Electricity thru the Air
knews4...@yahoo.com
the_blogologist
anyone else can tap into it.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_team_lig
> hts_it_up____without_wires/
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?
> in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965
Eeyore
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_team_lights_it_up____without_wires/
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965
Yeah.
Stupid lab prank.
That's MIT's reputation down the drain.
Graham
Curly Surmudgeon
> nikola tesla invented this about 70 years ago.
Over a century ago. Must be a college prank, any engineer knows better.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willie...@gmail.com
> nikola tesla invented this about 70 years ago. The only problem is....
> anyone else can tap into it.
>
>
>
> >http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_tea...
> > hts_it_up____without_wires/
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology....
> > in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If we can keep people from copying audio files with digital locks and
keys in every mp3 player, we can keep people from pilfering power in
every power receiver.
The problem with any system is efficiency
http://www.tfcbooks.com/teslafaq/q&a_046.htm
Tesla I believe used the Earth itself as a conductor and then sent
power through the air in waves and in a way that it would not short
out to the Earth - except through a receiver tuned to the power in the
air and attached to the ground.
The MIT scientists seem to be using some form of radio wave - not
waves of current through a conductor - but electromagnetic waves -
between two coils that are tuned to one another - thus limiting
losses.- I believe this may be some sort of evanascent wave coupling
Other methods of beaming power through the air using microwaves and
lasers are also possible - and some have been reduced to practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transfer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_transmission
I have been working with laser power coupling for years. A silicon
cell is efficiently powered by an IR laser beam operating in the 1
micron range.
http://www.ipgphotonics.com/products_1micron.htm
Ytterbium fiber lasers pumped by concentrated filtered sunlight and
directed by optical fibers can be quite efficient (>10% achieved with
>40% theoretically feasible). Directed at a silicon array with near
perfect conversion to electricity (>85% achieved with fiber
connection, 98% theoretically feasible)
I didn't make any headlines though! haha.. Did write about it in
usenet. I guess it shows the power of usenet! lol.
With 4-wave mixing and careful timing of control and power pulses,
considerable power can flow through the environment to power things
without the big copper coils needed in the MIT apparatus - but
achieving pretty much the same damn thing as described there.
The real issue is lowering the cost of laser photons. Lasers cost
about $50 per peak watt - this must be reduced by a factor of about
100 - including interconnection hardware - before practical systems
can be contemplated.
So, that's the advantage of the MIT approach - they're already at the
right price point.
My plan is to bring low cost solar panels to market and then use a
portion of the profits to develop power beaming technologies by
reducing core cost centers in lasers and so forth.
I have a goal to build a 4 square mile array of 16 billion fiber
lasers each operating at 129 milliwatts pumped by sunlight, all tied
together by optical fiber generating 2 GW of laser energy. Each fiber
is fed by a 1 in sqare concentrator. The goal is for teh whole array
to cost less than $200 million !!! using much of the same technology
I've currently developed for my CPV solar panels. I will do this
within five years.
Stuart Grey
> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_team_lights_it_up____without_wires/
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965
Yeah, that's really old technology.
So?
Stuart Grey
> On Jun 9, 4:13 am, nob...@nowheres.com (the_blogologist) wrote:
>> nikola tesla invented this about 70 years ago. The only problem is....
>> anyone else can tap into it.
>>
>>
>>
>> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_tea...
>> > hts_it_up____without_wires/
>>
>> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology....
>> > in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> If we can keep people from copying audio files with digital locks and
> keys in every mp3 player, we can keep people from pilfering power in
> every power receiver.
Uh, no. One is information, the other power. There is no way to encrypt
power.
Sure, you can design a system that won't use EM power with a given code
modulated on it, but I can design a system that will ignore that, and my
system is far more simple.
Willie...@gmail.com
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:29:37 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 4:13 am, nob...@nowheres.com (the_blogologist) wrote:
> >> nikola tesla invented this about 70 years ago. The only problem is....
> >> anyone else can tap into it.
>
> >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_tea...
> >> > hts_it_up____without_wires/
>
> >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology....
> >> > in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > If we can keep people from copying audio files with digital locks and
> > keys in every mp3 player, we can keep people from pilfering power in
> > every power receiver.
>
> Uh, no. One is information, the other power.
That's obvious.
> There is no way to encrypt
> power.
Yes there is, you just reported one below.
> Sure, you can design a system that won't use EM power with a given code
> modulated on it,
There you go.
> but I can design a system that will ignore that,
But you won't be able to market it or operate it for long
> and my
> system is far more simple.
Sure, just as an MP3 player without all the code checking software is
more simple too. But if there is an encryption standard, your system
will only take a miniscule market share. Same here.
Gunner
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to
us." -- Western Union internal memo,1876.
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." -- Popular
Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of . ... science, 1949
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" -- H.M. Warner, Warner
Brothers, 1927.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." -- Marechal
Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole . ... Superieure deGuerre.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." -- Ken
Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital. .... Equipment Corp.,
1977
"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would
pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" -- David Sarnoff's
associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the
1920s.
"Who in their right mind would ever need more than 640k of ram!?" --
Bill Gates, 1981
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with
the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that
won't last out the year." -- Editor in charge of business books for
Prentice Hall, 1957
"But what ... is it good for?" -- Engineer at the Advanced Computing
Systems Division of IBM, ... 1968, commenting on the microchip.
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better
than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." -- A Yale University management
professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight
delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not
Gary Cooper." -- Gary Cooper, on his decision not to accept the leading
role in "Gone With The Wind."
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin,
president, Royal Society, 1895.
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." -- Spencer
Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for3-M "Post-It"
Notepads.
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even
built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us?
Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll
come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to
Hewlett-Packard, and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got
through college yet.'" -- Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on
attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's
personal computer.
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and
reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against
which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in
high schools." -- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's
revolutionary rocket work.
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil?
You're crazy." -- Drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his
project to drill for oil in 1859.
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau."
--Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction". -- Pierre
Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the
intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon". -- Sir John Eric Ericksen,
British surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." --
Decca Recording Co., when rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
"Try thinking of the Libertarian Party as a rolled-up newspaper,
useful in making the Republican puppy (I've given up on the Democratic bitch)
go where he's supposed to -- not on that beautiful antique carpet
we call the Constitution." -- L. Neil Smith, Bill Clinton's Reichstag Fire
Eeyore
Gunner wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/06/08/mit_team_lights_it_up____without_wires/
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=460602&in_page_id=1965
> >
> >Yeah.
> >
> >Stupid lab prank.
> >
> >That's MIT's reputation down the drain.
>
> "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
> as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to
> us." -- Western Union internal memo,1876.
You're a gullible twit too are you ?
Trying to associate a worthless 'invention' with a useful one via a series of irrelevant quotes is pretty idiotic.
Join Mookie.
Graham
Don Lancaster
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
RadicalModerate
> "Try thinking of the Libertarian Party as a rolled-up newspaper,
> useful in making the Republican puppy (I've given up on the Democratic bitch)
> go where he's supposed to -- not on that beautiful antique carpet
> we call the Constitution." -- L. Neil Smith, Bill Clinton's Reichstag Fire
And what have you to show this still isn't the case about the L.P.?
About all the Libertarian Party is good for is siphoning votes
away from the G.O.P.
For instance in the unlikely event Ron Paul became our next President,
how long would he last before he was either (a) impeached and removed from
office or (b) assassinated by an element of Jihad, Inc?
--
The published From: address is a trap.
Gunner
There are none so blind as those that cannot see.
Gunner
Gunner
Good question. Lets put him in office and find out.
He has to be better than the HildaBeast.
Gunner
Eeyore
Gunner wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> >You're a gullible twit too are you ?
> >
> >Trying to associate a worthless 'invention' with a useful one via a series of >irrelevant quotes is pretty idiotic.
> >
> >Join Mookie.
> >
> >Graham
>
> There are none so blind as those that cannot see.
There are no so stupid as can't see the obvious flaws with such a ridiculous idea.
Graham
Gunner
My irony meter just burst into flames.
Tony Wesley
> Gunner wrote:
[snip]
> They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
And at least two of Gunner's quotes are bogus.
Eeyore
Tony Wesley wrote:
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> > They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>
> And at least two of Gunner's quotes are bogus.
He's another energy fantasist. He probably thinks it grows on trees too.
Graham
Terryc
> There are none so blind as those that cannot see.
Naah, the poroblem is that we see too much. Much more than the scammers
want us to see.
Lets face it, if any of these fantastic devices really worked even 10%
of their claims, then this usenet group would be most talking about
space survival instead of when TSHTF survival.
Eeyore
Tony Wesley wrote:
> Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
>
> > They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
>
> And at least two of Gunner's quotes are bogus.
I found this hilarious 'info' about splitting water using the 'Joe cell'.
Q. How exactly can a Joe Cell run an engine?
The Joe cell is is an electrolytic capacitor. It builds up a charge within, and
ionises the vapour. This then travels along a tube either within the engine
manifold or into the engine direct thru any surface, bolt, etc. The Pistons are
moving and creating static charge field of air and moving components. This
transfers within the engine ionization saturation and spark discharge, which are
the classical plasma physics associated with this humble Joe Cell.
Q. What "fuel" is consumed?
No fuel is consumed in the Joe Cell process we are pursuing here. A 1.5-v
battery is affixed to maintain the charge across plates, but it is not depleted
but only serves as a reference for the cell. Other Joe cell applications
function somewhat like an electrolizer, but that isn't really what is happening
in this application. No water is consumed. In fact, no matter/energy
transference occurs at all at any level of the system. And It is pure newtonian
physics like you learned in high school! Totally frictionless!
Q. How will you know if the cell is charged?
Possibly you'll know the cell is charged when hairs on the back of your kneck
tell you. Try as you put the back of your hand near the Cell and see if the hair
lifts.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Joe_Cell:FAQ
In the first part of April, 2006, Bill Williams told a discussion list that he
successfully tested a device known as the Joe Cell. It allegedly feeds off
Orgone energy and uses electrically charged water as the "gate" or medium
through which the aetheral energy is drawn from the surroundings and transferred
to the automobile engine. He was in process of disclosing how he accomplished
this when confronted on April 11 by two unidentified individuals who told him to
cease all of his alternative energy work or there would be dire consequences.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Bill_Williams'_Joe_Cell
Graham
Terryc
> He's another energy fantasist. He probably thinks it grows on trees too.
err, sorry guys, but that is how I'm keeping warm tonight {:-).
Gunner
wrote:
At least 187 of yours are bogus as well.
Gunner
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Gunner
Blink blink...say what?
Gunner
wrote:
" I tell you Wilber..that damned contraption will never fly!"
Gunner
Indeed. Sounds like a scam to me.
Now about those pesky microchips....?
Terryc
>>Lets face it, if any of these fantastic devices really worked even 10%
>>of their claims, then this usenet group would be most talking about
>>space survival instead of when TSHTF survival.
> " I tell you Wilber..that damned contraption will never fly!"
Well, that was just plain ignorance. simple.
People had been "flying" for years. All the wright brothers did was to
put a motor on the "plane". Thier problem was getting a light enough
motor and the working propellor, but they did "fly"
These other guys have been making these claims for decades and never
once have we seen their plane in the air.
At best it goes
1) ere is my aeroplane gentlemen
2) here is the motor on my aeroplane gentlemen.
3) Now please return to the barn whilst we conduct the flight.
4)People in barn here buzzing loud noise
5) see, we have shown you we can fly
< and coincidentally parked the aeroplane on exactly the same spot as
before>
If someone is doing it, he is really smart and keeping it all to himself.
I'm just suspscious of the guys who want my money.
Actually, the myth busters did demonostrate a perpetual motion machine
the other day. That interconected LPG cyclinder one at about 1 rev per
hour. Well, sort of. Unfortunately, it was driven by a couple of flood
lights and I'm not sure it would work out in full sunlight. There are
far better stirling engines around than that.
The US Patent Office is correct; "we only accept patents with working
models".
I just find it amazing how hard some people find it to give up beleiving
in the tooth fairy, santa claus and the easter bunny.
Gunner
wrote:
I find it fascinating that the old saying.
"technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic"
is proven daily.
One of my favorite replies to those ignorant of technlogy, when Im
asked how something works. is
"Its run by FM"
When pressed...I tell em FM stands for Fucking Magic.
Terryc
>
> I find it fascinating that the old saying.
> "technology advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic"
> is proven daily.
Following your lead; examples?
"if this free energy stuff was "proven daily", then we would all have a
different attitude.
So far, it hasn't been proven once in a century.
P.S. to support your argument, I'll remind you of bumble bees. It was
only a few years ago when we figured out a scientific explanation as to
how they can fly .
Robert Miller
"Terryc" <newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4671f363$0$1188$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
Sure it has!, but it wasn't free to you. Even when the source is free,
collecting it may not be free. A hydro-electric dam collects it's energy
for free plus the cost of maintaining the system. If you have a stream and
10 or 15 ft of fall you can tap the same source for the cost of equipment
and labor.
Tesla had another idea to collect free energy. First you would need a
huge capacitor the bigger the better. Erect an antenna, and a ground
to draw an electrical current directly from the sky, he would pull the
current off the system into the capacitor with a simple spark gape and
rotor. Naturally you have to protect the system from lightning strikes.
For it is a natural lightning rod.
It would simply using free ions in the atmosphere and channeling them
back to ground siphoning off a small amount of the power for free.
Gunner
wrote:
Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
fly.
Yet you automatically nay-say. As did those folks whom I quoted.
Fascinating.
FM
Terryc
> Sure it has!, but it wasn't free to you. Even when the source is free,
> collecting it may not be free. A hydro-electric dam collects it's energy
> for free plus the cost of maintaining the system. If you have a stream and
> 10 or 15 ft of fall you can tap the same source for the cost of equipment
> and labor.
Yer, I already do that with the downpipes on my house, and it isn't free
energy. It is driven by the solar system.
>
> Tesla had another idea to collect free energy.
Last century dimwit.
Same as hydro.
Actually, Tesla was probably the last one to do so.
> First you would need a
> huge capacitor the bigger the better. Erect an antenna, and a ground
> to draw an electrical current directly from the sky, he would pull the
> current off the system into the capacitor with a simple spark gape and
> rotor. Naturally you have to protect the system from lightning strikes.
> For it is a natural lightning rod.
Mythbusters demonstrated that this was false. Lol, they ran the test in
a metal cladded building. They certainly are entertaining those guys.
Now back to a serious question. Has any "free" enery device worked this
century. I'd love to save on my electricty bill.
strabo
Something similar was said about Tesla's neon light and radio waves.
As for space travel beyond a few months duration, consider the
psychological and physical limitations.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Tony Wesley
> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
> fly.
Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
Eeyore
Tony Wesley wrote:
It's a well-known myth that anything of the kind was ever said.
Graham
Stuart Grey
I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
web.
Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
seconds to find on the web. If you want the scientific paper, you can look
up Magnan 1934 in the library, I doubt it has been digitized yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Bee_flight
Bee flight
In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
In 2005, scientists at Caltech "demystified" honey bee flight with
the assistance of high-speed digital photography and a giant robotic
mock-up of a bee wing[2].
http://mr.caltech.edu/media/Press_Releases/PR12772.html
Although the issue is not as profound as how the universe began or
what kick-started life on earth, the physics of bee flight has perplexed
scientists for more than 70 years. In 1934, in fact, French entomologist
August Magnan and his assistant André Sainte-Lague calculated that bee
flight was aerodynamically impossible. The haphazard flapping of their
wings simply shouldn't keep the hefty bugs aloft.
And yet, bees most certainly fly, and the dichotomy between prediction
and reality has been used for decades to needle scientists and engineers
about their inability to explain complex biological processes.
Robert Adsett
says...
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:42:13 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 6:16 am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
> >> fly.
> >
> > Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>
> I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
> can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
> web.
>
> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
> seconds to find on the web. If you want the scientific paper, you can look
> up Magnan 1934 in the library, I doubt it has been digitized yet.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Bee_flight
>
> Bee flight
>
> In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
> flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
You have noticed, I hope, that is not the same as claiming it is
impossible for them to fly. "I don't know" and "It's not possible" are
two very different answers.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dan Bloomquist
>>>Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
>>>fly.
>>
>>Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>
> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
> seconds to find on the web. If you want the scientific paper, you can look
> up Magnan 1934 in the library, I doubt it has been digitized yet.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Bee_flight
>
> Bee flight
>
> In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
> André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
> flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
And there you go. No claim of 'impossible', only that the state of the
science could not account. There is a big difference.
Tony Wesley
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:42:13 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 6:16 am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
> >> fly.
>
> > Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
> I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
> can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
> web.
I'm not the one putting forward the claim.
> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
> seconds to find on the web.
And nothing there says that bees can't fly.
Thanks for helping to confirm that it's bogus to claim that science
said bee flight is impossible. And in 30 seconds.
Curly Surmudgeon
You shouldn't be too surprised. For a couple of decades now we've had
American religion misleading their sheep in all aspects of science for
real science ridicules their superstition. These people are intentionally
ignorant so don't be too harsh on them for they know no better.
.
But that doesn't mean we should sit silently while their misconceptions
are passed to the next generation as anything other than what it is,
intentional misrepresentation and denial of reality. Thanks for
correcting the disinformation above.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thegreen.stanleylieber.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Bloomquist
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:50:43 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Tony Wesley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
>>>>fly.
>>>
>>>Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>>
>>It's a well-known myth that anything of the kind was ever said.
>
>
> You shouldn't be too surprised. For a couple of decades now we've had
> American religion misleading their sheep in all aspects of science for
> real science ridicules their superstition. These people are intentionally
> ignorant so don't be too harsh on them for they know no better.
> .
> But that doesn't mean we should sit silently while their misconceptions
> are passed to the next generation as anything other than what it is,
> intentional misrepresentation and denial of reality. Thanks for
> correcting the disinformation above.
This should be good........
Curly Surmudgeon
Expect character assassination in response, if the pattern follows.
religionists devolve into vicious, often violent, attacks when their
ridiculous superstition and groveling is under the microscope. They
cannot argue the facts so they hurl bile when repudiated.
Thankfully mankind is outgrowing such childish behavior and beliefs,
albeit painfully slowly. To religionists I say, "grow up, grow a spine,
get out of those caves and take the bone out of your nose.
Take responsibility for your actions. Your god isn't an excuse."
Don Lancaster
> In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
> André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
> flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
>
What part of "current insight" are you having difficulty comprehending?
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Gunner
wrote:
>Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
>> André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
>> flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
>>
>
>What part of "current insight" are you having difficulty comprehending?
My but that was a sudden goal post change on your part.
Shrug
Gunner
"Try thinking of the Libertarian Party as a rolled-up newspaper,
useful in making the Republican puppy (I've given up on the Democratic bitch)
go where he's supposed to -- not on that beautiful antique carpet
we call the Constitution." -- L. Neil Smith, Bill Clinton's Reichstag Fire
Bob Brock
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:96sd731rmsf9jmamv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:13:20 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>> In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
>>> André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
>>> flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
>>>
>>
>>What part of "current insight" are you having difficulty comprehending?
>
>
> My but that was a sudden goal post change on your part.
>
> Shrug
How does that relate to a claim that scientist said it was impossible for a
bumblebee to fly? Reading you is so tedious. It's like watching a kid bang
his head on a wall.
Dan Bloomquist
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:13:20 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>>In 1934 August Magnan, a French entomologist, and his assistant
>>>André Sainte-Lague claimed that current insight into the aerodynamics of
>>>flight was unable to account for flight in bumblebees.
>>>
>>
>>What part of "current insight" are you having difficulty comprehending?
>
> My but that was a sudden goal post change on your part.
Golly Gunner. How do you read, and I'll quote, 'Correct..but prior to
that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to fly.', from Stuart's
post?
Your claim of 'goal post change' is only obfuscation.
Bob Brock
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:JDCdi.10631$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
You will find that he and stewie support each other like that.
Tony Wesley
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:13:20 -0700, Don Lancaster
Speaking of sudden goal post shifts, how about one scientific citation
that says bumblebee flight was impossible?
Don Priebe
> that says bumblebee flight was impossible?
Or some reason why this is posted to misc.taxes?
Stuart Grey
The flight of Bees conflicted with known theory; they shouldn't haven been
able to fly. Since it was observed that bees do fly, the scientist would
say that there was something wrong with the theory. It is quite true to
say that in theory, bees shouldn't be able to fly.
So, why were you asking for proof if you were going to ignore it, anyway?
Eeyore
Stuart Grey wrote:
> The flight of Bees conflicted with known theory; they shouldn't haven been
> able to fly. Since it was observed that bees do fly, the scientist would
> say that there was something wrong with the theory. It is quite true to
> say that in theory, bees shouldn't be able to fly.
What complete rubbish.
Graham
Stuart Grey
Gunner knows that Bees can fly.
Gunner pointed out that it was once known that the flight of bees was no
explained by science, that according to scientific theory at the time,
bees could not fly.
Since Gunner knows that Bees can fly, you're claim that he was saying bee
flight is impossible is simply the childish bullshit of someone with their
head up their ass.
I hope this helps.
Stuart Grey
> On Jun 17, 2:23 pm, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:42:13 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
>> > On Jun 15, 6:16 am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
>> >> fly.
>>
>> > Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>
>> I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
>> can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
>> web.
>
> I'm not the one putting forward the claim.
Which has nothing to do with my snide remark that you have no access to
the scientific journals that have the scientific citations that you said
you wanted to be shown, thus, such citations are useless to you and thus,
you're just asking to be a pain in the ass.
>> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
>> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
>> seconds to find on the web.
>
> And nothing there says that bees can't fly.
You're a gibbering idiot if you think Gunner was saying that bees just
crawled around and couldn't fly.
Please take a moment and try and express what you're really trying to say.
> Thanks for helping to confirm that it's bogus to claim that science
> said bee flight is impossible. And in 30 seconds.
Well, yes. Once again, I've shown that providing liberals with facts is a
god damned waste of time. I may as well be throwing the Physical Review at
pigs.
Stuart Grey
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:50:43 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Tony Wesley wrote:
>>
>>> Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
>>> > fly.
>>>
>>> Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>>
>> It's a well-known myth that anything of the kind was ever said.
>
> You shouldn't be too surprised. For a couple of decades now we've had
> American religion misleading their sheep in all aspects of science for
> real science ridicules their superstition. These people are intentionally
> ignorant so don't be too harsh on them for they know no better.
Yes. Creationism is a pathetic joke. The religious right does piss on both
physics and evolution with that pseudo-scientific fabrication.
Other Pseudo-scientific fabrications:
- All races have exactly the same mean IQ and IQ distributions, and gene
flow is instantaneous for IQ. (Ignorance of evolution)
- IQ doesn't exist (Ignorance of genetics)
- IQ and behavior has no genetic basis. (Ignorance of genetics)
- Global warming is man made. (Ignorance of chemistry and physics)
- Religion is bad (ignorance of cultural anthropology)
It's a pretty long list. All in all, the left wing is as much into
pseudo-scientific crap as the right wing, maybe even more so.
> But that doesn't mean we should sit silently while their misconceptions
> are passed to the next generation as anything other than what it is,
> intentional misrepresentation and denial of reality. Thanks for
> correcting the disinformation above.
Actually, I've shown that it was claimed at one time that bee flight was
not predicted by theory, so you have your head up your ass; as usual.
Stuart Grey
Current insight == theory.
Theory == science.
Q.E.D.
yet, your head is still in your ass, and this isn't going to have any
effect at all. Like a tick, the only way we can get your head out is to
set your ass on fire.
Stuart Grey
Sigh. Read the thread. Been there, done that.
Stuart Grey
Let's see...
I provide the citations and authors of the paper that the flight of bees
conflicted with known theory. Thus, it was quite true to say that bees
should not be able to fly, in theory.
I noted that bees do indeed fly.
It is a principle of science that if theory conflicts with observation,
the theory is shown to not apply.
Not an iota of "rubbish" in my post. You just didn't like it, because
you're a jackass. Have a nice day, Eeyore.
Eeyore
Stuart Grey wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:48:20 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Stuart Grey wrote:
> >
> >> The flight of Bees conflicted with known theory; they shouldn't haven been
> >> able to fly. Since it was observed that bees do fly, the scientist would
> >> say that there was something wrong with the theory. It is quite true to
> >> say that in theory, bees shouldn't be able to fly.
> >
> > What complete rubbish.
>
> Let's see...
>
> I provide the citations and authors of the paper that the flight of bees
> conflicted with known theory. Thus, it was quite true to say that bees
> should not be able to fly, in theory.
Not at all.
Scientific theory doesn't trump observed facts. The facts clearly demonstrated
that the theory was incomplete.
Graham
Bob Brock
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4677DC84...@hotmail.com...
Most of stewie's theories are incomplete, so he should at least be a
techincal expert in incomplete theories. In fact, if one ever needs an
incomplete theory, I'd send them to stewie.
Tony Wesley
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:23:37 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
> > On Jun 17, 2:23 pm, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:42:13 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
> >> > On Jun 15, 6:16 am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
> >> >> fly.
>
> >> > Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>
> >> I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
> >> can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
> >> web.
>
> > I'm not the one putting forward the claim.
>
> Which has nothing to do with my snide remark that you have no access to
> the scientific journals that have the scientific citations that you said
> you wanted to be shown, thus, such citations are useless to you and thus,
> you're just asking to be a pain in the ass.
I'm still interested if someone can find such a citation.
> >> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
> >> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
> >> seconds to find on the web.
>
> > And nothing there says that bees can't fly.
>
> You're a gibbering idiot if you think Gunner was saying that bees just
> crawled around and couldn't fly.
One poster accurately predicted that personal insults would follow.
It's mildly amusing that you try to shift from the subject being
discussed to an ad hominem attack.
> Please take a moment and try and express what you're really trying to say.
Pretty simple: I don't believe Gunner's claim.
> > Thanks for helping to confirm that it's bogus to claim that science
> > said bee flight is impossible. And in 30 seconds.
>
> Well, yes. Once again, I've shown that providing liberals with facts is a
> god damned waste of time. I may as well be throwing the Physical Review at
> pigs.
You sure get frustrated when asked to back up your statements.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > You're a gibbering idiot if you think Gunner was saying that bees just
> > crawled around and couldn't fly.
> One poster accurately predicted that personal insults would follow.
> It's mildly amusing that you try to shift from the subject being
> discussed to an ad hominem attack.
What is more than mildly amusing is when he berates the world for doing
just that - and then acts all prissy about it.
> You sure get frustrated when asked to back up your statements.
Many of his staements have o basis in fact.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Stuart Grey
> On Jun 19, 8:57 am, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:23:37 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
>> > On Jun 17, 2:23 pm, Stuart Grey <stuart.g...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:42:13 +0000, Tony Wesley wrote:
>> >> > On Jun 15, 6:16 am, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Correct..but prior to that..it was claimed it was impossible for them to
>> >> >> fly.
>>
>> >> > Show us any scientific citation that claims this.
>>
>> >> I suppose I could look up a SCIENTIFIC citation for you, since you are
>> >> can't do it yourself, but you'd probably not be able to access it on the
>> >> web.
>>
>> > I'm not the one putting forward the claim.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with my snide remark that you have no access to
>> the scientific journals that have the scientific citations that you said
>> you wanted to be shown, thus, such citations are useless to you and thus,
>> you're just asking to be a pain in the ass.
>
> I'm still interested if someone can find such a citation.
You are? So, either you've not read the thread, or you're one of these
people who are in denial and giving you a citation is an exercise in
futility, like giving physics papers to a pig.
>> >> Here are some websites as citations for the history of the claim that
>> >> Bees can't fly according to aerodynamic theory. It took me all of 30
>> >> seconds to find on the web.
>>
>> > And nothing there says that bees can't fly.
>>
>> You're a gibbering idiot if you think Gunner was saying that bees just
>> crawled around and couldn't fly.
>
> One poster accurately predicted that personal insults would follow.
I don't insult, I make observations.
> It's mildly amusing that you try to shift from the subject being
> discussed to an ad hominem attack.
The irrelevant argumentum ad hominem is the fallacy of talking about the
man rather than the subject.
For example, my saying that anthropogenic global warming is a lie because
Al Gore takes money from the Chinese, who would stand to make trillions of
dollars if the US signs Kyoto, would be an irrelevant argumentum ad
hominem.
However, saying that the reason Al Gore foists this fraud on the American
people is because he's in the pocket of the Chinese is NOT an irrelevant
argumentum ad hominem, as the subject is why Al Gore is advocating a
laughably false theory.
So, when I am asked for cites by people who later ignore them, I explain
why they are in denial.
< snip gibber >
Bul thistle
I think I'll go watch Jerry Springer..
B
Terryc
> Yet you automatically nay-say.
Experience.
100% of people who say "I have an idea to make money" will never make
money from that idea.
and
99.999% of people when asked to explain anything scientifically do not
have a clue of wtf they are talking about.
but, the guy who staright up says "fscked if I know, but I can show it
to you" will at least have an audience of one.
I'm open, but the "piss off flaps" have ultra thin hair triggers.
I have more important things in life to do.
> As did those folks whom I quoted.
Yawn. Lots of people said those two guys had made fusion power work too.
>
> Fascinating.
>
> FM
>
> Gunner
>
> This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
> Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
> Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
> Using only naturally occuring fibers
> Use the Message with confidance.
> (Some settling may occure in transit.)
> (Best if Used before May 13, 2009)
Gunner
wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>
>> Yet you automatically nay-say.
>
>Experience.
>
>100% of people who say "I have an idea to make money" will never make
>money from that idea.
100% eh? Fascinating. So no one makes any money.
>
>and
>
>99.999% of people when asked to explain anything scientifically do not
>have a clue of wtf they are talking about.
and 87.45% of all Usenet stats are made up on the fly after being pulled
out of ones ass.
>
>
>but, the guy who staright up says "fscked if I know, but I can show it
>to you" will at least have an audience of one.
>
>I'm open, but the "piss off flaps" have ultra thin hair triggers.
>I have more important things in life to do.
>
>
>> As did those folks whom I quoted.
>
>Yawn. Lots of people said those two guys had made fusion power work too.
Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
Gunner
Fred Kasner
The people who knew about aerodynamics were not telling them they were
wrong about heavier than air flight machines. They were telling them
that the ideas about flight control were probably not going to work. In
fact they did but were technically too demanding. So devices other than
wing warping were invented that were easier to use. Manual wing warping
died with the Wright Brothers.
FK
Don Lancaster
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:26:22 +1000, Terryc <newsones...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yet you automatically nay-say.
>>
>>Experience.
>>
>>100% of people who say "I have an idea to make money" will never make
>>money from that idea.
>
>
> 100% eh? Fascinating. So no one makes any money.
>
Basic problem in reading comprehension.
Ideas do not make money.
Developed and proven products do.
See http://www.tinaja.com/blat01.asp for dozens of tutorials on why.
>
> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>
> Gunner
>
The Wright Bother's were, of course, dead wrong.
Their most notable net lifetime acheivement was to SET BACK the US
aviation efforts by MANY DECADES because of their interminable patent
litigation hassles over obsolete technology.
Terryc
>>Experience.
>>
>>100% of people who say "I have an idea to make money" will never make
>>money from that idea.
>
>
> 100% eh? Fascinating. So no one makes any money.
So you are illiterate.
<plonk>
Terryc
>
> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
But they were all Americans and we know how stupoid they were.
at thesame time, Australians were making far longer unpowered flights
flights.
Gunner
wrote:
So the Wright Brothers never flew?
Damn..my teachers lied to me!!
Gunner
"Abortion is self defense"
Bob Kolker
Gunner
wrote:
>Gunner wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:26:22 +1000, Terryc <newsones...@woa.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gunner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yet you automatically nay-say.
>>>
>>>Experience.
>>>
>>>100% of people who say "I have an idea to make money" will never make
>>>money from that idea.
>>
>>
>> 100% eh? Fascinating. So no one makes any money.
>>
>
>Basic problem in reading comprehension.
>
>Ideas do not make money.
>Developed and proven products do.
Painting yourself in the corner and then trying to weasel out is poor
practice on your part.
>
>See http://www.tinaja.com/blat01.asp for dozens of tutorials on why.
>
>>
>> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>
>The Wright Bother's were, of course, dead wrong.
So they never flew?
>
>Their most notable net lifetime acheivement was to SET BACK the US
>aviation efforts by MANY DECADES because of their interminable patent
>litigation hassles over obsolete technology.
So they never flew?
Gunner
wrote:
Embarrassed he painted himself into a corner. Seems to be happening a
lot today.
Gunner
wrote:
So are you claiming the Aussies were too stupid to put an engine on an
airframe?
Tim Ward
>
> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>
> Gunner
Can you name one who said so after 1908?
Tim Ward
Tim Ward
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yLyfi.1023$K44...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> The people who knew about aerodynamics were not telling them they were
> wrong about heavier than air flight machines. They were telling them
> that the ideas about flight control were probably not going to work. In
> fact they did but were technically too demanding. So devices other than
> wing warping were invented that were easier to use. Manual wing warping
> died with the Wright Brothers.
> FK
Do you have a cite for this?
In point of fact, it was the generally-accepted aerodynamics that was wrong.
Most people working on the problem of controlled flight were not even
_considering_ control of all three axes.
As late as 1908, when Wilbur made demonstration flights in Europe, those
Europeans that were flying in short hops were still trying to turn by using
rudder only.
By 1909, of course, three-axis control was "obvious".
The 1900 glider showed them that differential lift (wing warping was the
mechanism, not the invention) could provide lateral control.
The 1901 glider showed them that the generally accepted values for lift and
drag of curved surfaces and flat-plate drag were spectacularly wrong.
Thus the wind-tunnel work to determine usable values, and the controlled
flights of the 1902 glider.
With the 1902 glider they worked out the relationship of the controls:
differential lift to roll the glider, rudder to offset the adverse yaw of
the differential lift. IMO, it is a far more significant aircraft than the
1903 Flyer.
The 1903 Flyer just needed to add enough power to allow some climb, and
because of their measurements of the 1902 glider, they had a good idea of
how much that was.
The development of the practical airplane at Huffman Prarie in 1904-1905
refined the control and led to the recognition of the necessity for
coordinated flight in order to avoid the stall-spin.
The unfortunate part of the generally accepted aerodynamic values being
incorrect is that after that, the Wrights were deeply suspicious of any data
that wasn't their own. This hurt them in the rapid expansion of aerodynamic
knowledge that followed their demonstration flights in 1908.
Tim Ward
Tim Ward
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:5e7sehF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> The Wright Bother's were, of course, dead wrong.
>
> Their most notable net lifetime acheivement was to SET BACK the US
> aviation efforts by MANY DECADES because of their interminable patent
> litigation hassles over obsolete technology.
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don:
While I have a great regard for your technical abilities, on this subject
you are full of crap.
Wilbur died in 1912, nine years after the first flight.
Orville sold the patent rights and the Wright company in 1915, twelve years
after the first flight, and and only seven years after the demonstration
flights of 1908, previous to which there was no aviation industry to hold
back, U.S. or otherwise.
The U.S. government arbitrarily ended the patent feuding going on amongst
_all_ aviation companies with the "patent pool" of 1917, fourteen years
after the first flight, only nine after the Wrights' first demonstration .
Even taking the somewhat absurd position that the requirement to pay a
royalty for the use of the three-axis control patent completely prevented
_any_ innovation in aeronautics up until 1917, it's hard to make nine years
stretch over three decades. The Wrights were perfectly willing to license
the patent. Many manufacturers did.
The long-running lawsuit filed by the heirs of John Montgomery in 1917 and
settled in 1928, in favor of the defendants, was never more than a nuisance
suit.
It was filed against (by that time) the Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation
and the U.S. government. The suit against Wright-Martin was dropped in
1921. The idea was to prove that the government had bought aircraft that
infringed on Montgomery's 1905 patent on "wings with a parabolic curvature".
It had no effect on innovation.
Neither the Wrights nor the owners of the Wright patent filed it.
It did have the effect of archiving much of the Wright's correspondence and
research, which is probably why it gets referred to so often.
If you want to use that suit to show that as far back as 1905 the patent
office was giving out goofy patents, I won't argue.
If you want to use that suit to show that as far back as 1917 greedy lawyers
would use gullible people to sue "deep pockets" or the government, again, I
won't argue.
I know that you are aware of these easily-checkable facts, because I have
posted them before.
While I realize you've grown fond of your smug one-liner, if you're going to
claim three decades of "holding back aviation" by the Wrights, you should
support your position.
Can you? Or will you simply use the Hannon "proof by repeated assertion"?
Tim Ward
Don Lancaster
The single most significant lifetime acheivement of the Wright
Brother(s) was to set US avaition BACK by several decades due to
interminable litigation over obsolete technology.
Gunner
wrote:
>Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> news:4e8t739qlto6k55co...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>>>
>>>Gunner
>>
>>
>> Can you name one who said so after 1908?
>>
>> Tim Ward
>>
>>
>Just about every US attorney.
>
>The single most significant lifetime acheivement of the Wright
>Brother(s) was to set US avaition BACK by several decades due to
>interminable litigation over obsolete technology.
Odd...Mr. Ward produced both cites and data that refute your claim, yet
you continue to make it.
Is there some reason for your continued drum beating along these lines
which flies in the face of truth?
Stuart Grey
Scientific American magazine was convinced the Wright Brother's flight
was a hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers
In 1904 Ohio beekeeping businessman Amos Root, a technology enthusiast,
saw a few flights including the first circle. Articles he wrote for his
beekeeping magazine were the only published eyewitness reports of the
Huffman Prairie flights, except for the unimpressive early hop local
newsmen saw. Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but
the editor turned it down.
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/wright.htm
In fact, as late as 1905, the Scientific American magazine mentioned the
flight only to suggest it was a hoax.
Tim Ward
Don:
Please support your assertion.
If the technology is obsolete, why would anyone incorporate it into a new
product?
Why would Boeing have incorporated 3-axis control into the 787 if that
technology is obsolete?
True, the surfaces are no longer actuated with cables, as the Flyer's were,
but the aircraft is still rolled by differentially changing the lift on the
wings. The adverse yaw moments are still compensated by using rudder.
Wing warping was a means of implementing the invention. It was not the
invention.
Virtually every aircraft produced today would violate the Wrights patent.
Regarding lawsuits, how could the Wrights have held back aviation by several
decades when:
Wilbur died in 1912, only four years after the 1908 demonstration flights
that began practical flight.
Orville sold the patent rights and the Wright company in 1915, seven years
after the demo flights.
The U.S. government arbitrarily ended the patent feuding going on amongst
_all_ aviation companies with the "patent pool" of 1917, nine years after
the first flight. That isn't even one decade.
Even taking the position that the requirement to pay a royalty for the use
of the three-axis control patent completely prevented _any_ innovation in
aeronautics up until 1917, it's hard to make fourteen years stretch over
"several decades".
The long-running lawsuit WASN'T FILED BY THE WRIGHTS OR THE OWNERS OF THE
WRIGHT PATENTS.
It was filed by the heirs of John Montgomery in 1917.
BY THE TIME IT WAS FILED, EVERY MANUFACTURER HAD ACCESS TO THE WRIGHT PATENT
BY GOVERNMENT FIAT.
It was never more than a nuisance suit. It was filed against (by that time)
the Wright-Martin Aircraft Corporation and the U.S. government. The suit
against Wright-Martin was dropped in 1921. It was settled in 1928, in favor
of the government
It's main effect was to have Orville Wright testify about what he recalled
of the development of the first practical airplane, which is probably why
it's so well-known.
Tim Ward
Don Lancaster
monumental legal hassles caused by the Wright Brother(s) that utterly
devastated US avaition for several decades, allowing foreign (especially
British and French) dominance.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Any objective review of US aviation history thoroughly details the
> monumental legal hassles caused by the Wright Brother(s) that utterly
> devastated US avaition for several decades, allowing foreign (especially
> British and French) dominance.
Don - When you first said this, I belieed it. But then Tim started
posting facts and dates and complete arguements, and I was a little
sceptical of the claim.
But now that you say it again, I'm totally convinced.
Not.
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Any objective review of US aviation history thoroughly details the
> monumental legal hassles caused by the Wright Brother(s) that utterly
> devastated US avaition for several decades, allowing foreign (especially
> British and French) dominance.
Would you care to elucidate ?
Graham
Tim Ward
recalled
> > of the development of the first practical airplane, which is probably
why
> > it's so well-known.
> >
> > Tim Ward
> >
> >
> >
> Any objective review of US aviation history thoroughly details the
> monumental legal hassles caused by the Wright Brother(s) that utterly
> devastated US avaition for several decades, allowing foreign (especially
> British and French) dominance.
>
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Ah. The "everybody knows I'm correct" reply. A dress and some lipstick, I
see, but it's still a pig.
Tim Ward
Tim Ward
"Stuart Grey" <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j8-dnZzGgZz9lR7b...@comcast.com...
That would be somewhat before 1908, would it not?
My point here is that any doubts about the Wright's ability to fly
evaporated after their demonstration flights.
"Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too" comes up with
most odd ideas. Overunity devices, "water-powered cars", magnetic motors,
you name it. The people using it miss the point that the Wrights provided
reliable evidence that they could indeed fly by _actually_flying_.
The Wrights flew the 1903 Flyer, told people they'd flown, and then shut the
hell up while they were developing a practical airplane and learning to fly
it.
Don is correct about money being made only from viable products, not just
good ideas. That's why the Wrights went back to Dayton and didn't open
their mouths much again until they had a salable product.
I don't know why Don has his panties in a bunch over the Wrights. I can only
guess that he prefers his clever line over the facts.
Tim Ward
Stuart Grey
> "Stuart Grey" <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:j8-dnZzGgZz9lR7b...@comcast.com...
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:46:56 -0700, Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>> > "Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4e8t739qlto6k55co...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>> >>
>> >> Gunner
>> >
>> > Can you name one who said so after 1908?
>>
>> Scientific American magazine was convinced the Wright Brother's flight
>> was a hoax.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Brothers
>>
>> In 1904 Ohio beekeeping businessman Amos Root, a technology enthusiast,
>> saw a few flights including the first circle. Articles he wrote for his
>> beekeeping magazine were the only published eyewitness reports of the
>> Huffman Prairie flights, except for the unimpressive early hop local
>> newsmen saw. Root offered a report to Scientific American magazine, but
>> the editor turned it down.
>>
>> http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/wright.htm
>>
>> In fact, as late as 1905, the Scientific American magazine mentioned the
>> flight only to suggest it was a hoax.
>
> That would be somewhat before 1908, would it not?
>
> My point here is that any doubts about the Wright's ability to fly
> evaporated after their demonstration flights.
Yes, I thought that was your point. Since the Wright Brother's first flew
on December 17th, 1903, I assumed you made a typo; saying 2008 when you
meant 1903.
Now you're saying you really did mean 1908, which is fine, but totally
irrelevant to the claim "Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they
were wrong too".
I guess you're just a contrary cuss who doesn't mind latching onto some
irrelevant gibber and looking like a fool in order to claim your right
about something.
The simple fact is, lots of people didn't believe the Wright Brothers
flew, and still told them they were wrong AFTER they flew.
Oh well. It takes all kinds of people, I guess.
Stuart Grey
Unpowered flights, of course, were worthless. Perhaps the Australians
didn't know unpowered flights (or uncontrolled flights) were worthless,
because they were "stupoid" (sic).
Stuart Grey
> Virtually every aircraft produced today would violate the Wrights patent.
Patents expire after 17 years.
Stuart Grey
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:50:54 +1000, Terryc <newsones...@woa.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they were wrong too.
>>
>>But they were all Americans and we know how stupoid they were.
>>at thesame time, Australians were making far longer unpowered flights
>>flights.
>
>
> So are you claiming the Aussies were too stupid to put an engine on an
> airframe?
Well, they were too ignorant. It's not a simple calculation to figure out
how big an engine and what kind of propeller you need for a given size
airplane, or to realize that you have to implement this engine in
something light weight. The Wright brothers worked this out.
Gliders are easy. Putting an engine on it; big enough to provide the
power, turn the prop the right number of revolutions, and yet be light
enough to support the airframe and payload, that was the genius of the
Wright Brothers.
Tim Ward
<some snippage by Tim>
Tim Ward wrote:
> > That would be somewhat before 1908, would it not?
> >
> > My point here is that any doubts about the Wright's ability to fly
> > evaporated after their demonstration flights.
> Yes, I thought that was your point. Since the Wright Brother's first flew
> on December 17th, 1903, I assumed you made a typo; saying 2008 when you
> meant 1903.
No, I said 1908, rather than 1903, because 1908 was the year the Wrights
made public demonstration flights. Up until that time, they had not really
sought publicity. They were, perhaps, known to people trying to develop
airplanes, but the average person would never have heard of them.
> Now you're saying you really did mean 1908, which is fine, but totally
> irrelevant to the claim "Lots of folks told the Wright Brothers they
> were wrong too".
Prior to 1908, it was not unreasonable for people to doubt that the Wrights
had flown, even though they had. It was an extraordinary claim. The
supporting evidence was not widely available. There was even speculation in
the French press just before the demo flights that Wilbur was just a hoaxer,
and no flights would occur.
> I guess you're just a contrary cuss who doesn't mind latching onto some
> irrelevant gibber and looking like a fool in order to claim your right
> about something.
It's irrelevant whether evidence has been provided for a claim? I don't
agree. If that makes me contrary, oh well. I certainly can't see why it
would make me a fool.
>
> The simple fact is, lots of people didn't believe the Wright Brothers
> flew, and still told them they were wrong AFTER they flew.
After they had flown, yes. After they had provided convincing evidence, no.
After 1908, it would have been foolish to believe they hadn't flown.
Hundreds of thousands of people had witnessed it. It was a two place
airplane, so a fair number had flown, themselves.
>
> Oh well. It takes all kinds of people, I guess.
So it would appear.
Tim Ward
Bill Ward
And then there are those who would say they just spoiled a perfectly good
glider. ;->
Tim Ward
No. Can't be. How could the Wrights have hobbled the U.S. aviation industry
for three decades with a 17 year patent?
Yes. I knew as soon as I hit send that phrasing of "violate" would come back
to bite me. Nevertheless, more than a hundred years later, the principles
used by the Wrights to control their fixed-wing airplane are the principles
used by modern aeronautical engineers to control fixed-wing airplanes.
Tim Ward
Tim Ward
Who are we talking about in Australia?
Hargraves? As far as I can see, he didn't build gliders, he built
man-carrying kites, and flew them at Stanwell Park.
If you're talking about Pearse, technically speaking, he was in another
country, New Zealand.
But the television show about him was produced by Australian TV. Oh, and
according to the letter to the editor he wrote to the Christchurch newspaper
in 1923, his experiments were carried out in March of 1904, and while he
made short hops, he never achieved control of the airplane. But of course,
that's just the man himself, referring to his notebooks. His neighbors
apparently knew better.
If there's someone I'm not aware of, I'd certainly like to become aware. Got
a name?
Tim Ward
Stuart Grey
> "Stuart Grey" <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:V86dnUtJw9elTRjb...@comcast.com...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:34:21 -0700, Tim Ward wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Virtually every aircraft produced today would violate the Wrights
> patent.
>>
>> Patents expire after 17 years.
>
> No. Can't be. How could the Wrights have hobbled the U.S. aviation industry
> for three decades with a 17 year patent?
Actually, I was full of shit. Patents last for 20 years, not 17. I don't
know what I was thinking, maybe I was counting from the day the patent was
granted. Patents provide the protection from the filing date.
I have no idea how even a twenty year patent can hobble aviation for 30
years. That is a mystery. Heck, by making the technology public rather
than keeping it a trade secret, I'd think they aided the spread of
aviation. But then, what do I know? I'm not a student of aviation history.
> Yes. I knew as soon as I hit send that phrasing of "violate" would come back
> to bite me. Nevertheless, more than a hundred years later, the principles
> used by the Wrights to control their fixed-wing airplane are the principles
> used by modern aeronautical engineers to control fixed-wing airplanes.
We could get weaselly here, and point out that the principles developed
don't apply to supersonic flight, but what the hell, I could argue that
one both ways.
Tim Ward
Say what? Supersonic aircraft aren't rolled by aerodynamic surfaces to
turn?
I'll grant there's some interesting engineering required in the transonic
range as shock waves move across the aircraft, but as far as I know the
control system works the same way: roll, and let the wing lift the airplane
around the turn.
By all means, give me the arguments that supersonic aircraft use different
control principles.
In fact, the Flyer used a pitch control surface that pivoted, changing only
it's angle of attack, not its camber. The X-1 program found that this
"stabilator" sort of design was key to going supersonic while maintaining
control. As the shock wave moved across the more conventional
stabilizer/elevator setup, it would "blank" the elevator, with a decrease in
pitch control. To go supersonic, Yeager controlled the pitch with the trim,
which moved the whole stabilizer/elevator assembly. Once the shockwave had
moved to the trailing edge, elevator control was regained.
And wing warping, while out of style, is not as dead or obsolete as one
might think. You might want to Google on "active aeroelastic wing" or X-53.
Tim Ward
Robert Miller
"Terryc" <newsones...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:467285e8$0$1189$61c6...@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Robert Miller wrote:
>
>> Sure it has!, but it wasn't free to you. Even when the source is free,
>> collecting it may not be free. A hydro-electric dam collects it's energy
>> for free plus the cost of maintaining the system. If you have a stream
>> and
>> 10 or 15 ft of fall you can tap the same source for the cost of equipment
>> and labor.
>
> Yer, I already do that with the downpipes on my house, and it isn't free
> energy. It is driven by the solar system.
>
We earthlings do not have to pay for the energy that drives the system.
>>
>> Tesla had another idea to collect free energy.
>
> Last century dimwit.
> Same as hydro.
>
> Actually, Tesla was probably the last one to do so.
>
>> First you would need a
>> huge capacitor the bigger the better. Erect an antenna, and a ground
>> to draw an electrical current directly from the sky, he would pull the
>> current off the system into the capacitor with a simple spark gape and
>> rotor. Naturally you have to protect the system from lightning strikes.
>> For it is a natural lightning rod.
>
> Mythbusters demonstrated that this was false. Lol, they ran the test in a
> metal cladded building. They certainly are entertaining those guys.
>
>
> Now back to a serious question. Has any "free" enery device worked this
> century. I'd love to save on my electricty bill.
>
>