A word can be patented ?
Yew shure ?
Did you know that the word “hovercraft” was once patented? And did you know that Great Britain is a world leader in the design and manufacture of the floaty transporters, and has been for half a century? These and other surprising facts – including that some of the largest commercial hovercraft ever to be used in revenue …
"Yew shure ?"" For some years from 1961 registered as a proprietary term but now in the public domain." So no, a registered trademark, not a patent. C. S. Cockerell wrote in Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil that he and his wife tried to find a name and settled for the not altogether appropriate word ‘Hovercraft’. Up until then they were called sea-saucers.
I googled the word, (not using Google of course, no-one should use Google for googling), and found
"Definition of patented::originated by or peculiar to one person or group :individualized".
I rest el Reg's case M'lud.
I also googled 'J-type aircraft sheds' (using Qwant as the googler by the way) those 'sheds' are huge.
"Definition of patented::originated by or peculiar to one person or group :individualized"In the OED it is restricted somewhat:
"A licence to manufacture, sell, or deal in an article or commodity, to the exclusion of other persons; in modern times, a grant from a government to a person or persons conferring for a certain definite time the exclusive privilege of making, using, or selling some new invention."
There's also a special case for land in the USA. It's hard to see how a word can be an article, commodity or land.
@ Pompous Git
Oh dear, it's dictionary wars again. Look up patented in Webster's before saying it was misused in the article. The OED is my preferred dictionary of English too but the English language is spoken the world over.
The OED does not try to define the limits of the English language, it merely documents a large selection of it.
Oh wow! Words can be patented! That's fantastic news.
I'm gonna patent "patent troll." And then enforce the patent at every opportunity.
The beauty of this scheme is that after the initial court cases, people are going to start calling me a patent troll. Violating my patent. Woooohoooooooooooooo!
SRN4 used to go from their own terminal there run by Sealink, an associate of British Rail. At least believe it was the SRN4.
Noisy buggers because as mentioned in the article all the forward propulsion was in the open upstairs (on the roof). Ergo being inside could be a bit uncomfortable. Partly also because of vibration.
On the other hand for those liable to seasickness even on the short trip to Calais it was a godsend.
I helped build the hoverport in 1978-9. Was there for the topping out, and the first test flights. It has been demolished now. :o(
There was also a monster French built hovercraft, L'ingénieur Jean Bertin, which used the port.
They were all as noisy as fuck. If the wind was blowing the wrong way, you could hear them in Folkestone, seven miles away...
They also wallowed like pigs. There was a reason every seat had a sick bag. Also, piss poor view out of the windows.
Great on a calm day though. Good for 60MPH+
They also wallowed like pigs.
If I remember correctly they couldn't be used in anything above a Force 5 wind. I went on a school trip to France in 1977, and we were shifted to the ferry because the hovercraft couldn't be taken out. We did get the hovercraft back, but the wind and waves were still high enough to throw everyone around. Not fun when a number of kids had spent their last francs on fizzy pop and sweets...
"... the wind and waves were still high enough to throw everyone around. Not fun when a number of kids had spent their last francs on fizzy pop and sweets..."
Almost the same here, only it was going to France on the hovercraft, and probably 1976, but the memory of sitting next to a classmate who had scoffed two packets of strawberry Chewits before boarding has never faded. Vomit should not be violent pink and smell like that ...
About 45 years ago, I guess, I was 5, and my family went to France. The weather was terrible, and they nearly cancelled the crossing. I recall the hovercraft bouncing around, a waiter trying to serve drinks, and lots of people looking very sick and trying not to throw up. I was young enough to think it all great!
I have no idea which machine we went on, but it was probably one of the larger ones as we had our car onboard - they had to chain the cars down!
My own experience of hovercraft includes three:
* Some time in the earlier part of the 70s, when there was a tourist-y hovercraft service on the Thames in London, including drinks served.
* Sometime a bit later in the 70s, an SR-N6 on the Solent, where there were NOT drinks served owing to a lack of 30mph speed limit coupled with a lively response to sea state.
* 1996 at a bash to celebrate the initial release of our new ATM switch. The company threw a big party and among the activities for a bunch of hardware and software engineers were:
** Blindfolded driving a Land Rover with its steering geared backwards (turn the wheel inside left to turn the wheels outside right) and the other team members calling directions.
** laser clay pigeon shooting
** AND, the prize one for me, little one-man hovercraft that we could drive.
And yes, all the comments here about turning are correct. You turn the rudders and the craft rotates on its axis. Actually following a curved path takes a little longer. And left to themselves, if the ground isn't level, they drift downhill.
Oh, I remember the noise, but the most impressive part was the vibration. I think that was because the props had pretty long drive shafts. That said, when the weather was good this thing would cross like greased wombats. One moment you're moving upwards on the ground when the skirts fill and it lifts off, the next you're crossing the edge at already quite a clip.
I rather enjoyed it, less so when the weather was rough, worse when it was so rough you got diverted to the ferry which at that point was naturally very (ferry?) sick bag encouraging..
The hydrofoils are not quite as much fun, but probably a bit more fuel efficient.
but the most impressive part was the vibration
Not for me. Being on the beach at Calais waiting for the hover, and seeing an SRN4 come up off the water from fairly short range is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. The sheer size of the bugger, and the way it treats land and water with equal disregard, like some sort of enormous sea monster.
The noise was just a bonus.
Having a Belgian wife I had to travel over the channel numerous times during the 90s. I must have travelled on the hovercraft on at least ten didn't occasions. I saw the hovercraft depart and arrive many more times as the Ostend Ferry left from the adjacent berth in the Western Docks. When the hovercraft was decommissioned a little bit of something died. They were, as others said, incredibly noisy but they were just pure awesome. Seeing the propellers kick into life, the skirt inflating and the rush into the sea is something I'll never forget. I hope that the SRN4 hovercraft is preserved in our collective memory in the same way as the Vulcan bomber is.
Hovercrafts weren't all wine and roses: in 1985 the Princess Margaret hit the breakwater at the entrance to Dover Harbour in high winds, killing four people and injuring over 50 of the 370 passengers. The hovercraft captain lost his job...
UPI report - note that this says only two died, which I think is incorrect.
More photos of the Princess Margaret and some technical data.
Noisy - Check
Crap View - Check, even with a front row seat.
I had the pleasure of riding one of these things to Calais on a "French Flyer" which if memory serves me right was either 4 or 8 quid to go to Calais get your duty free beer and cigs and back. You could even get a temporary passport from the post office if you didn't have one.
As a very small geek I visited Dover sometime pre 1985, and I have photographic evidence to prove it:
I can't imagine anyone would have trusted me with a camera back then so the blurriness of the photo probably isn't my fault, but it still makes it impossible to make out the name or the registration in the front. It looks like the pictures of one of the SRN4 on WIkipedia.
What particular strikes me looking at the picture today is the way it's driving along the concrete apron with people randomly wandering about taking photos. Basic safety: we've heard of it...
"On the other hand for those liable to seasickness even on the short trip to Calais it was a godsend."
Er, no - not in rough seas, if sat at the front.
I did, and am not prone to seasickness, but with a 6-12 ft swell, and people lifting out of their seats as the nose dipped up and down, I did puke, as did everyone else in there.
I was about 12 though.
the secret, I found out on the return trip, was to sit near the rear. a bit more noisy, but more level...
Ministre des transport Madame Barabara Chateau * inspecting SRN4 production at Cowes.
The Saunders-Roe factory building still exists, along with the Union Flag from the days of the British Hovercraft Corporation
* as referred to in Prime Minister's Speech To The French. Tim Brooke-Taylor(?) as Harold Wilson in "I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t9zpz ~12:35
What a shame a Saunders Roe Princess didn't survive along with the building - a 150 tonne, 67m wingspan, ten engined flying boat.
A stupidly big seagoing Brabazon of a plane - but what a fantastic beast:
Saunders Roe were clearly sniffing something, because they then proposed the Duchess - a swept-wing jet flying boat for the the London - Australia route:
Not to mention the SR 177, which could have seen service as an interceptor aircraft, had Lockheed not bribed a bunch of people to buy the F-104 Starfighter instead. We could have had combined jet / rocket powered aircraft, perhaps this would have led to the development of a hybrid engine sooner? We can dream.
They have a problem going up hills (similar to trains) as low as an 6% slope will stop them
With enough thrust that won't be a problem, although controlling it on a non-flat slope could be a bundle of laughs.
and they are very noisy.
Never mind the noise. More thrust! More thrust!
Its not lack of thrust that stops them going up-hill (or down) its the fact the skirt collapses and takes away the lift so they just stick in the ground - More thrust will just make more noise (good) and stick them deeper into the ground (bad). You can alleviate this somewhat with multiple skirt pockets but that makes it harder to move on the flat!
I definitely built a model hovercraft like the first ones in my school days in the early 1960s - possibly two. An Airfix kit and one made of balsa. As I couldn't afford a diesel engine then the latter was unpowered.
There was a more recent charity shop buy of one that would fly. I possibly gave it to another charity shop after the neighbours' youngsters expressed no interest in having it.*** Although it might still be in my "interesting toys" box.
***The only things that are guaranteed to take their fancy, both boys and girls, are fast R/C cars - and water guns. Electrical, electronic, and computer controlled devices seem to have no attraction - apart from them admiring my Halloween effects. ... but no query as to "how do you do that?"
I used to arrive at work every day before the boss, pop into his office and phone the dedicated Channel Tunnel construction line to hear a recorded announcement giving the progress of the North and South running tunnels IIRC.
It was only a couple of months ago that I got to travel on Eurostar from Bruxelles to London. Unfortunately I was that knackered that I fell asleep shortly after leaving Bruxelles and when I awoke we were in England so I never got to see the fish ;-)
Low friction with whatever they are going over. High inertia of vehicle. So you can spin the vehicle on its axis, but it's still going in the original direction, but facing backward.
That said. All terrain vehicle. Propulsion can be be enclosed. Goes up hill with enough power (or maybe a front winch ?) so quite attractive to the military and (in theory) farmers whose fields are liable to flooding.
Generically hovercraft are "low flying aircraft" using the "ground effect" like the infamous (and even noiser) "Caspian sea monster." Ground effect is (loosely) the aerodynamic equivalent of the electromagnetic "near field" of lens or antenna, extending roughly to an aircraft wing span. Cockrell through "Why not create an artificial ground effect?" Today "air pads" are probably most used to move big stuff (like the F9 rocket) around factories with little effort.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019