Dynamically Adjustable Rotor Blade & Cycloidal Rotor Patents

RogerB

Gold Supporter
Joined
Dec 23, 2022
Messages
164
Location
Calgary
Aircraft
PAP Tinox 185 140 prop Paramotor and working on Gyro PPL
Total Flight Time
1500+ Paragliding, 200+ Paramotor, 25+ Sailplanes, Cessna 172 12+
These are patents by my Dad, he’s a proper mechanical engineer type in that he has very interesting, dare I say revolutionary ideas, but is just plain terrible with sales, marketing and business sense and is just generally someone with a difficult personality.

It’s frustrating seeing his ideas not gain the traction they deserve over the years… I think a good YouTuber or someone just making some models would get the attention it needs.

It would be a shame to see his ideas go away with him, I find that as he gets older I think about that more and more.

Back a good few years ago (2009) he presented the cycloidal rotor concepts at the American Helicopter Society but they don’t too kindly to tech that makes helis and traditional rotors obsolete over there.
IMG_2772.jpeg

Thought it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of rotor folk.

If you’re not familiar with what cycloidal rotors are here’s an example
And here’s a breakdown of how they work and the advantages

These are his patents:

Rotor or propeller blade with dynamically variable geometry and other properties​

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/10442525

IMG_2771.png
IMG_2773.jpeg

Cycloidal rotor or propeller with performance and flows optimization​

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11198507

IMG_2774.jpeg

Rotor or propeller blade with dynamically variable within each revolution fluid dynamic properties​

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11396360

Cycloidal rotor with non-circular blade orbit​

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/8540485
IMG_2775.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Being in the same boat myself, I have observed that feasible innovations that get a patent are immediately stolen and produced by companies that have deeper pockets than you.

So first and foremost:
If you have a great idea that is workable, it is better to apply for the patent the day you go to market and intentionally screw up the application, so you can have "Patent Applied for" status for an extra year after the initial application is rejected. (this happens without publishing details)
The big companies have teams that scour the new patents for ideas to steal and produce.
You should NOT patent unless you have the resources to fight the infringements.
First to market is more important.

Next:
I think what you have presented is mechanically too complicated to be financially feasible. (At this time)
Adjustable airfoils on an rotor blade are very difficult to build, control and achieve with functionality.
The fact that it is patented and has not been stolen and produced is evidence supporting my presumption.
But that does not mean it will remain that way.
CNC machining, 3D printing and other new technologies continually make more complex devices possible with less effort,
so I am not suggesting you give up, just take a lower key approach and try to prove the application.
I have tested all my aircraft designs as 1/8th, to 13rd. scale models. No issues with killing pilots........
I walk away from every landing.....
 
They are more complicated than your standard rotors for sure so they are an undertaking.

Patent suppression/secrecy of revolutionary tech makes my blood boil , we would be living in a completely different world a far more advanced one, if it wasn’t such a HUGE issue driven by greed and corruption.
I was just watching this on YouTube:

What does/do your patents or tech pertain to? Any videos of links you can share that show or describe it?
 
Last edited:
They are more complicated than your standard rotors for sure so they are an undertaking.

Patent suppression/secrecy of revolutionary tech makes my blood boil , we would be living in a completely different world a far more advanced one, if it wasn’t such a HUGE issue driven by greed and corruption.
I was just watching this on YouTube:

What does/do your patents or tech pertain to? Any videos of links you can share that show or describe it?
Many years ago, a patent attorney in Phx. convinced me it was a waste of time and $$ unless something was already going in to mass production, so I have never applied for one.
I have been sitting on 3 products that would definitely need it, but I don't want to produce them and haven't found the large company to sell the design to.
There are elements on many of the UAVs I designed that are probably patent-able, but with either design, or provisional patents and even then it would be marginal because some of the aspects are overlapping things that have been done before.
Again, if you don't have really deep pockets to defend the patent, it's probably not worth spending the $10k to $20k to get it.
If you are on to something with mass market appeal, you apply for the patent the day you hit the market with the product and that gets you about a year of "Patent Pending" protection without publishing the design.
I do have a handful of designs that I created signed, dated and witnessed documents for which were mailed to myself be registered mail.
The products either were not big enough, or didn't have enough mass market to go any further.
A friend I worked with on some Sandia Lab. projects had over 100 patents to his name (paid for by tax dollars) and he told me about how many of the designs were immediately stolen after displaying the device at a big trade show, the govt. didn't want to fight it, or had back door agreements with other countries, so nothing was ever done. His were shared since he came up with the ideas while working for Sandia...

Looking at your patent, I am sort of surprised it was granted because there is a lot of overlap for things already our there, but the specific
designs presented for a narrow application were obviously enough to get it done.
I can't see most of those components in aircraft because the mechanisms would be too difficult to build, maintain and keep light and reliable,
let alone deal with the forces of a fast rotating mechanism and maintain balance of the system.

It seems to me that large mixing operations, or a fin/paddle propulsion in water or liquids might be a better end product since it would not have to move fast and weight wouldn't matter.
 
If you are on to something with mass market appeal, you apply for the patent the day you hit the market with the product and that gets you about a year of "Patent Pending" protection without publishing the design.
I do have a handful of designs that I created signed, dated and witnessed documents for which were mailed to myself be registered mail.
Waiting risks somebody else patenting it out from under you.

"Patent Pending" does not offer any real protection. Only issued claims are enforceable.

Those self-addressed things might have occasionally been somewhat useful in the 20th century American "first to invent" interference regime, but we are now in a "first to file" world and it will be only a souvenir.

The law changed radically for patent applications from 2013 on with passage of the America Invents Act for global harmonization. I used to do patent infringement trials and appeals for a living - these are big changes.
 
Waiting risks somebody else patenting it out from under you.

"Patent Pending" does not offer any real protection. Only issued claims are enforceable.

Those self-addressed things might have occasionally been somewhat useful in the 20th century American "first to invent" interference regime, but we are now in a "first to file" world and it will be only a souvenir.

The law changed radically for patent applications from 2013 on with passage of the America Invents Act for global harmonization. I used to do patent infringement trials and appeals for a living - these are big changes.
Yes, waiting could backfire, but spending $20k on protecting something that may never come to fruition has backfired as soon as you write the check!
I have seen many people get patents for things that will never be produced and in the end they were out a lot of $$.

The self addressed letter is just another piece of supporting evidence in the process, it would only be backup for the first to market and filing at the same time strategy....I know there is no silver bullet.
The real bummer is that even if you get the patent, it is almost meaningless unless you have $$$$ to fight the companies that will steal it.

As you know, the Patent Pending status is just getting a foot in the door and can buy a year or 2 of "Deterrent" status during which you can determine if the product will work without fully committing to the patent. At least that was the case many years ago....

I was not aware of the changes, did it simplify the process?

In my case, one of the items is a trash can, much like the standard 32 gallon landscaping can with a unique twist and would ideally be sold to "Sterilite", or "Rubbermade" for a small ongoing percentage of sales. It has mass market appeal and is truly one of those "why didn't I think of that" things, but.......
Both of those companies could out lawyer me in a patent fight, so I have done nothing with it.
I have no desire to produce it as the marketing and distribution is far more important than the product.......
 
The self addressed letter is just another piece of supporting evidence in the process, it would only be backup for the first to market and filing at the same time strategy..



I was not aware of the changes, did it simplify the process?
The letter has no value at all. Only your filing date matters now.

The filing and prosecuting process is as arcane as ever. Only the issue of who invented first no longer applies in case of multiple applicants.
 
The letter has no value at all. Only your filing date matters now.

The filing and prosecuting process is as arcane as ever. Only the issue of who invented first no longer applies in case of multiple applicants.
So if you bring something to market and have dated proofs of reasonable prior existence, would someone be able to file after you were already producing and claim the patent rights?
 
What Brian asked.

Clearly it works. But is there a problem that this design solves (justifying the additional complexity, which adds failure modes as well as cost and weight)?
 
Last edited:
What Brian asked.

Clearly it works. But is there a problem that this design solves (justifying the additional complexity, which adds failure modes as well as cost and weight).
It reminds me of the :

Voith Schneider Propeller

Which has movable elements relative to each other and can send thrust in any direction, I am surprised there wasn't some overlap here, but the elements do not change shape....
 
One basic rule in mechanical design is that, whenever possible, you try to stress your part in tension only, any bending moments will quickly add weight. You can't beat a rotor blade in that. This actually is, why the blades of a Daerrius rotor are curved. The straight design proposed here is applicable only to very small rotors and even then adds very considerable weight. The Voith Schneider works in water because the 1000 times higher density allows you to use very short blades for acceptable performance, if used in air the weight penalty would be prohibitive.
 
Cool concept. In a sentence, for what is it trying to solve?
Seems I never replied to this
Dramatically better lift with less power is the problem being solved with his concepts
 
It reminds me of the :

Voith Schneider Propeller

Which has movable elements relative to each other and can send thrust in any direction, I am surprised there wasn't some overlap here, but the elements do not change shape....
He tested his designs in water, they outperformed the VS design
 
Top