• Welcome to ScubaBoard


  1. 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

    Joining is quick and easy. Login or Register now by clicking on the button

My 'Pretty Fin' Patent

Discussion in 'Fins, Masks & Snorkels' started by Arak Lea, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:21 AM.

  1. Wibble

    Wibble Contributor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: UK
    1,004
    749
    I do salute you for trying and will apologise for coming over heavy handed.

    From personal experience fins are something that's about technique far more than the design. Frequently the design innovations come at the cost of restricting the effectiveness of the fin in some other way, such as other techniques (turning, reversing, different efficient strokes such as frog and flutter, GUE's name for the bent knee kick). Those 'innovations' often mean there's various joints added to direct thrust aftwards, thus increase efficiency. In the case of some fin designs this makes them far more prone to entanglement. In the case of split fins they may work well as straight line + straight leg kicking, but are very poor for other techniques.

    I love watching videos of cave divers doing their frog kick and glide. So simple, so efficient as the thrust is directed rearwards, all with minimal disturbance of the close by environment (silt). When penetrating a silty wreck you need to be extremely careful of disturbing the silt.

    But this isn't your target market.

    Genuinely good luck with your developments.
     
    Arak Lea likes this.
  2. Arak Lea

    Arak Lea Registered

    32
    14
    No problem bro;

    We sounded like we argued different sides, but we may be on the same page much more than it appears.
    All these issues are things that may be considered each time we plan a water born adventure, and how we equip our selves for it.

    Actually, I greatly appreciate your detailed view of the parts and processes in the equipment and activities you addressed.
    This is the kind of thinking that improves an endeavor when it is addressed.

    It's too early to even know the market it applies to. It all depends on the eventual attributes, especially the performance etc. Once a foil version works well enough, it can be modified for detailed effects.

    But as I have said, I'm walking away. I have other fish to fry.
     
  3. undrwater

    undrwater Solo Diver

    # of Dives: 200 - 499
    Location: Cerritos, CA
    2,790
    1,339
    Thank you for this @Arak Lea! Interesting ideas. Not sure if he posts anymore, but @REVAN had interesting ideas about fin propulsion as well.

    I think the traditionalists are happy with the current design mostly, as they have invested energy into perfecting kick styles.

    A generalized fin maybe should help a user find the best kick style quickly, and be gentle to the surrounding environment.
     
    Arak Lea likes this.
  4. SlugMug

    SlugMug Contributor

    # of Dives: 50 - 99
    Location: Texas
    507
    359
    My response isn't really directed at you, but rather at innovators in general. I like a lot of your posts, so hopefully this doesn't come across too harsh or personal. I just strongly disagree & seen a lot similar behavior patterns over the years, often in a much harsher form. This post illustrates what I described well. I've noticed a somewhat impulsive reaction to innovation, as if the inventor or artist is committing heresy.

    I've been subjected to this style of critique many times, even as an artist. All of the "futuristic" artists in that space would make transparent bubble looking designs & I'd go a completely different route. My designs always got 20x the critique, and often vicious critique, while the 5000th futuristic-bubble-thing would get lots of praise. (Somehow, I still don't see those transparent-bubble designs being produced 20 years later, despite lots of designers liking them). I won't assert my designs were good or bad, but they were a threat. That "threat" could be a threat to industry-dominance, or a threat to perceived knowledge of how the world is supposed to work.

    I fully understand physics doesn't bend to wishful thinking. However assuming we have some perfect wheel which can't be improved upon, is perhaps what separates general society from the innovators. Human propulsion with modern fins is anything but efficient and easy whether you're looking at the fluid dynamics, or transferring power from our strongest muscles into propulsion. However, even if we take the "reinvent wheel" analogy, there are absolutely ways of innovating on the wheel, when thought of as more than just a circle. We're a long ways off from having a "perfect" tire. Suspension systems are constantly being changed and improved. Then there's more out-of-the-box considerations like pulleys, tracks, wings ... and perhaps at some future time teleportation or hover-technology.

    If his fin made it to market, sure I'd probably be super-skeptical from a potential customer perspective. Even the force-fins which have a cult-following on SB, I've seen seemingly reasonable reviews harsh enough that I'd have to try the fins first-hand before even considering a purchase of a heavily-discounted used pair. Though if someone local offered to let me try them for 1-dive, I'd absolutely give them a fair shot.

    My point here isn't to win any argument, I could care less about what 95% of the world thinks of innovation. Rather that inventors should never lose that "bug" to keep trying new things, and understand criticism like this comes with the territory.

    edit:

    On the flip-side, I occasionally see "futuristic" looking designs making wild claims, get a relatively undeserved amount of excess praise and cult-following, and then seemingly go nowhere or deliver unimpressive results. So I'm not downplaying skepticism of "innovative" products.
     
  5. Arak Lea

    Arak Lea Registered

    32
    14
    So I will make this one up on the spot...

    The final mastership for a true artist? A thick skin. :yeahbaby:
     
  6. Bubblesong

    Bubblesong ScubaBoard Supporter ScubaBoard Supporter

    # of Dives: 50 - 99
    Location: Massachusetts
    2,537
    2,261
    Or would have stopped at Banana Beer and Ant Snax, never to invent the package store.
    There are those that poo-poo the awesome Freedom Contour Backplate, But they get crunched underfoot by the mob trying to get the last one on the shelves.
    Personally, I’d love to try the half size version of your fin. As it is I am short so I just took old fins and cut 6 inches off the ends.
     
    Arak Lea likes this.
  7. Wibble

    Wibble Contributor

    # of Dives: 500 - 999
    Location: UK
    1,004
    749
    Part of a scientific development is refining design specifications and especially considering scope and requirements. As a subject matter expert — as most experienced divers are on here — our opinions are gained through personal experience derived from hundreds of hours of training and practice.

    My main point is that product improvements need to be significant whilst not affecting other use cases and expected features. If you’re developing general purpose diving fins with greater efficiency, you do not expect them to negatively affect other common finning techniques. Unless you’re developing "speed fins", in which case they’re not general purpose fins.

    Art and product aesthetics, on the other hand, are purely in the realm of beauty being in the eye the beholder.
     
    Arak Lea likes this.
  8. Bob Evans

    Bob Evans Contributor

    # of Dives: I'm a Fish!
    Location: Santa Barbara, California USA
    2,193
    959
    Wish you all the best in this diving market. I found out years ago about how different materials move when bolted together. They move at different rates and .. wishing you well.
     
  9. Arak Lea

    Arak Lea Registered

    32
    14
    You know, the area this technology might be better at is....
    "Oscillating Foils For Ship Propulsion"
    Although, the other tech I imagineered might be more suitable for that as well.
    I will post that to the 3dwarehouse on Sketchup.Google, as well as this design.

    I posted a kite boat there a few years back, the H2OK Hydrokite, never seen anything come of that. But it was fun to conceive.
    If I had a million dollars, I would build one. The 64in test model worked very well however.

    ok, ok off topic.
     
  10. Bob Evans

    Bob Evans Contributor

    # of Dives: I'm a Fish!
    Location: Santa Barbara, California USA
    2,193
    959
    Sounds like you having FUN, guess that is a big part of the adventure...save you money on fin patents, really. The cost to enforce is several $100,000 and you know who wins in the end your Lawyer. Put your $$$ into your product and don't worry about rip offs. My 2 cents....
     

Share This Page