laws. Here, the energy
required to change buoyancy, considered in the underwater version, is
apparently ignored. Just another "perpetual motion" machine.

Ed Grens

E. A. Grens wrote:
> As Bob notes, the "second law" says you can't win; the "third law" says you
> can't break even. It is very hard to break these laws. Here, the energy
> required to change buoyancy, considered in the underwater version, is
> apparently ignored. Just another "perpetual motion" machine.

the wiley dirigible designer would hang some solar cells on the back of
that beast, and be able to pump air in and out to his heart's content.
You could heat and cool the air using the day/night cycle to give you
the positive and negative bouyancy. You could probably figure out some
way to make it switchable between reflecting and absorbing to allow
multiple positive and negative bouyancy cycles in a day.

The things big enough that you might be able to use the differential
wind speeds on its surfaces for energy, ala dynamic soaring.

The point is there is plenty of energy swirling around out there for the
grabbing, so no laws of physics need be violated.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:37:45 -0500, nafod40 >
wrote:

>E. A. Grens wrote:
>> As Bob notes, the "second law" says you can't win; the "third law" says you
>> can't break even. It is very hard to break these laws. Here, the energy
>> required to change buoyancy, considered in the underwater version, is
>> apparently ignored. Just another "perpetual motion" machine.
>
>the wiley dirigible designer would hang some solar cells on the back of
>that beast, and be able to pump air in and out to his heart's content.
>You could heat and cool the air using the day/night cycle to give you
>the positive and negative bouyancy. You could probably figure out some
>way to make it switchable between reflecting and absorbing to allow
>multiple positive and negative bouyancy cycles in a day.
>
>The things big enough that you might be able to use the differential
>wind speeds on its surfaces for energy, ala dynamic soaring.
>
>The point is there is plenty of energy swirling around out there for the
>grabbing, so no laws of physics need be violated.

Of course. Bear in mind that the only winged submersible proposals
I've seen detail in (the one man deep-diver) involved positive
buoyancy at all times for safety. It could glide upwards, but used a
combo of electric propulsion and its wings to dive.

As to this dirigi-glider thing: of course it *could* use solar power
to run its buoyancy change system but as described on the website it
doesn't. Instead it is planning to use wind turbines to extract that
energy during descent (and also wrecking its glide ratio), so its is,
as described, just another perpetual motion device.

Also note that, unless the buoyancy is reduced virtually to zero
during descent and raised to about twice the flying weight during
ascent its glide will be very slow due to the minimal potential energy
available to drive it forward and at some point as the weight tends to
neutral the drag forces will prevent ANY forward motion. Add on the
benefit (?) of the symmetric or symmetric flapped wing that's needed
for equal efficiency during climb and dive and I think the idea is
pretty much a turkey.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> nafod40 wrote
>>
>>The point is there is plenty of energy swirling around out there for the
>>grabbing, so no laws of physics need be violated.
>
>
> As to this dirigi-glider thing: of course it *could* use solar power
> to run its buoyancy change system but as described on the website it
> doesn't. Instead it is planning to use wind turbines to extract that
> energy during descent (and also wrecking its glide ratio), so its is,
> as described, just another perpetual motion device.

Yea, I didn't get that part. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and
assumed something was "lost in translation".

When you click on the link that says "click here to see the aircraft fly",
nothing happens. That says it all!
David Starer

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
> Earlier, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>
> >http://fuellessflight.com/
> >
> >Interesting concept being developed on this website.
>
> Oh, that's truly a hoot. I just emailed that link to
> a couple of my engineer friends (ones who don't follow
> RAS). We're all standing by to see if the three laws
> of thermodynamics start showing up on milk cartons.
>
> Thanks, and best regards
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com
>
> Bob K
>
>
>

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:34:29 -0000, "David Starer"
> wrote:

>When you click on the link that says "click here to see the aircraft fly",
>nothing happens. That says it all!

Here it workes well...

The concept itself is not bad... and will definitely work if you use
some solar cells to get a little energy.
(BTW: This idea is not new. This design was already described in a
humorous story in New Scientist at least 20 years ago).

But the speed will be sloooow, not to mention the size of this craft
if you'd like to have some payload.
Simply using a ship (maybe with sails?) will probably not be much
slower, and pretty sure it will be a lot cheaper.
Bye
Andreas

"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:34:29 -0000, "David Starer"
> > wrote:
<snip>
> (BTW: This idea is not new. This design was already described in a
> humorous story in New Scientist at least 20 years ago).

And it wasn't new then. The prototype flew in 1863.

See John McPhee's "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" or do a Google search on
Aereon.

Tim Ward