IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Coupla points...
1) Kawasaki. I'm pretty sure of it, "Kawasaki JetSki" just sounds so right. (Not that it actually *has* any skis at all, AFAIK...)

2) I dunno if countersteering should work or not; I figured out the tapered/triangular shape just by trfying to visualize it in my head, what shape it would *have* to be for the inner edges of both skis to conform to a horizontal plane when the whole contraption is leaning to the inside of a turn... Might even mean that you'd have to steer *into* the turn directly, for all I know. Will think about that some more.

3) Why "pivot set *well* in front of the center of pressure"? I could understand a *little bit* in front, to stabilize things (and I was actually assuming that), but... Setting it "*well* in front" would only make it harder to get the damn thing to turn, no?

[Edit: Added point 4; forgot about that first. Previous #4 bumped down (up?) to #5.]
4) Yup, I was planning to have the rear ski *and* the front one pivot. Actually, at least in the propulsion-by-outboard-motor scenario, if you'd want only the one ski to pivot, it would probably be best to make it the rear one.

5) That reminds me, once again... I belong in outer space! Never could get the damn trajectory of a ball right in a gravity field.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Expand Edited by CRConrad Nov. 28, 2001, 11:52:24 AM EST
New Pivots
Yeah, I think Kawasaki is right. Ah, well, Rice Rockets aren't precisely interchangeable, but they have a lot of common features.

3) Why "pivot set *well* in front of the center of pressure"? I could understand a *little bit* in front, to stabilize things (and I was actually assuming that), but... Setting it "*well* in front" would only make it harder to get the damn thing to turn, no?


Depends on definitions. I was trying to combine your desire for handlebar steering with Ash's wish for lean steering.

If the front ski is triangular, then as the thing gets up on step the center of pressure will move back, because the part that isn't in the water will only have airflow over it. You're going to want the pivot to be forward of the center of pressure in all circumstances. Then, when you lean, the CP provides a side force that turns the handlebars. OTOH, if you turn the handlebars, the CP moves to the outside of the turn, and applies a force that tends to make it lean. As I said, I haven't either the MIPS or the smarts to model it, which it needs before anybody starts laying fiberglass --

And I really think the outboard motor version is a nonstarter. It needs a jet pump, with the intake in the rear ski (which will carry most of the weight).

Christian, would you be willing to compromise on a hydrofoil? The rear "ski" would instead be a pair of fins sticking out of a vertical strut. It would solve some problems [while introducing new ones, of course]. Among other things, differential trimming could provide forces in pretty much whatever direction you wanted, and I've been searching (and failing) for a righting force once the bike is leaned over, other than centrifugal; far as I can see, the best you can do with a two-ski gadget is metastability.
Regards,
Ric
New The Higher School of Aquatic Engineering. (Didn't go to it.)
Ric ochet:
[Quoting me]
3) Why "pivot set *well* in front of the center of pressure"? I could understand a *little bit* in front, to stabilize things (and I was actually assuming that), but... Setting it "*well* in front" would only make it harder to get the damn thing to turn, no?
Depends on definitions. I was trying to combine your desire for handlebar steering with Ash's wish for lean steering.
Ah, OK.


If the front ski is triangular, then as the thing gets up on step the center of pressure will move back, because the part that isn't in the water will only have airflow over it.
What do you mean, "on step", in this context? I was envisaging pretty much flat skis, not "stepped" like some mid-twentieth-century racing boat hull.

If you mean, "up and aquaplaning", then it'd actually be the other way around, since you obviously want the skis spring-loaded to have the forward tip up and possibly out of the water when you're not planing -- so when the weight goes onto the skis, this spring-load is eliminated, the front tip (well, the front *part*, if not the very *tip*, which is probably curved up) settles down onto the surface and moves the center of pressure *forward* compared to where it was with the tip out of the water.

If you mean, "leaning into a turn", then AFAICS, the answer is: "Probably not -- rather, quite the opposite". In fact, what would happen if you *didn't* taper off most of the front end of the ski, and widen the rear of it... is that the rear end of it would rise out of he water as you lean into the turn, the front end would cut down under the surface, and you'd get an almighty fuck-up because the center of pressure moved entirely to much *forward*.

Exaggerated example -- say we're turning left: Front end of ski goes left and rear goes right, we lean left into the turn, left becomes (to some degree) down and right up -- so rear end of ski is poking up outta the water and front end pointing sea-bottom-wards. To keep the direction of the edge of the ski we're now riding on -- the left half of it, more or less -- parallell to the surface, we *have to* slice off most of the left-front part, and add material to the left of the left rear. That will (in the ideal case, at the correct combinations of turn-in and lean) keep the center of pressure -- exactly in place.

In pure-geometry terms, the proportion of a triangle that is to one or the other side of a point at X percent of the *height* of the triangle stays the same if we slice the triangle vertically *or slantwise a little off-vertical* if we slice through the *top point* of the triangle. Draw some (upward-pointing, approximately horizontal-base and vertically-symmetrical) triangles for yourself and see.

An extension of this concept would be, as I think I alluded to elsewhere, be to have raised edges to the ski, which aren't in contact with the suface. As an extreme, say we have a 90-degree surface standing vertically, straight up, on each side: |______| ... (At the thinner end, the front, it's |_|) ... Going straight forward, not leaning, only the flat ______ surface is in contact with the water. Now say, still extreme-example, we lean 45 degrees in a turn to the left. The "L-shape" of the left edge *now becomes a V-shape*, as the upright left edge comes into play.

Generalize that, and we see that a couple more "kinks" (the "step" you were talking about? Naah, hardly...), of something less than 90 degrees, would probably be better. Continue generalizing, and the bottom of the skis becomes curved cross-wise; go all the way, and our whole skis probably become conical segments, or something...


You're going to want the pivot to be forward of the center of pressure in all circumstances.
Yeah... For the front ski. How does this work for the rear one -- do we want the same thing there, or just the opposite? Anyway, as I've hopefully (but not probably) shown above, a tapered (or in extremis triangular) shape would accomplish that "automagically".


Then, when you lean, the CP provides a side force that turns the handlebars. OTOH, if you turn the handlebars, the CP moves to the outside of the turn, and applies a force that tends to make it lean.
Yup, think so...


As I said, I haven't either the MIPS or the smarts to model it, which it needs before anybody starts laying fiberglass --
Fiberglass??? What's wrong with steel, or if you want to be fancy, aluminium? Remember, we are *_N_O_T_* building a boat hull here! (Or maybe *you* are, but *I* sure wasn't... :-)


And I really think the outboard motor version is a nonstarter.
Why???

Remember, I wasn't going to hang the engine off the rear ski, but the other way around... The prop wouldn't be at the end of the ski, but somewhere under the middle of it. What's wrong with that?


It needs a jet pump, with the intake in the rear ski
How is that different from a propeller, in principle?

My very first idea was based on a water-jet pump, yes... But I was thinking, hang it under the *middle* of the contraption, poking down into the water (powered from above) on its own, quite separately from *both* skis. Can't remember why -- probably just the first thing that came to mind, perhaps because of some naive desire for symmetry.


(which will carry most of the weight).
Possibly, but not necessarily. Depending on how far forward you sit on the contraption, and the distance between the skis, you could get a weight distribution pretty close to fifty-fifty. Would that be a bad thing? If so, why? In the inboard-motor scenarios (like the mid-mounted water-jet, above), we could probably even get most of the weight on the *front* ski, if we wanted to -- not that I can see why we would want to...


Christian, would you be willing to compromise on a hydrofoil? The rear "ski" would instead be a pair of fins sticking out of a vertical strut. It would solve some problems [while introducing new ones, of course].
Yes and no: Yeah, sure, that would be fun! But no, that would be *another* thing, that I'd like to *also* try -- a complement, not a replacement.


Among other things, differential trimming could provide forces in pretty much whatever direction you wanted, and I've been searching (and failing) for a righting force once the bike is leaned over, other than centrifugal;
Why -- isn't that enough? What more do you have on a motorcycle?


far as I can see, the best you can do with a two-ski gadget is metastability.
Uhh... What's "metastability"?

Sounds kind of like what you have on a bicycle or motorbike, or for that matter, on a single waterski.

And if that's what you mean, then it's *exactly*... What I *want* to achieve!
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New A land-based conundrum..
I can't 'see' any further into the general problem than what's summarized above. Your more extensive analysis forced me to review what I (thought I) knew re cycle dynamics.

I haven't retained most of the elegeant essays in (old, UK) mags like The Motor Cycle and Motorcycling - dunno if these mags even survive there, today (?) I used to subscribe to both. In US - ___ Jennings-like authors (believe he's a car-type guy) probably refined the earlier notions a bit, but I don't recall *anything* which "made cycle design er Simple" to grasp.

Ex. Dick Mann, a notable track, scrambles all-around Ace some years back - was a friend of a cohort of mine. He was famous for pithy quips about such matters. One I recall re a Ceriani fancy fork assembly (with 28? different adjustments re rake, trail, fork damping etc. etc.) was in his style ~ Yeah and ya can get about (28!-1) screwed-up settings outta all that.. Let's go climb Snotty Hill and see..

Anyway, he designed frames, forks - raced them and sold them. Land stuff with the above er 'metastability' seems ~ about the inherent pseudo-balance of a cycle - esp. when sliding. Reminiscent of the cone as illustration of "degrees of freedom" in a geometry: Stable is on flat-end; conditional on side, where it can roll. And then we have the Famous Analogue of Windoze "stability":

-*-

{{\\______/}}
___\\____/
____\\__/
_____\\/____
//////////////

_*_ = a fly about to land

Cycles are of course more stable than Windoze or - we'd all be dead. So omit the fly effect: there is a 'conditional stability' even in sliding-friction mode - until \ufffd happens to change abruptly (oil, leaves, gravel). Always amazing is - how fast! is the 'instinctive brain', especially in the Aces (whose boots I am unfit to run over). But that is not instantaneous, even amongst the mutants.

What I cannot envision is - the 'way' that these behaviours can be translated to water! where "\ufffd" is as evanescent as.. integrity in a 100 mile radius of Redmond. What I mean is - *this* appears to be where the cycle model goes Nutzo.

My guess - the folks engineering the Carter Copter most likely had similar fits in envisioning dynamics in YAN fluid: more so than mere water - and that had to include the lo-speed passages from ground to airborne, controlling of yaw, pitch etc. at near 0 ground (not rotor) speeds.

I suspect that a lot of trial and error - mostly error would precede a rideable device (less'n one cheats and tosses in a gyro! with a Humongous MK\ufffd !)

But maybe you're getting some stuff I'm not ..

Happy sleuthing,


Ashton
New Metastability
is when it doesn't particularly want to go anywhere on its own, but if an external force intervenes -- Ash's fly, or (in the case of Windows) either trying to do something with it, or the simple passage of time...

My version of the front ski was triangular from all directions -- long and skinny with the tip chopped off from the top, inverted isosceles from the front/back, and flat on top/deep aft from the side, for exactly the reasons Christian (who has plainly thought more deeply about it than I) gave. The back ski is roughly the same shape, but deeper to accommodate the water-jet's intake.

Yes, the engine goes in the middle -- it's supposed to be a motorcycle analog! I simply thought that the engine lower unit of an outboard would be too much of a keel. We don't want to restrict the thing from sliding sideways! If we do, it's going over toward the outside of the turn, like a fatass freighter in ballast taking a turn too quickly, or an inept sailor weathering ship in a blow that's just a little too strong --

Therefore a water jet; engine properly between the knees, pump just under the saddle, ejecting the drive jet from the back. From a black-chrome trumpet :-)

And Ashton, this thing is continually going to be in side-slide mode, more like a dirt-tracker busking dunes than anything on a highway. We need the crosswise flow to create a roll couple that holds it up when it leans. No winding in and out of cones here, especially at speed, and the turning radius will be ::ahem:: fairly large -- not that it matters. Motorcycles need a short turning radius so they can stay on the pavement, absent gravel patches (my elbows remember!) and spots of ice/grease/water. Our machine has the whole lake to skid in.

As for fiberglass -- the frame should be made of *tadaa* welded tubing (Duh!), but the skis will be moderately complex shapes. Fiberglass (or carbon fiber composite) are the easiest way to do that, especially since it's possible to quick-and-dirty them on male armatures -- I strongly suspect there will be several iterations before the optimum shape emerges!
Regards,
Ric
New LRPD's eval: IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Epithetic Yammerers
(No doubt the Great Oracle approves of the Beastly refs.)

OK - 'dirt track' I'd guess too; none o' that IOM precision dicing. So: since the shape has to somehow accomplish that which human lore + feedback does on land, umm where shall the skill enter in? T'would seem that, overcooking a 'turn' would result in merely.. increasing the turn radius automagically / not elbow burns (splashes?)

But then.. I have little feel for What those folks do on water anyway - except with water skis it's apparent where the skill is needed, just to stay up. Played a bit with a speedboat at Tahoe once. Cute but tame, and seems to bring out the vandal-mind in most practitioners (and.. did I mention noisy?)

Hmmm .. guess my Interest would be more in the vein of a video clip ~ 3 years back, about a (local!) guy developing a personal submarine! Lie prone in a tube; imagine an optically kewl paraboloid front. Don't recall max depth he was aiming for, but it was in hundreds of feet. Maybe even deeper.

Alas, such a thing would be unlikely to reach prod. levels where anyone could afford it - but imagine an entire new world to explore, without the rigors of Tri-Mix and the usual SCUBA training and hazards. (Not to worry: exceed crush depth and.. no time to worry.)

He seemed to think he could make a commercial one, though obviously not into the plan for usual bizness reasons. Physics + new materials - under $20K? Don't think I heard his hoped-for price. 3-D: now That's what a watercraft *ought* to do !!


Ashton Beebe Verne
New Thought that was "Pathetic Yammerers"
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New It is
But see, since we are an eCommunity, we are ePathetic. And ePedantic.
When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind;
Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
New LRPD be versatile as well as prescient..
empathic
epithelial
eclectic
ecdysiastic
ecoterroristic
euphemistic
eulogistic
eutectic
endo-European
enneagrammatic
eucharistic
euphonious
Euripidean
expropriating
extricating
edifying
excommunicating
exasperating
endodontic
effusive
ecStatic
erroneous
ectomorphic
efficacious
egregious
eigenfunctioning
extraterrestrial
ejaculative (hey! that's about words)
ejective
emending
ebullient
eponymous
and..
ecumenical

(But only on Fridays)



All Hail the Llanthropythical Elll Arrrrgh Pee Dee !!
New Where's the skill?
OK - 'dirt track' I'd guess too; none o' that IOM precision dicing. So: since the shape has to somehow accomplish that which human lore + feedback does on land, umm where shall the skill enter in? T'would seem that, overcooking a 'turn' would result in merely.. increasing the turn radius automagically / not elbow burns (splashes?)


Well, now, don't think even a Beowulf cluster (still current?) would be able to model the thing well enough to eliminate the skill. Too much lean? You get wet, with a strong flow up your nose (that is the direction it's going). Not enough, a-over-t -- call me skippy...

And despite the utmost efforts of able engineers, the surface of the water is not a plane. Related story: A friend in high school once had a boat made of two pieces of marine plywood and a few sticks of 1x10. Build a wedge, 10" thick at the back, then cut the front out in a semicircle. Power was an old "seven-horse" Evinrude, from the days when outboard racing was by manufacturer's advertised horsepower. Change the reed and the jets, and it was more like fifteen.

Directional "control" was the skeg of a broken slalom ski, screwed to the bottom in more or less the center... we were out on the lake one day, with plenty of fuel, and another friend was driving it. Probably thirty MPH across the water -- and a Chris-Craft passed across his bows at about ten knots. Have you ever seen the bow wave one of those puppies puts out?

Boat climbed the wave, went airborne, then (against all expectation) began nosing over instead of flipping bow-up. Thin end of wedge entered the other bow wave, more or less perpendicular to the water surface. plurg!

Hardly a splash. Tim had on a good life preserver, as evidenced by the fact that he did bob to the surface eventually, as did the boat (though quite a ways away from the, er, scene of the incident). Don't think the nabobs in the Love Boat ever noticed anything...

The boat was retired to pontoon duty on our fishing trips. Ah, youth.
Regards,
Ric
     Doesn't someone here do this? - (drewk) - (33)
         That's *intensely* annoying. - (CRConrad) - (32)
             Wing In Ground Effect - (cforde) - (30)
                 Then there's ... - (drewk) - (2)
                     GoodGawd - it lifts 540 TONS! - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Well they do have a plane ... - (drewk)
                 Oh, so *that's* what it is! - (CRConrad) - (26)
                     prior art - (cforde) - (1)
                         Naaah.... Where's the engine?!? :-) -NT - (CRConrad)
                     Dunno about 'handling' though.. - (Ashton) - (7)
                         One aspect of handling - (Ric Locke) - (6)
                             Gyroscopes? Don't got to show no steenkin Gyroscopes! - (Ashton) - (2)
                                 Don't got to show no steenkin Gyroscopes! - (Ric Locke) - (1)
                                     Still a gnat or two, but.. - (Ashton)
                             Didn't know that. But, I assume we can do without it? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                 It's called 'countersteering' - (drewk) - (1)
                                     Nice links - and.. so That's how the girl's rig works! - (Ashton)
                     uh ahem - (boxley) - (15)
                         You thinking James Bond? - (CRConrad) - (14)
                             Heh.. have to dig out some Vincent lore. - (Ashton)
                             nope, thinking nancy lake. - (boxley) - (1)
                                 Ah... She any relation of Ricki's? But: - (CRConrad)
                             Bombardier - (Ric Locke) - (10)
                                 Coupla points... - (CRConrad) - (9)
                                     Pivots - (Ric Locke) - (8)
                                         The Higher School of Aquatic Engineering. (Didn't go to it.) - (CRConrad) - (7)
                                             A land-based conundrum.. - (Ashton) - (6)
                                                 Metastability - (Ric Locke) - (5)
                                                     LRPD's eval: IWETHEY's Terrible Horde of Epithetic Yammerers - (Ashton) - (4)
                                                         Thought that was "Pathetic Yammerers" -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                                             It is - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                                                 LRPD be versatile as well as prescient.. - (Ashton)
                                                         Where's the skill? - (Ric Locke)
             *intensely* annoying. - (Ric Locke)

They're behind the couch.
77 ms