If you want to make an immediate difference then why don't you get involved in UAV research? I have and twice already I've worked on concepts that after searching Google for originality I could only find it in some guy's PhD thesis done only a few years ago. Not only that but my research always came to the same conclusion as theirs meaning my methods were valid. After the initial euphoria at believing myself to be a super genius I realized that it's really because the field is a) new and b) small-scale meaning that I can do the same thing at home that guys are doing for their PhDs. So yeah, get down to the hobby store and start experimenting, there's a decent chance that you may come up with something useful. Personally the reason why I have been doing it is because I hope to bring a UAV of my own design to market one day.
If you're wondering what two PhDs were that I inadvertently ended up replicating one was analyzing the concept of hovering by blowing air over a ring shaped wing and the other was concerning optimizing electric helicopter performance by varying battery mass ratio. What is really funny is both things I had briefly mentioned on /sci/ and I was laughed at like crazy. I said that the circular wing lifter can generate more lift than a propeller due to the Coanda Effect. /sci/ called me a free-energy nut and for the other I said that an electric drone "hoverboard" despite what people say about insufficient battery density can actually keep a person in the air for up to ten minutes so long as the battery and pilot mass is in a certain ratio, /sci/ also said I was full of shit, "they'll never fly for more than a few seconds" etc. Now I found university research that vindicate both these claims. I hate to rant but I am really sick of the contrarianism on this board and the persistent claim that amateurs can't make any useful contribution to technology.
I agree. Much can be learned and figured out in the first decades of a new technology. Breakthroughs happen so fast that they often happen in many places at the same time. There's actually a plane that uses some of the methods you are talking about. It essentially has 2 loops, one on each side of the plane where normal wings are usually. It makes it much more compact. That one is better than the full loop across the entire plane because it helps eliminate vortex drag.
You shouldn't give /sci/ much credit for or against anything posted on /sci/. The amount of trolling and ignorance is astounding. And, the more people who are online the worse it will get.
I'm sorry in what way is UAV lift any different than AV lift?
>what two PhDs
Link their dissertations and show your own work.
>contrarianism on this board and the persistent claim that amateurs can't make any useful contribution to technology
Make a contribution then. You know who has made a contribution? Picture related and their 24 billion dollar budget. But I'm sure they've missed something you can rig up in your garage with hobby store parts. Waiting with baited breath to see it.
You are a poor communicator and even if your 'ideas' materialize in a testable reproducible product, your personal limitations with hamper the planning, seed and growth cycle of a business.
Why do I make this bold assertion? You have written 346 words and have failed to explain some basic things.
I am a private individual researching Aeronautical Engineering, located in the US. I have a background in BACKGROUND. My main interests of focus are:
>Circular Wing Lift
Using the Coandă effect
<provide relevant links<
>Electric personal hovering devices
<insert relevant videos<
Here are links to two PhD dissertations which substantiate some of my experimental work:
<provide relevant links<
>hobby store and start experimenting.
Yeah, except the part where it's illegal to own a unlicensed drone. And then there is the patent trolls, who copyright the most vague shit and sue everyone into oblivion.
I guess countries like China will always be more willing to accept innovators and inventors.
>the persistent claim that amateurs can't make any useful contribution to technology
That's just ignorance of the history of science. Don't you worry your pretty head over it.
>America is the world
And holy kek you actually passed that law? Cucks.
It's not even anything new. George Stephenson was straight up bullied by the academic establishment for claiming to have independently invented the miners safety lamp. They claimed that only a trained scientist could have invented it and illiterate Stephenson must have stolen it when the truth is that he used experience and trial and error. They even went as far as to mock his Northern accent (The North is the shit part of England) Anyway he had the last laugh because he went on to be world famous by inventing the railway.
You are not the history of science, so explaining how others have been abused of their ideas will do nothing to build your own credibility. The problem with systemic problems is that the individuals that make up the system aren't actually at fault. You can't point at your aggressor and say they're the cancer that is killing independent scientific research because they really aren't the cancer, they are a cell within the greater tumor, if that.
> twice already I've worked on concepts that after searching Google for originality I could only find it in some guy's PhD thesis done only a few years ago
so you worked on things that have already been worked on
are we supposed to congratulate you now?
do you want a cookie for finding something someone else already found out years ago?
>So yeah, get down to the hobby store and start experimenting, there's a decent chance that you may come up with something useful
and what kind of [something useful] have you actually come up with?
I'm really curious because your whole post is written as vague as a politicians speech about an issue he really has no idea of
you had some sort of thought process to a problem and found out there's actual university research done on it
nothing you said hints on what YOU actually did in your basement garage, let alone what you plan on doing next
so what's the point of this whole wall of text, other than ending it on a "OH MY GOSH WHY IS SCI SO CONTRARIAN" rant?