He’s only filed a provisional patent application so far.
My 'Pretty Fin' Patent
- Thread starter Arak Lea
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
He’s only filed a provisional patent application so far.
OP, great ideas and concepts. Observations:
1. The fin has a large amount of structure that while part of the mechanism, does not contribute to the propulsive outcome.
2. It is complex and has a high parts count requiring multiple molds and assembly which affect manufacturability.
3. Weight and size, in the world today, travel fins are becoming increasingly popular because they fit in a carry on and tech is a driving force and growth area in SCUBA marketing, this design runs against two major trends in SCUBA fins today.
Okay, let's consider further that this design appears to be an attempt to optimize thrust from a flutter type kick. The flutter kick is oft not the primary kick, especially for experienced divers, even in open water diving. Just for myself, and I hear techie sorts say they only use a frog kick all of the time and I just try really hard not to roll my eyes. Of course they do not, that is not possible.
In the course of a dive, I may use many fin kicks. Frog is probably primary for cruising along but I use a flutter kick to buck current and transition dive areas. I use a bent knee flutter and a similar bent knee dolphin kick to get out of tight holes so as not to hit the reef or kick a diver in the face who has crowded in on me to see what I am taking pics of (I am a hobby level UW photographer). I use a back kick to back out of holes or tight areas or to back off my subject for better framing (or to keep from being bitten!). I dive a double hose regulator which enjoys having the diaphragm at lung center. So, often when cruising along a wall or reef break, I will use a side scissor (like a side stroke swimming) but modified such that the closing stroke is much like a frog, so that I can observe the area, rolling my entire body rather than tilting my head (which is tiresome) to get the regulator closer to lung center and a better view of the feature. I think photography really pushes a diver to totally kick dependent maneuvering. Hands are not allowed, they are holding a camera. I do 100% of my maneuvering strictly with my fins and the occasionally one finger push off when another diver smacks into me from behind and shoves me toward the reef. My point you ask, so what? Okay, I only see inexperienced divers using a flutter kick enough to warrant designing a fin to optimize that kick. As divers gain skill, experience and water comfort they increasingly use a frog or other kicks as the situation demands. I rarely see anyone, experienced or not, use a frog kick all of the time, how could they, thus my rolling eyes. But an inexperienced diver cannot use a flutter kick 100% of the time either, thus they arm swim, arm paddle, hand scull, using their hands and arms to maneuver as they crash and smash along.
So, if the flutter kick is not the main propulsive kick of experienced divers who will use multiple kick types as demanded by the situation, why optimize the fin for flutter kicking? That kick is oft used to transition from one area to another or buck current but otherwise not the main propulsive kick style? So it just happens that paddle fins are optimal for the frog kick and close maneuvering. The Jet and all of the clones and near copies including my latest monoprene love affair, the Eddy Fin, they are allrounders, good at all kicks though admittedly not best at flutter, their stiffness provides a locked in feeling for close maneuvering and can do helicopter turns, back kicks and they off course are frog kick champs. When I know in advance I need a good flutter kick fin that can still frog kick well and maneuver well, the Mares Quattro, a scoop design paddle fin, is the fin I choose and when drift and high current diving, sorry Jet, the Quattro is king for me.
So again, in short, what is the point of this new fin again? To optimize for a kick that is oft and commonly not the main propulsive kick used by experienced and advanced divers? Who is it for, what is it for?
N
1. The fin has a large amount of structure that while part of the mechanism, does not contribute to the propulsive outcome.
2. It is complex and has a high parts count requiring multiple molds and assembly which affect manufacturability.
3. Weight and size, in the world today, travel fins are becoming increasingly popular because they fit in a carry on and tech is a driving force and growth area in SCUBA marketing, this design runs against two major trends in SCUBA fins today.
Okay, let's consider further that this design appears to be an attempt to optimize thrust from a flutter type kick. The flutter kick is oft not the primary kick, especially for experienced divers, even in open water diving. Just for myself, and I hear techie sorts say they only use a frog kick all of the time and I just try really hard not to roll my eyes. Of course they do not, that is not possible.
In the course of a dive, I may use many fin kicks. Frog is probably primary for cruising along but I use a flutter kick to buck current and transition dive areas. I use a bent knee flutter and a similar bent knee dolphin kick to get out of tight holes so as not to hit the reef or kick a diver in the face who has crowded in on me to see what I am taking pics of (I am a hobby level UW photographer). I use a back kick to back out of holes or tight areas or to back off my subject for better framing (or to keep from being bitten!). I dive a double hose regulator which enjoys having the diaphragm at lung center. So, often when cruising along a wall or reef break, I will use a side scissor (like a side stroke swimming) but modified such that the closing stroke is much like a frog, so that I can observe the area, rolling my entire body rather than tilting my head (which is tiresome) to get the regulator closer to lung center and a better view of the feature. I think photography really pushes a diver to totally kick dependent maneuvering. Hands are not allowed, they are holding a camera. I do 100% of my maneuvering strictly with my fins and the occasionally one finger push off when another diver smacks into me from behind and shoves me toward the reef. My point you ask, so what? Okay, I only see inexperienced divers using a flutter kick enough to warrant designing a fin to optimize that kick. As divers gain skill, experience and water comfort they increasingly use a frog or other kicks as the situation demands. I rarely see anyone, experienced or not, use a frog kick all of the time, how could they, thus my rolling eyes. But an inexperienced diver cannot use a flutter kick 100% of the time either, thus they arm swim, arm paddle, hand scull, using their hands and arms to maneuver as they crash and smash along.
So, if the flutter kick is not the main propulsive kick of experienced divers who will use multiple kick types as demanded by the situation, why optimize the fin for flutter kicking? That kick is oft used to transition from one area to another or buck current but otherwise not the main propulsive kick style? So it just happens that paddle fins are optimal for the frog kick and close maneuvering. The Jet and all of the clones and near copies including my latest monoprene love affair, the Eddy Fin, they are allrounders, good at all kicks though admittedly not best at flutter, their stiffness provides a locked in feeling for close maneuvering and can do helicopter turns, back kicks and they off course are frog kick champs. When I know in advance I need a good flutter kick fin that can still frog kick well and maneuver well, the Mares Quattro, a scoop design paddle fin, is the fin I choose and when drift and high current diving, sorry Jet, the Quattro is king for me.
So again, in short, what is the point of this new fin again? To optimize for a kick that is oft and commonly not the main propulsive kick used by experienced and advanced divers? Who is it for, what is it for?
N
Which is posted here, and switching to 'open source', well actually 'free to humanity'.
If I had the time and money, yes, I would have continued.
Especially now that I know the next improvement needed.
But, I can't, so anyone feel free to jump on it.
I have just never seen the dynamic solution implemented this way. Or the actual flow dynamics problems I see addressed. And too, I always thought the Rocket's and Jets had something there, but were just missing something....
Yes, I was diving back when those first came out. The Farrallon brace-fin too in fact.
Anyway, enjoy.
>"So again, in short, what is the point of this new fin again? To optimize for a kick that is oft and commonly not the main propulsive kick used by experienced and advanced divers? Who is it for, what is it for?"
In short. Power and efficiency. Am I able to go farther or do better for less effort? IS that of consequence? Well, yes. In fact, to everyone.
The flutter kick is not the single target of this fin. It does not get a divergent advantage over the long kick or the reverse. Variables in stiffness or length likely apply to optimize between the two kicks. This fin can be made in either format as can 'flapper-fins'. That isn't the point of this first version.
Many of the points made previously are accommodated by the length and stiffness of a fin. This design is not limited, similar to 'flapper fins', by that, except to say for the offset from the boot-toe.
This simply implements a reverse curve, or foil, compared to a flapper. All other accommodations could be made as is done currently.
The question stands however, is any possible improvement of efficiency worth the complexity? The biggest advantage might be massive kick power, which probably only helps one push oyster cadges around. But with adjustments, which there are many possible, other performance advantages may appear. And I have reason to expect they might.
All that is still to be proven. You can't know just looking at the design. Adjustments need to be made and tests run. At this point it's kind of like I've tested a moon-rover in the Nevada desert. More applicable testing is needed.
In short. Power and efficiency. Am I able to go farther or do better for less effort? IS that of consequence? Well, yes. In fact, to everyone.
The flutter kick is not the single target of this fin. It does not get a divergent advantage over the long kick or the reverse. Variables in stiffness or length likely apply to optimize between the two kicks. This fin can be made in either format as can 'flapper-fins'. That isn't the point of this first version.
Many of the points made previously are accommodated by the length and stiffness of a fin. This design is not limited, similar to 'flapper fins', by that, except to say for the offset from the boot-toe.
This simply implements a reverse curve, or foil, compared to a flapper. All other accommodations could be made as is done currently.
The question stands however, is any possible improvement of efficiency worth the complexity? The biggest advantage might be massive kick power, which probably only helps one push oyster cadges around. But with adjustments, which there are many possible, other performance advantages may appear. And I have reason to expect they might.
All that is still to be proven. You can't know just looking at the design. Adjustments need to be made and tests run. At this point it's kind of like I've tested a moon-rover in the Nevada desert. More applicable testing is needed.
Similar threads
