Dyson didn't quite invent that though, fluid eductors have been around in some form or other even longer than using it for this particular application. But yeah, it seems to be the same principle at work.
@@wind5250 But solar drones have no real purpose. The only thing I see them doing is surveillance and wireless connections (such is communications and/or internet), which they would be good at. But it's a niche, and the market would only need so many. This is going against propulsion types that each have their own strong suites. Props and fans are and will be more efficient than this, let's see if these "bladeless" thrusters can bring something new otherwise it will never go anywhere.
This works fine as long as it does not rain. Water accumulates in the intake and disrupts the air flow. I would like to see the results of such a test. Also, if something gets sucked into the intake, what is the emergency recovery/response?
if something gets sucked into the intake, there is nothing for it to catch onto, so don't think it would do anything except slide straight through? same thing for the water, I would presume.
@@mrgreyman3358 That is what I had thought until I had seen the cross section of the internal air flow. There is a narrow area and there is a single central fan blade to move the air; a turbine-like structure. Because of fluid dynamics and the interaction between air and water, the flow would be reduced. Given how old the video is, I would say they ran into this issue and are either working on a solution or have given up. I like the idea but I would have liked to seen testing in adverse conditions.
I think, it is just simply like a Black Hole sucking everything from this side to blow everything to the other side. It is should tough and mpre reliable than cpnventional Blades Engine, for sure. 🤔🤗😘😎🌍🌎🌏 God bless Jetoptera and their Investors.
It's a neat and novel use of an air multiplier. I imagine you're gonna use it for thrust vectoring. I wonder if it's better than not having a nozzle, and if it helps couple better with the air.
of course, but what I am wondering is about the noise. I don't believe there is a way to attenuate that given the requirement for mixing. As is always the case with physics, there is not free lunch. We can only optimize with novel concepts. F still = ma, etc etc
Yes there is momentum conservation friend, it scales linearly with velocity, not ^2. So for airspeed below the speed of augmentation flow, the gain in massflow outways the loss of the injector for speeds below the inlet velocity of the driving gas
Really nice idea. If you were to scale it up to the next level, it would be interesting to see this mounted on a small one-person WIG craft similar in size to the Bavar 2 or the X-113 Aero Boat. The turbine could be powered by an inexpensive motorcycle engine or a 2-stroke Rotax (or similar).
so, what advantage does this offer over props or jets... it seems like you are generating pressure in a conventional impeller design, then ducting it around to your emitters... dont you loose large efficiency numbers ducting it around? whats the gain?
I have the same concern. This is the same system that "bladeless" fans use, I have one of those fans at home and pure force of air stream is really weak. So I have the bad feeling that the proposed propulsion system would not get a powerful enough thrust.
My thoughts exactly... this isn't even a fully bladeless design. This still has to have rotating machinery to compress the air. And you lose a lot of total pressure rerouting the air
@@cesarvidelac supposedly this system utilizes the coanda effect to reroute the flow of air increasing thrust. Tom Stanton made a great video explaining it and how it can be used for air vehicles .
If you increase mass the velocity must decrease. As thrust is related to 1/2m(dot) v^2 ergo the thrust will be less. It is more beneficial to increase v than m(dot).
Since it takes v^2 for KE, but momentum is m•v if you half the velocity, you gain a lot more then double the massflow for an identical KE. Which means an increase in momentum. This is literally the entire premise of the bypass ratio in jets mate. How could U have the right answer but still be completely wrong.
I am an skydiver, and I made my own carbon fiber wings. I want to try this propulsion configuration on my wing. Would you help me? I'm stunning with this technology. I just finished my first electric car building, and I wonder if this technology could generate enough trust, with an electric motor, to lift my 175 pounds + the 33 pounds of my wing + the battery pack for an electric jet engine motor. Best regards guys and God bless you
Are there any full size craft available? Certainly amazing adaptation and innovation. Plus, battery technology is always getting better, and you could even incorporate some aircraft surface substrates to generate more.
Hang on now , why is there a sound like a propeller sometimes and other times sound of Jet propulsion ? One clip even shows 2 small Jet engines. Misleading video .
Never showing the combination of bladeless ducts as propulsion on a flying model, the one thing we'd all like to see. "tested the airframe and propulsion system". Just not both at the same time lol. Disappointing.
@@Connor-zy6kl yeah maybe you should also pay attention as this is clearly misleading tactics for possible investors like me now definately not interested with chosen words and real open honesty going out the window. Maybe one day you will understand these simple facts.
@@carlg5838 they do have a video with a "glider" airframe with their propulsion on their channel. The videos in total show a pretty good picture of proof of concept, minus all concepts integrated into one plane. ;)
@@rednose1966 I'm not saying the ducts attached to commercial jet engines don't produce thrust. Obviously they do, and enough to keep a model with much larger, conventional wings aloft in one of their other videos. But there are no details, no narration explaining what people are seeing, and how these are separate pieces of a larger puzzle. The video seems edited to suggest that the innovative airframe WITH bladeless ducts are being used together in forward flight, and the words I quoted from their only description of the video are assembled to support that assumption from casual viewers. What would it have taken to add a "note:these are clips of different models testing different key innovations"? Misleading and cheating are not the same thing to most people. And using some tactics to help sell an idea to potential investors without giving away too much to competitors is pretty normal. But to follow the Wright brothers example, if they had released a movie showing that a remote controlled model glider launched from a cliff could be safely steered and landed without crashing using a new wing-warping technique, and the other half of the movie showed a similar model with an engine and propeller attached, producing thrust on a test stand, it would've been misleading to edit their clips together in a way that made it appear that they had a prototype that was both stable and steerable AND able to sustain horizontal flight under power. The Wrights demonstrated both at human scale, a pretty convincing combination to the public that the idea of manned flight had a future. They weren't the first to create lift on an airfoil using an engine, and never tried to patent that. They were the first to make a steering system that could control the airfoil (powered or unpowered) so that it didn't immediately lose stability and crash, and that was the innovation that brought them success and started an industry. They were able to test out that crucial idea using...gliders. But they knew it would need more than that to attract money so they kept it quiet until they had decent propulsion on it as well.
that works way easier then aeronautics industry would let you think neg surface pressure's are a whole other world of potential. I wonder if you can control a vortex to the point of having a suction cup effect...at least to some degree. maybe special skins ,or mini actuated oscillating sillings
Very cool design Next Generation stuff way to go guys hope you guys do well with it I love to see new propulsion systems there is no way in man's brief history of flying there is no way we have figured out every propulsion system glad to see some people still think outside the box good luck to you and all your endeavors
@@Seekerofknowledges I don’t think that would be a good idea. Airplane propulsion systems generally lack the efficiency and are louder than car engines. They’re good for one application, but not the other
@@lambastepirate as compared to what? if you generate pressure conventionally, then duct it around a bunch, only to then use it for thrust, you will lose efficiency in those restrictions and ducting turns, from drag and internal turbulence.... if you run that pressure straight out the back as a conventional jet nozzle, it WILL be more efficient...
@@lambastepirate I came from that video looking for more testing. The company claims 10% improvement in propulsion efficiency and 50% improvement in fuel consumption, but the video did not indicate whether there was independent testing done or where to find the testing that showcased those claims. Their website also indicates those claims but doesn't provide the actual testing data. I find the glider video and the hover test at least show propulsion so it will be interesting to see if/when they release a product to market that can be independently tested.
At last they have solved the engine out instablity issue all other VTOLs have. By utilising two engines into one thrustpack, then dividing that thrust into seperate ductors, you will not have the instability issues preventing all the others from gaining certification !! Brilliant concept and advancement...
@@Arowx I guess so. I had seen the scale model of this operating and the fans pivot into a vertical orientation for that. That was why I mentioned it. Not sure how stable it would be flowing over the wing. I guess fans in vertical mode allow for greater control and flexibility to move forward or backwards while taking of vertically.
im in curious, why you test your RC model with your bladeless engine. İ see in this video you are testing the frame . But in this channel videos they looks always seperated. Can you explain me why ?
Because if you have an aeronautical degree, you would know that this is an inefficient form of propulsion compared ti to conventional turboprop or jet engines. Looks cool though.
As stated, it doesn't take a genius to see this is not a great idea. At scale model sizes, you can make a lawnmower aerodynamic enough to fly thanks to the energy-density of petroleum fuels.
"Testing and Developing" of what exactly? Please more information...at least SOME information! Like, what is it? What sort of propulsion is this? Who are you, your company?
Looks like you are stalling in the banks.. might want to pitch out the lift surfaces like a winglet. The squared frame is introducing to much drag when you are in a banked turn. Really cool aircraft though.. you going to scale up or is this just a hobby?
this is the only design that is safe enough for everyone to have a flying car. waiting few more years for some high-tech battery to come along to power humanity's dream of flying.
Direct thrust, Vectored thrust, blade less fan propulsion, etc.... The efficiencies need further studying to establish whether this is not just another vapor ware
The 'zen' of aerodynamics efficiency is to have the aircraft disturb as less as possible the air after it passes, and that means imparting a small acceleration to a large quantity of air. What 'fluidic propulsion' is doing is the exact opposite: the fast jet air entrainment creates a lot of turbulence that is energy lost in the wake and cannot be effective. The video here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dS0oFmzU06g.html is demonstrating that a regular fan is more effective at moving air, and quieter too.
@@Takon_pilot it’s a drone. It would be a planetary spaceship, as this allows a much more free movement of air instead of needing a circular passage for propellers.
It's to test the airframe performance, not the propulsion. Those ducted fans are cheaper than the prototypes for the intended engines. In case of a crash or inflight failure, they would only be out the cost of the off-the-shelf parts. It also gives them a baseline reference for performance comparison of standard propulsion to their new design when incorporated into the future test models.
@@wirelesmike73 Those are not ducted fans. Those are Jetcat P200-SX turbojet engines and they cost about $20k each. I find it difficult to believe they would be significantly cheaper than their prototype Dyson-style box fans.
@@garymanis6305 Actually, they only cost around $4,500 each. They're mass-produced and easily replaced if lost or damaged, the prototype is a one of a kind until they finalize the design for production. Prototyping (especially to such precise tolerances) is intensely laborious and extremely expensive. The cost in man-hours of fabricating a series of custom parts for a design represent hundreds, even thousands of hours of designing, planning, and fabrication. That equates to far more cost than you're giving credit for. It just makes more sense to use off-the-shelf readily available parts for field testing and data collection. And, you're not just talking about a "Dyson-style box fan". The whole point is to take that general design and precisely modify it to vastly increase its output and efficiency to its absolute limit of performance for an entirely different purpose than its initial design. Ideal laminar flow isn't as easy to achieve as it might seem. Prototyping can cost (on the low end) hundreds of thousands, or even into the millions of dollars.
@@garymanis6305 And, other test flights have been done with electric ducted fan engines for the same airframe. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hrtA0l-TJ_Y.html
Cute airframe. but all i see is a ducted jet engine that is no different than a harrier jump jet. you are spinning a motor to compress air and blow it out a tailpipe to produce thrust. the only piece of technology here is using the airflow to somehow generate additional thrust through the dyson ducts, for lack of a belter word for it. This is more corporate vapor ware, move along.
It could work. The culprit is that all small cord- or small diameter parts and especially their junctions create more drag than you like. They degrade the efficiency of the system.
@@ddegn I also doubt if it would work with high aerodynamic efficiency or even it could produce enough thrust to lift off. Another issue is its complex and heavy structure.
So a test bed with no way to show thrust just a vacuum cleaner impeller connected to the emitter boxes via tubes, a windtunnel demonstration that shows smoke blowing past a box shaped duct and a scale model that we can't see up close but has a jet engine soundtrack when it's in glider mode? Yes people this is some grade a bullshit
Probably did. The advantage of them is you will be using the full thrust from the jet, the downside is that modern, high-efficiency fan-bypass jet engines only derive ~10% of their thrust from the flow of air from the jet, the rest is from the fan blades the jet is driving. This is basically taking a military-style jet engine (that is, highly inefficient) and using it with a dubiously more efficient output system. What they need to do is get a fan-bypass jet and use that for the pressurized air source.
@@ConstantlyDamaged Thanks for your thoughts on this project. Thinking about it using a hi bypass jet for this you would also have thrust from the jet at this point. I'll keep watching for updates, just like drone style flying machines, people are always looking for a new way to accomplish things, American ingenuity always the best.
Please don't focus on militaries only focus and get this for civilian consumers industry and commercially . The world has waited for flying cars like these since the last century .
