• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

Flying Underwater, A Blast From The Past

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
I wrote DARPA too around a week ago and got no reply of course. I can't tell I am surprised though. Could Cal do anything against the rip-off, or is his patent and any copyrights already expired, and there is no legal way to force them at least admitting it is not their invention? I agree that contacting the US Gov department that financed the project may be appropriate - there may be surprised if they see they paid almost $3 millions for an invention that was in fact done and patented almost 40 years ago by someone else and then stolen by the contractor. On the other hand, such contractors are often good friends with those distributing the grants, so it is quite likely the information would fall on a deaf ear anyway.
 
Could also make a formal inquiry by letter and copy the governmental agency that authorized the funds. Some governmental entities are obligated to respond to credible written inquiries.

I think Cal is irritated by this, obviously enough but I also think he is coping despite the apparent injustice. For those who have had a consuming passion for something that lasts for years, in this case trying to stimulate interest in a unique concept worldwide with limited response you can start to get a idea of how things used to be. After going through that for so very long to have the concept apparently "adopted" without compensation or fair credit has to be annoying in the extreme.

Rick
 
If I were a US citizen I'd certainly send a registered letter to the governmental agency. I hope that some of our US members will do that. If you find out the exact address of the agency or department that funded this DARPA's project and make an official information request, please let us know.
 
Just sent off another email to DARPA after a phone call. We'll see what comes from it. In the meantime, I will see what info I can pull together and summarize on things, points of contact, perhaps even put together a form letter.

I finally came across a clearer image of powerswim. It incorporates newer materials to be sure and slightly altered configuration but the primary concept and premise of operation are quite old as can be easily seen.


From: How to become a mad scientist for DARPA. - By Daniel Engber - Slate Magazine

and still more:




From: Ares Homepage

Funding for the creation of Powerswim through taxpayer dollars:

Agreement Number: W911NF-05-9-0002
Modification Number: N/A
Task Number: N/A
Type of Agreement: Acquisition transaction for prototype (using Section 845)
Title: PowerSwim: A Novel Concept for Combat Swimmers
Awarding Office: XR W2DF RDECOM ACQ CTR DURHAM
Awardee: DEKA Research & Development Corp.
Effective Date: 01 Jul 2005
Estimated Completion or Expiration Date: 31 Mar 2006
U.S. Government Dollars: $ 2,809,407
Non-Government Dollars: $ 0
Dollars Returned to Government Account: $ 0
Technical objectives of this effort including the technology areas in which the project was conducted:
Combat swimmers are currently limited to speeds of 1 knot in order to maintain a sustainable caloric burn rate over
a period of hours. This speed limit constrains mission planning and prevents missions in some strong tidal areas.
Additionally, the maximum mission length is limited to 4 hours due to fatigue and hypothermia, limiting maximum
mission distances to 4.5 miles. Placing more propulsive power in the hands of combat swimmers will raise speeds,
increase range and carrying capacity, increase mission options and tempo, and deliver a more alert and effective
operator on target. This proposal outlines a program to develop a device that will use advanced oscillating foil
technology to enable combat swimmers to literally ‘fly’ through water like efficient swimmers in nature. The
concept will be evaluated by measuring the metabolic costs of swimming with conventional fins and then with the
oscillating foil device over a range of swimming speeds. Program success will be measured in terms of the reduction
in the metabolic cost of swimming at a given speed, and by demonstrating a dramatic increase in the swimmer’s
maximum sustainable rate of speed.
The overall goals/objectives of the agreement are to increase the overall swimming efficiency such that a given
combat swimmer can demonstrate a sustainable speed of 50% higher than the typical sustainable speed achieved
using standard-issue swim fins, and to reduce by a factor of 2 the metabolic energy required to maintain a sustained
speed of 1 knot.
Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has contributed to a broadening of the
technology and industrial base available for meeting Department of Defense needs:
Non-Traditional Defense Contractor:
The business arrangement to be made with DEKA seeks to establish a long term, 'future focused' relationship with a
non-traditional defense contractor at 'the cutting edge' of technology without requiring the Contractor to change his
existing business practices.
Innovative Business Practices for DoD:
DEKA is classified as a small business. Traditionally, small businesses have not been significantly involved in
developing and manufacturing weapons systems for DoD.
Cooperative Agreements and Other Transactions
Entered for Fiscal Year 2005
133
Rapid Prototyping Advantage for DoD:
DEKA's organizational structure and facilities design both foster constant interaction between and within DEKA's
engineering groups. DEKA's machine shop and molding facility are located on-site, enabling the development and
testing of prototypes in record time. This rapid prototyping capability is advantageous to the Government.
Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has fostered within the technology and
industrial base new relationships and practices that support the national security of the USA:
Traditionally, significant volumes of defense contracting in the area of weapons systems development have been
performed by large business. DEKA Research and Development Corp. is a non-traditional defense contractor
classified as small business. The company was founded in 1982 and thrives as an innovative think tank. This
prototype agreement is a novel concept inspired under the technical area ‘Applications of Biology to Defense Needs:
Bio-Inspired Systems.’ The business arrangement to be made with DEKA Research and Development Corp. seeks to
establish a long term, ‘future focused’ relationship with a non-traditional defense contractor at ‘the cutting edge’ of
technology without requiring the contractor to change his existing business practices. The contractor has not done
much business with the Government in the past, and is currently in the process of developing a business division
dedicated to government business. The flexibility provided by 10 U.S.C. Section 845 ‘other transactions’ for
prototypes encourages non-traditional defense contractors such as DEKA Research and Development Corp. to
contribute to major DoD research and development programs. These non-traditional business arrangements may
result in innovative solutions for the Future Force. Additionally, major U.S. corporations are continually seeking to
outsource their manufacturing bases to labor markets outside the U.S. This ongoing erosion of the U.S.
manufacturing base may pose a threat to national security. Small businesses and ‘non-traditional’ defense
contractors could become very critical players in compensating for lost capabilities in development and
manufacturing.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/attachments/fy-05-congressional-report20060130.pdf
 
Last edited:
Just fyi, US patents only last 17 years from the date of issue. The number quoted above was issued in April 1974, so it would be well past lapsed by now, and anyone would be free to make their own version.
 
You are certainly right, but even if the patent is already expired, it does not give the right to DARPA claiming it is their invention (as they do) and not even mentioning the original inventor in their documents. Let's aside the fact that they shamelessly grabbed a ~$3M grant for the "invention" from taxpayers' pockets. Although it seems to be pretty legal and common practice in the USA as well as in all other countries with corrupt governments (it means probably almost the entire Earth), it does not mean people should keep their mouth shut when they notice such a scam.
 
DARPA's device has been featured in the November 2007 Popular Mechanics.

Navy SEALs PowerSwim - DARPA Device - Efficient Swimming - Aquaman - Popular Mechanics



The article is reminiscentt of one carried by Popular Science THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO in June 1974 about what appears to be a remarkably similar device, the Aqueon.



It is reported that DEKA may have received $2,809,407.00 of taxpayer money for the following:

PowerSwim: A Novel Concept for Combat Swimmers

Technical objectives of this effort including the technology areas in which the project was conducted:

Combat swimmers are currently limited to speeds of 1 knot in order to maintain a sustainable caloric burn rate over a period of hours. This speed limit constrains mission planning and prevents missions in some strong tidal areas. Additionally, the maximum mission length is limited to 4 hours due to fatigue and hypothermia, limiting maximum mission distances to 4.5 miles. Placing more propulsive power in the hands of combat swimmers will raise speeds, increase range and carrying capacity, increase mission options and tempo, and deliver a more alert and effective operator on target. This proposal outlines a program to develop a device that will use advanced oscillating foil technology to enable combat swimmers to literally ‘fly’ through water like efficient swimmers in nature. The concept will be evaluated by measuring the metabolic costs of swimming with conventional fins and then with the oscillating foil device over a range of swimming speeds. Program success will be measured in terms of the reduction in the metabolic cost of swimming at a given speed, and by demonstrating a dramatic increase in the swimmer’s maximum sustainable rate of speed.

(Continued on page 132 at:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/attachments/fy-05-congressional-report20060130.pdf)


The Secretary of Defense is required to submit a report (including the above text) annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services.


Cal Gongwer acquired a Patent** for such a device in 1971 (now lapsed) with remarkable similarities to Powerswim. It was indicated that parties involved in the Powerswim project met with Cal Gongwer, the 92 year old inventor of the Aqueon on several occasions. Cal even reportedly hosted "pool parties" at his home during which the Aqueon was demonstrated to and evaluated by these parties. Cal undertook these efforts in the hope of securing a contract related to the concept. Sadly, no such contract was forthcoming nor apparently even mention of his pivotal efforts in creating the Aqueon.

Ignoring obvious similarities, if the Aqueon was of no significance in the "development" of PowerSwim: A Novel Concept for Combat Swimmers, why was Cal Gongwer reportedly bothered on repeated occasions in this regard? Why was his involvement and a decades long commitment in the promotion of this concept apparently not mentioned in published information pertaining to this project?

You can checkout Cal's performance data from 30 to 35 years ago that seems to comply with aspects of what the DOD was looking for in the referenced document from 2005. I understand this data was developed during a demonstration to the Navy at a military test facility. Innerspace Corporation.Thrusters,Hydraulic Motors,Screens

You can examine the decades old Aqueon brochure at: Innerspace Corporation.Thrusters,Hydraulic Motors,Screens


** Patent 3,802,008 United States Patent: 3802008
 
Last edited:
As an aside, I think they may to have to go back to the drawing board on Powerswim to reconsider the mode of attachment to the diver. The 55 year old Aqueon concept allows the diver to instantly and easily pop both legs out. If I were a SEAL on a mission, I wouldn't be comfortable with being unable to separate from the unit very rapidly. The diagrammed "rings" and contoured calf plates shown in previous photos may not release the diver all that easily depending on how they are configured. The plates look comfortable, the rings on the other hand appear to be potentially painful in the extreme based on time using the Aqueon. Wonder if they've been T&E'ed yet, perhaps not. On the other hand, details are lacking on this point in what information is currently available.
 
Last edited:
If you are concerned about fair play and have a moment, why not drop an email to some of the members of the U.S. Senate Committee On Armed Services. If you live in the district of one of the Committee members, even better.

I have no cash interest in this, have only spoken with Cal on the phone and have yet to meet the man. Still, I admire what he has done, have enjoyed his device for decades, understand the commitment and sacrifice in trying to build and promote something like this, perhaps before its time. He deserves better in my opinion than what has transpired. A better device may come from this effort as well, that we may be able to use in time.

Something like the following might be used in the emails:



Senator ??? ,

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I wanted to bring something to your attention. It involves spending of almost $3 Million taxpayer dollars for the development of a "Novel" military swimmer delivery device.**

The device doesn't appear to be "Novel" at all but looks to be virtually identical in concept and function to a device patented 33 years ago! The inventor of that device was consulted on several occasions by project staff but his contribution to the project was neither compensated nor apparently recognized in this project. This adoption of existing technology doesn't appear to warrant the expenditure of almost $3,000,000.00 in these tight times. More about this situation appears at: forums.deeperblue.net/freediving-equipment/72588-flying-underwater-blast-past-4.html

Suitable recognition of Cal Gongwer,the original inventor of this remarkable design (conceived 55 years ago!) is warranted at a minimum in my opinion. Cal invested decades of time, capital and passion in the promotion of this concept in various parts of the world. The idea may have been presented before its time. Today appears to be a different matter. Cash considerations would be appropriate as well considering where the "Novel" concept was first developed and subsequent consultations with project staff.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
(Your name)

** Title: PowerSwim: A Novel Concept for Combat Swimmers
Agreement Number: W911NF-05-9-0002
Awardee: DEKA Research & Development Corp.



There are many other variants that you might use of course.


Links to contact information for the Chairman, Lead Member and other Committee Members appear at:

Committee on Armed Services




Thanks for taking the time to think this over and hopefully, send off a few emails.
 
Last edited:
Email sent to Bill Nelson. Thanks for doing the legwork.

Connor
 
Great Connor, thank you! I sent one to Senator Nelson as well, he has been pretty active on a number of issues (e.g. blocking an attempt to shut down direct public access to the National Weather Service including hurricane info by the Weather Channel, Accuweather, etc.,)

I appreciate folks taking the time to do this. It isn't a very common thing to have free diving cross over into national politics and defense contracting. We might be able to do some good.
 
Last edited:
There is an interesting post related to this thead on the Popular Mechanics website dealing with "powerswim":

32. RE: Navy SEALs Could Turn Superhuman with Pentagon's PowerSwim
This really is a fleecing of taxpayer money. Apparently this was funded under white paper solicitation submitted by DEKA to the Defense Sciences Office for Research and Technology. I looked up the program objectives, scope and funding which identifies how contracts are awarded for high-risk/high-payoff research initiatives. It clearly states "proposals for the integration of existing technologies or development of systems will be considered out of scope and will not be evaluated". Rehashing the Aqueon for $2.8 million seems to be in clear violation of the DSO guidelines. I think DEKA duped the DSO. The white paper needed to "clearly state the uniqueness of the idea presented in the context of the existing state of the art in the technical area of interest". Given the product DEKA developed, it would appear they either miserably failed to do what they were contracted to develop, or the proposal was blatant fraud from the beginning. I'm inclined to think it was the later. I want my money back!

Navy SEALs PowerSwim - DARPA Device - Efficient Swimming - Aquaman - Popular Mechanics

Didn't think fraud might have been involved just laziness. Looks like I may have been premature in that conclusion. If you have time, why not send some emails out to the committee members as described above this post?
 
Not sure much developed in Washington regarding Powerswim. Thanks for your efforts in any case, it was worth a shot.

Just put up some wreck diving photos from the Bahamas of the Aqueon in action at:
[ame=http://fksa.org/showthread.php?p=34339#post34339]Photo Of The Day!!! - Page 9 - FKA Kiteboarding Forums[/ame]

As an aside, I heard a free diver set what likely is a depth record for the Aqueon of 45 m while experimenting with the unit. Way to go!


Rick


.
 
Last edited:
Can't seem to find the pic. Registered on the other forum, nut still no pic.
Can you post the pic in here?

Cheers
 
Sorry for the trouble you are having. The other forum doesn't require registration to see posts only to make them. Not sure why you are having access problems. Come to think of it, the Aqueon in Bimini post was rolled on to page 10 from 9, perhaps that was it. The link is:

Photo Of The Day!!! - Page 10 - FKA Kiteboarding Forums

There are five images, actually six including another post on diving in the Caymans on the same page. One of the photos appears below:

 
Last edited:
Glad you are getting out there Tom. Looking forward to reading and seeing more about your experiences with the Aqueon.

I noticed another propulsion device on your site, the Dol-fin. How was the thrust with that, did it turn fairly easily?

It reminds me of yet another swimming device, the Lunocet. Has anyone spent much time diving with the Lunocet? If so, it would be good to learn about your impressions of the device.

Thanks!
 
I am a lucky owner of the Aqueon since last year too, but unfortunately did not yet have chance to use it a lot. In fact I did only one test run in a pool, and then once in open water. I plan playing with it more this summer. I have a question for you guys, though - I had pretty hard time doing efficient immersions. Trying to get submerged took a lot of energy and time, so my down times were cut quite short due to this inability. Do you have some tips for me?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…