h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Build helicopter rotors around a tube that is open on both end such that they make a sound reminiscent of spinning an empty tube around. Via reinforcing vortex ridges in the tubes.
Whirlies
http://www.exo.net/...13music/Whirly.html
An introduction to whirled music [xaviergisz, Feb 05 2008]
Safe fan
Safe_20fan#1138148264
you could the same principle in the 'safe fan' idea for the cylindrical helicopter rotors [xaviergisz, Feb 05 2008]
[link]
|
| |
Sorry happy, hope I cleared it up. |
|
| |
Don't you want some system of stops to vary the effective length of the hollow section? Otherwise you won't be able to get a tune out of it. |
|
| |
2 fries may not be understanding but he is compassionate. |
|
| |
This idea lacks a thematic premise around which one may compose a sound, logical basis of comprehension. |
|
| |
In other words, "Huh?" (And why public: general? I see no generals anywhere in this idea, unless one is driving the helicopter) |
|
| |
I think the idea is supposed to be "tubular helicopter rotors". The rotors make sound in the same way that a 'whirly' toy makes sound (see link). |
|
| |
needs less honey and more jam. |
|
| |
Needs [Antegrity] to read up on how helicopter rotors and headgear work. |
|
| |
I'm not reading this as a new form of helicopter or an instrument, rather some kind of art project. The public: [general] tag obviously doesn't clear things up... |
|
| |
Is this the sense of confusion I was promised, or is there another yet to come? |
|
| |
I understood it as an analogue to the whirly tube thing, only stationary, without any whirling - except for the rotor blades bolted at a an angle perpendicular to the axis of the tube, each blowing air across the rim of the tube - somewhat akin to playing a milk bottle, or flute, only with helicopters. |
|
| |
Completely pointless? I think I like it. |
|
| |
//hope I cleared it up// You didn't. |
|
| |
If you ARE trying to blow air across the open end of a tube, to make a stationary "whirly", a helicopter rotor is the worst air-mover you could choose. It'd be noisy, rough, dangerous and bulky. Use a centrifugal fan instead. |
|
| |
Whatever you are trying to do, explain it better. If I understood it, I might like it. Bone for confusion. |
|
| |
whats is confusing about this idea. |
|
| |
The amount lift you would lose by opening the rotors so that they make sound, would make the machine unable to fly...that'd be my guess. |
|
| |
Quite apart from which, have you ever been close to an operating helicopter? They tend to be pretty loud already. |
|
| |
Ohhkaay . . . I think I get it now. Thanks, [boysparks]. The idea is a modification to a helicopter, one that people fly in. It's to put a hollow tube inside the length of each rotor blade so it makes a musical whistling, warbling sound, like a Whirly, as it flies. |
|
| |
It's not to make a helicopter rotor out of round dowels, which would work if they are spun right--see Magnus effect. That's been thought of. |
|
| |
Nor is it to make a battery powered version of the Whirly toy, the whistling tube that's swung around by hand. (I thought it was to blow air over the end of a stationary Whirly toy.) |
|
| |
The idea is to make a damn long Whirly inside the length of a helicopter rotor blade, purely as an addition for musical effect, not as a lifting device (the standard blade shape will provide lift). The rotor will turn, as usual, which will whirl the Whirlies, as they are the blades. |
|
| |
A rigid tube will be both the Whirly and the main spar of the blade, with an airfoil wrapped around the outside of the tube. Both ends of the tube will be open to the air, so it will whistle, or whatever it is that a Whirly does, as the blades are powered around. As each helicopter will have two or more Whirlies (one in each blade), harmony will ensue. |
|
| |
So the sound of a helicopter flying overhead will no longer just go "wacka-wacka", it will also go "wooooeee-weeeoooo" like giant Whirlies harmonizing in the sky. |
|
| |
I'm sorry if that's too long an explanation for folks who understood this from the start, but I was damn confused. To me, "rotor" means the whole assembly, a single wing-like part is a "blade" (I have CAD assemblies named that way in this very computer). |
|
| |
Practically: It could be built and flown. A tubular spar is old-fashioned, but it could be done easily enough. The end opening pieces are trivial. The inside of the tube would need to be corrugated to make it sing. Whirlies work by centrifuging air outward and interacting the flow with the series of ridges inside. Centrifugal air flow inside a rotor blade is called "blade-pumping", and is a waste of power--I don't know how much. A smaller opening in the inner end might be good. |
|
| |
Sound: I'm thinking that the blades will be traveling too fast to get good sound from the Whirlies, but some older copters might work. They'd also be noisier, with the normal whack-whack noises, which might cover the Whirly sound. The total sound of the helicopter will increase. |
|
| |
It might work. I'd like to try it. I'd love to hear it work. I'm taking my fishbone off, not because [Antegrity] cleared it up (he didn't), but because it would be sweet. Still, no bun, but a vote for most confusing idea/title/clarification. |
|
| |
2 days and 15 annotations to understand? |
|
| |
Better than some of [Treon]'s I suppose. |
|
| |
Put a digeridoo on each blade...that'll sound off pretty well. Cheap, too. |
|
| |
No, sorry, [Bbob], that won't work. Didgeridoos and Whirlies are pretty much the same thing--a long resonating tube. The difference is in what makes the sound pulse. In a didgeridoo, it's the player's lip flapping. In a whirly, it's air flowing over a series of reinforcing vortex ridges. |
|
| |
A didg won't play just by whirling it. I've tried it, but never understood why it didn't work until I researched this discussion. |
|
| |
By adding the tube to existing helicopters, they could be made tonal. Also, the tube would run through its octaves as the helicopter warmed up. The tail rotor could be tubified so as to be a stable fifth or third from the main rotor. Good stuff. |
|
| |
As I understand it, it is a helicopter rotor inside a large cylinder. |
|
| |
Surely in that case it would say //Build a tube around helicopter rotors // instead of //Build helicopter rotors around a tube// |
|
| |
the rotors would be build around the tubes so that the helicopter could still fly. The only loss in lift i can see would come from a possible increase in weight to make the rotors strong enough. |
|
| |
This could be a plastic tube and would weight very little. |
|
| |
Actually, better would be to affix a series of plastic tubes in a manner akin to a pan flute. These could be opened and closed from within the helicopters by a crew member assigned to that role, possibly one with some musical training. For flights in formation, different diameter tubes could go on different aircraft to increase the possible repitoire. |
|
| |
I would rather hear a whirlie noise all night that a regular blade sounds. |
|
| |
[Antegrity] was talking about the famous Chinese sage Confusion, whos famous last words were: "hope that clears it up." |
|
| |