Amusement devices – Body slide – Water slide
Reexamination Certificate
2001-11-16
2004-04-06
Nguyen, Kien T. (Department: 3712)
Amusement devices
Body slide
Water slide
C472S128000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06716107
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates in general to water rides, and specifically a method and apparatus for providing a flowing body of water on a containerless surface with a portion thereof being inclined. By regulating the speed and depth of flow in relation to the area and angles of containerless incline, novel flow dynamics are generated which enable rider controlled water-skimming activity analogous to the sport of surfing.
2. Description of the Related Art
For the past 25 years, surfboard riding and associated wave riding activities, e.g., knee-boarding, body or “Boogie” boarding, skim-boarding, surf-kayaking, inflatable riding, and body surfing (all hereinafter collectively referred to as wave-riding) have continued to grow in popularity along the world's surf endowed coastal shorelines. In concurrence, the 80's decade has witnessed phenomenal growth in the participatory family water recreation facility, i.e., the waterpark. Large pools with manufactured waves have been an integral component in such waterparks. Several classes of wavepools have successfully evolved. The most popular class is that which enables swimmers or inner-tube/inflatable mat riders to bob and float on the undulating unbroken swells generated by the wave apparatus. Although small breaking waves can result from this class of wavepool, it is not an ideal wave for wave-riding. A few pools exist that provide large turbulent white-water bores that surge from deep to shallow pool end. Such pools enable white water bore (broken wave) riding, however, broken wave riding is not preferred by the cognoscenti of the wave-riding world. The type wave which holds ultimate appeal to a wave-rider is a combination of unbroken yet rideable wave face with a “breaking”/“transitioning” curl or spill.
The ideal unbroken yet rideable wave face can be described as a smooth inclined mound of water of at least one meter in height with a face of sufficient incline such that the gravity force component can allow a rider to overcome the forces of drag and perform water skimming (e.g., surfing) maneuvers thereon. The classic breaking wave can be described as one moving obliquely incident to a beach; having a wave height in excess of one meter; having a portion closest to the beach that is broken, while that portion farthest from the beach has a smooth surface; having the transition from the smooth to the broken part of the wave occurring continuously over a region spanning a few wave heights; and having a transition area with a duration in excess of 10 seconds. In a breaking wave, this transition area is of particular interest to the wave-rider. The transition area is where the wave-rider performs optimum water skimming (e.g., surfing) maneuvers. The transition area is also where the wave face reaches its maximum angle of steepness.
As a wave-rider develops in skill from beginner to advanced, he or she will seek mastery upon different types of waves. First timers start on the “inside” with an already broken white water bore. These waves are the easiest to catch, however, they offer little opportunity for surfing maneuvers. The next step is to move to the “outside, Just past the break zone. Here a beginner prefers an unbroken wave with only enough steepness to allow them to “catch” the wave. As the wave breaks, beginners prefer a gentle spilling type wave. The more advanced a wave-rider becomes the greater is the preference for steeper waves, with an ultimate wave shape resembling a progressive tube or tunnel.
For years, inventors have attempted to mechanically duplicate the ideal wave for wave-riding that will offer the complete range of wave-riding experience for beginners and advanced riders alike. The majority of such attempts focus on reproduction of travelling, progressive gravity waves found naturally occurring at a beach. Unfortunately, such attempts have met with limited success for wave-riding. Problems inherent to travelling progressive wave technology include: safety, skill, cost, size and capacity. Reproduction of travelling, progressive breaking waves require a large pool with expensive wave generating equipment. Desired increases in wave size result in inherently more dangerous conditions, e.g., deeper water and strong currents. Access to travelling progressive waves usually requires a strenuous swim or paddle through broken waves in order to properly position oneself in the unbroken wave “take-off zone.” Catching a progressive breaking wave requires split-second timing and developed musculature. Riding a progressive breaking wave requires extensive skill in balancing the hydrodynamic lift forces associated with a planing body and the buoyancy forces associated with a displacement body. Progressive waves are an inherently low capacity attraction for water parks, i.e., one or two riders per wave. As a consequence of limited wave quality, inordinate participant skill, excessive cost, potential liability, and large surface area to low rider capacity ratios, wavepools specifically designed to produce conventional travelling progressive breaking waves have proven, with few exceptions, unjustifiable in commercial application.
Le Mehaute (U.S. Pat. No. 3,802,697) and the following three publications: (1) Hornung, H G and Killen, P., “A Stationary Oblique Breaking Wave For Laboratory Testing Of Surfboards,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics (1976), Vol 78, Part. 3, pages 459-484; (2) P. D. Killen, “Model Studies Of A Wave Riding Facility,” 7th Australasian Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics Conference, Brisbane, (1980); and (3) P. D. Killen and R. J. Stalker, “A Facility For Wave Riding Research,” Eighth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference, University of Newcastle, N.S.W. (1983), (all three articles will be collectively referred to as “Killen”) describe the production of a unique class of progressive waves called a stationary wave. Stationary waves, as opposed to the aforementioned travelling waves, are normally found in rivers where submerged boulders act to disturb the flowing river water, creating a wave which advances against the current at an equal and opposite speed to remain stationary relative to the bottom.
The stationary breaking waves as contemplated by Le Mehaute and Killen avoid the “moving target” problem associated with travelling progressive gravity waves. Consequently, from a shore bound observer's perspective, they are more predictable, easier to observe, and easier to access. Although improved, the stationary breaking waves of Le Mehaute and Killen when applied to the commercial water recreation setting are still plagued by significant progressive wave problems. In particular these problems include: inordinate rider skill to catch and ride the wave, deep water drowning potential (since the water depth is greater than the height of the breaking wave) and high costs associated with powering the requisite flow of water to form the wave. In other words, both Le Mehaute and Killen still contemplate relatively deep bodies of water comparable to that found at the ocean shore.
Furthermore, the wave forming process of Le Mehaute and Killen involves an obstacle placed in a flow of water bounded by containment walls. The hydraulic state of the flow is described as supercritical flow going up the face of the obstacle, critical flow at the top or crest of the obstacle as the wave breaks (a towering “hydraulic jump”), and subcritical flow over the back of the obstacle. A submerged dividing stream surface splits the supercritical upstream portion from the subcritical downstream portion which flows over the back of their respective obstacles. A corollary to this “critical flow” breaking process (i.e., where the Froude number equals one at the point of break) is the relationship of water depth with wave size, wherein the maximum wave height obtainable is ⅘ the water depth. Consequently, in Killen and Le Mehaute, the larger the desired wave the deeper the associated flow.
The above-described disadvantage has enormous economic significance. Killen and Le Mehau
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
Light Wave Ltd.
Nguyen Kien T.
LandOfFree
Containerless sheet flow water ride does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Containerless sheet flow water ride, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Containerless sheet flow water ride will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3198585