Hi all. I am new to this forum , and I am sitting in Vancouver British Columbia.
As my RC and real life project might have a diverse impact in a number of countries around the world, I choose to maintain a build log here as well as in the United States and if possible also in other places.

Now to what I am designing in Blender 3D  2.7x) This is a Cut and paste from Flite test:

I am developing a mix between an airplane and a sailboat. (RC and real life: Kind of like in Peter Pan or The Mummy (Scorpion King episode). The difference is of course that this is a serious approach to an actual "flying" sailboat.

There are working examples out there of Ground Effect Vehicles, that power of a motorcycle gas engine. However None of them are powered by the wind. In order to make things a bit smoother I will work with micro-controllers, electronic sensors and alternative servo actuators to manipulate the partly home brewed control surfaces that hopefully will keep this thing floating through the air in an intended direction.
The one example in real life we have that a perpetually flying oceanic ship would possibly be able to maintain flight is a big and famous bird:
The Albatross consumes zero energy in flight. I hope I will not have to mimic the physics of this bird too much. I have and will be working in Blender 3D to mind-map all the details necessary for success.

Most and probably all of what  I model will be available as Open source. Sadly the HTML editor disappeared so I will post the directory links in a reply to this thread.

The Umbrella term I have chosen for my project is Ocean Homie. The 3D screenshot  attached goes by the name Air-Ploat One I re designed it  a lot since I took this screen shot:

The links
./blend Airfoils :
https://mega.nz/#F!IQAUBCJB!m1d0Jd4kf-DNJ7ZSgJlu-g

Other development files and pictures:
https://mega.nz/#F!IIZyVRYZ!nWbm29EnoGLPr7UttxS3qA

The project looks and sounds great

But I'm pessimistic of the design. I've not viewed it in Blender, but just my guess.
I don't know, but it just looks heavy for a sail/flying/boat.

Also, perpetual systems do not exist

Who knows , but flying systems that don't cost energy is possible.

Well, energy is definitely required to fly, or basically to do anything.

In the case of a solar plane, energy from sunlight is stored and used to fly. The efficiency should be peek, to attain such a flight, I believe. But that's no way perpetual.

But I just love to think of perpetual systems, and to prove how that's not possible

Clarifying what I wrote above about the Albatross:

The Albatross spends its entire 50 year long life in Perpetual Oceanic Flight .It only seeks land to nest and procreate.
It consumes zero energy in flight.
Nay sayers are a strange crowd. They seem to draw energy from PerpetuatinG to take down other peoples inspiration.

BTW If I never saw a JumboJet or any other airplane take off I would seriously doubt that they could ever become airborne.

A Nay sayer never achieved and never will achieve anything but misery for him/herself and others. 

Oh boy! You need some serious science lessons, let alone only physics.

Every creature needs some sort of energy to survive. And, the energy produced has to be spent. The major way a bird spends its energy is through flying.

You may mean to say it has a very efficient body, which consumes the least energy. But saying 'it requires none' can be considered nothing other than stupid. No offence, by the way.

Well we know naysayers of the flat-earth theory, because we know earth is not flat.

Aravind298: After your repeated arrogant and conescending comments on my Air-craft development posts as well as on the Well established fact that
1: Each  living Albatross spends its 50 years   in perpetual flight,
2:  This bird consumes Zero energy in doing so.

,I seriously doubt that you are playing with a full deck.

To All the other People that hopefully take a serious interest in my post:
A more recent Render:
From underneath you can clearly see the outline of a backwards boat hull.   Blender Render makes it look like it's made of Cardboard which it will be.

I cut out surfaces for the regular Elevons and Rudder Airplane Controls.

I'm dumb 

Never meant to discourage you.

Aravind bro , you are seriously mistaken , he is not talking about the metabolism of energy the bird spends while flying , it is the flight of the albatross , and for a solar plane, there is ni net loss of energy while flying , so it doesn't cost energy. When I say it doesn't cost energy to fly , it means that it relies on external forces rather than not having any energy at all. Think of a sailboat , does it cost any energy other than the external wind energy which pushes it forward? Or a glider. They doesn't spend energy to move. And perpetualism on a whole scale is quite possible, think of the momentum of earth which keeps it in orbit around the sun and doesn't make it collapse.If there was no perpetual system, the velocity of the earth would've collapsed. Newtonian motion approves perpetual motion. But , you will say that perpetual motion is not possible , since there is friction in the object. So, here is a way I can answer it. You ask the question yourself. "A body will be in state of continuous linear motion as long as an external unbalanced force acts on it". Here, the external unbalanced force is Friction. You read the statement once , but now read it once again slowly this time. 'continuous linear motion' this part of implies velocity , since p=∆(mv), since the velocity involved is too low than light ∆m can be taken as zero. So , we have a potential of proving Perpetual Motion if we can derive a mathematical explanation for it. I also agree with you that , the perpetual motion what we actually talk about like machines which works on itself cannot work due to the force of friction , since friction from air is the lowest and on a low speed , friction from air is approximately equal to zero. In space , perpetual motion is possible and the momentum of earth is not maintained by sun's gravity , if that was the case then the artificial satellites we send to orbit earth are lowered with time and collapse down after a specific time period regards.

Quote from: AL HAM SHARI on February 02, 2018, 11:27:37 PM

"A body will be in state of continuous linear motion
as long as an external unbalanced force acts on it".

Quote from www.physicsclassroom/lesson 1:
"The focus of Lesson 1 is Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. Newton's first law of motion is often stated as. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction
unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

@avian,
Here's a source of inspiration, as you must be already aware!

That's a very inspiring quote Iyer Sir.
All the best Avian. Keep posting updates.

Nitesh

Hey Avian! I'm truly supporting your idea. But I feel objections are just good. Because science, as we know it today, won't have existed without objections ad questioning.
In fact, I literally feel great after reading all the scientific facts Al Ham Shari has shared.

Quote from: AL HAM SHARI on February 02, 2018, 11:27:37 PM
And perpetualism on a whole scale is quite possible, think of the momentum of earth which keeps it in orbit around the sun and doesn't make it collapse.If there was no perpetual system, the velocity of the earth would've collapsed. Newtonian motion approves perpetual motion.

But I would choose to disagree with you(Al) here. It is not perpetualism that is keeping the earth where it is, but the energy due to big-bang.
And the space offers so little resistance/friction, that the force has carried on (will carry on tomorrow) till today.

And Newtonian motion do approve perpetual motion, provided there is no external force. But even in space we do; because nothing's a perfect vacuum. PS: I'm not providing a link here, as it's very known and popular.

Quote from: avian on February 01, 2018, 11:46:00 PM
To All the other People that hopefully take a serious interest in my post"

I do take your interest seriously buddy! I seriously do. Please don't be discouraged by objections. You will only be expanding your knowledge, when you tend to answer these questions. And yes, we can seriously avoid arguments; just a waste of time.

Read everything​ above....
I just think it's possible like in theory( although I am in doubt here too) ...but to make it...whew that's a ...like very difficult proposal...
Also I feel if it stays close to waves..like a sailboat.....it will never b able to take off with just wave energy right there...just feels wrong....
But I could be totally wrong ..I mean pricks like me called the earth flat too..
So first time for everything....
Goodluck mate....
Keep posting updates

Also I am a wildlife enthusiast and a geography student..
So the albatross comparison is kinda wrong....
Coz waves only accumulate their lift generating effect at a certain height above water...
A sailboat cannot take off just right above a wave....
There has to be a accumulation of energy which a large wingspan must be able to exploit....
Seems like a very challenging project...
Would love to do something similar ....

Yes. That's what I had pointed about a little problem with the design. But keep going!

Also...vultures fly in thermals...free energy ....
So does an albatross in wave wind energy.....
Why does ur design look more like a vulture design with lots of wing cord??
Go for a albatross design with less chord and large wingspan..
Consider the difference between how a thermal generates lift and how waves do(

Might be helpful to you: https://electrek.co/2017/10/20/solar-drone-capable-of-quasi-perpetual-flight-tested-in-the-arctic/

Try getting in touch with the manufacturer. It may help.

@Kk Iyer Sir , my mistake , wrote the inverse of what I wanted to say and u corrected it. @Aravind what you are saying is right and I don't object it , the big bang gave a threshold force , but what Perpetualism is all about is continuous movement of an object without external force. Space does contain air but ~0.001 Atm in deep space as far as I can remember , so the frictional coefficient can be taken as zero given that the frictional force is nearly negligible.

Honestly speaking, if it were, by any measures negligible, we could harness unlimited energy; which does not quite happen.(Don't know if NASA has some secret thing going on ). But, perpetualism is kinda cool to think of.

Let's hope to find a renewable and clean source of energy soon! (even by perpetual means).

Bro , perpetual systems doesn't produce energy more it loses energy , it only has momentum. It moves. I think fusion reaction is the promise of our future. If only we could make one.

Nor*

Research on fusion reaction is going on, vigorously. Since hydrogen is an abundant element, we can equate it to infinity. But availability of hydrogen in the fuel form, is what one of the major challenges is.

Saying a perpetual system neither creates nor destroys energy is not correct; at least that's what I feel. But the net energy is zero.

But I highly doubt it. Since we cannot negotiate any variable when deciding a system is perpetual or not. Perpetual systems, as of now, have only been a science fiction.
Yeah, you can challenge me with Solar Plane. But the motors wear off during every time it spins. The battery pack that stores extra energy loses some of it's capacity after every cycle.

But that's never a conclusion. With the advancement in Quantum Mechanics, research is going-on on self healing tech. If something like that is brought to the consumer, we can call it perpetual.