.

.

Blog posts automatically found on the internet.

Moderator: mods

User avatar
By joefaust
#73103
Sharing:
Recall that people had their ideas prior to filing dates.
Recall all of Benson's doing earlier.
Recall the tweaks of ornament in the poor glider kites of the 1950s with their control frames using the fundamental already known queenposting structures...common art available to any skilled maker, not novel mechanical inventing.
Palmer's final seventh or eighth solution refound the 1908 control arrangement that later JD also tinkerer to.
Attachments
swingrog.jpg
swingrog.jpg (30.82 KiB) Viewed 2037 times
palmertriangleframe_small.jpg
palmertriangleframe_small.jpg (2.22 KiB) Viewed 2037 times
3272457.jpg
3272457.jpg (31.4 KiB) Viewed 2037 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73107
Sharing:
1904 flexible wing gives a pause.
France.
Attachments
1904harfrance.jpg
1904harfrance.jpg (43.2 KiB) Viewed 2035 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73108
Barry Palmer did not sit on his refindings in his 1960-1962 hang glider foot-launch pursuits where he finally revisited the mechanical arts extant from at least 1908, but he went right on to a several powered versions where he played with the inverted T form of the queenposting airframe control of pilot positioning that had been demonstrated in the 1800s even and in 1908 and 1929 and more. Palmer's image and doings were given note in the large EAA and such help to spawn a growth of tricycled powered versions also years earlier demontrated by Fleep (four wheel) and Paresev (tricycle) and all the tricycle aircraft from 1800s forward.
Attachments
Palmer-Paraplane.jpg
Palmer-Paraplane.jpg (9.84 KiB) Viewed 2034 times
Last edited by joefaust on Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By joefaust
#73117
Wenham, at least, instructed the mechanical arts
of hung pilot in several formats on aircraft. He did so in words and drawings as republished in p. 105 of the chapter "Wenham on Aerial Locomotion" in James Means The Aeronautical Annual 1895, edited by James Means, republished by Michael A. Markowski (author of Hang Gliders Bible's Bible d(1977). Wenham fairly was tweaking Leonardo's instructed arts of triangle control frame and hung pilot functions for gliding and flapping craft. Mechanical invention? In public domain. Spratt did not invent the TCF, as it was actually in public domain already. Gottlob Espenlaub did not invent the harnessed hang glider pilot behind a TCF, as such was in public domain. Even the 1908 clear instruction of what we have today ...was of public domain.
Markowski can provide you with copies of his classic reprints of James Means book, a first step to know hang gliding ...there is much undone that our fathers instructed and put on the table. But let us respect what they did instruct and stay untenable claims at invention just because we are locally excited and want to hug our friends. :| :goodidea:

Also, part of the presentation is at
http://www.flyingmachines.org/wenh.html
in Flying Machines
Francis Herbert Wenham
1824 - 1908
Image
Attachments
wenh3.jpg
wenh3.jpg (42.47 KiB) Viewed 2032 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73121
Sharing files:
File image made before appreciating the 1908 full instruction on the TCF as we know it today; see prior sharings for such.
Attachments
hargravesinglepointhang.jpg
hargravesinglepointhang.jpg (49.24 KiB) Viewed 2031 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73124
Sharing files on topic:
Demonstrating the ornamentality of mechanical control mechanics that had already been invented decades earlier. The design is clean. The queenpost is used in neat appearing lines to control the pilot's hung position. This is rehash of mechanical invention that was extant prior to 1962, prior to 1910.
Attachments
Moto_delta-2.jpg
Moto_delta-2.jpg (28.25 KiB) Viewed 2029 times
phhg1.jpg
phhg1.jpg (9.51 KiB) Viewed 2029 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73138
Ornamentality further illustrated in the designs of microlights and ultralights:
Attachments
soviet1.jpg
soviet1.jpg (51.04 KiB) Viewed 2025 times
User avatar
By joefaust
#73424
:|
The question may need clarification. Some working axioms might help those who are aiming to get clarity:
Proposed axioms:
Here is a start in that direction:

Proposed axioms (PA#) are open for tweaking and discussion:

PA#1: Building something using the mechanical inventions of others--in whole and in part--knowingly or unknowingly--precludes one from being the global mechanical inventor of that which is so built, regardless of the immediate appearance ornamentally one finds in one's construction.

PA#2: When a kite-glider maker could have arrived at making his or her craft by paralleling the extant public-domain or patented mechanical principles, functions, and processes findable in the integrity of a similar device--regardless of the appearance quotient of either device, then that secondary maker is not a global mechanical inventor of what he or she makes, regardless of how locally he or she feels about his or her own construction.

PA#3: No amount of ornamental tweaking of extant mechanical invention into an artistic rendition in a made device gains a right to claim global mechanical invention over the mechanical integrity brought out in the fresh ornamentation.

PA#4: When a manufacturer's design-and-making squad makes a hang glider using mechanical integrities that are in the public domain prior to some specific date, then that squad has no obligatory pressure to reference a later-dated-tinkerer's device.

PA#5: A person who steps off a hill, platform, mountain, etc. with a hang glider and enters gliding flight is not necessarily the maker, designer, or inventor of the hang glider; she or she may be just a pilot or passenger of the hang glider. The designer, maker, or inventor may be completely distinct persons from the pilot who uses the hang glider to perform flight.

PA#6: Mechanical invention does not require that a device be materially made.

PA#7: Mechanical invention in human civilization--to be respected--must be communicated to persons other than the inventor in a manner that one skilled in the attending arts could make a materialized device incorporating the invented process, function, utility, or method.

PA#8: Ornamental invention does not require that a device be materially made.

PA#9: Ornamental invention in human civilization--to be respected--must be communicated to persons other than the inventor in a manner that one skilled in discerning appearance qualities of ornament could find novelty in the ornamental lines of the ornamental invention distinct from some lines in similar ornamentation presented in comparisons.

PA#10: Mechanical invention is distinct from ornamental invention.

PA#11: Local self-praise is inadequate for establishing global consensus as regards respect for mechanical invention.

PA#12: Gaining customers for an ornamental instantiation of a machine does not necessarily give any clue to the inventors of the mechanical integrities involved in the device.

PA#13: A hang glider that is copied, that is--acting as a template--, says nothing about whether the template maker is or is not the mechanical inventor of the mechanics involved in the template.

PA#14: It is possible that the identity of inventors of mechanical devices can be lost from record, while their inventions remain in public domain precluding global invention claim by a following maker.

PA#15: Getting one's name on a plaque, a diploma, shouted over the Net as mechanical inventor of a hang glider, and claimed as such by a series of followers and writers as a result of aggressive and even threatening loudspeak by oneself or one's approved representative, does not thereby soundly establish just rights to mechanical invention.

PA#16: A hang glider may exist apart from its being flown.

PA#17: Flying a hang glider is distinct from mechanically inventing a hang glider.

PA#18: Building a hang glider is distinct from mechanically inventing what is built.

PA#19: Embedding false meta-claims within a set of true story facts do not make the false claims any less false.


The proposed axioms for the game are open for discussion, tweaking, deletion, or extension. And there may be a need to have other axioms, so that clarity may be reached . The quest is probably important, as the manner in which the hang glider community respects mechanical invention and distinct ornamental invention may affect how the hang glider sector of culture is blessed by continued enthusiasm by further innovators.
Last edited by joefaust on Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By joefaust
#75103
Those researching the matter
may get advantage from:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12104

Caging of true facts together with untrue claims
is something that a researcher would watch for in the debate.

Distinguish between mechanical invention
and product ornamentation choices upon using
what had already been mechanically invented
will solve many of the overclaims made about
the kite-glider of this topic.
#75127
Who are the many people who invented modern hang gliders?
Have a giant adventure by exploring all that happened before May 1963.
When you do, there will be no doubt in your mind, I trust, that you will
know clearly that the standard rogallo hand glider as a mechanical object
was wholly and in part mechanically invented prior to 1963 ornamental tweaks of such mechanical invention. :punch: :mosh:

1961 filing:
See this filing in 1961 that covered invention of aircraft on point:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=HP5wAAAAEBAJ

Recall that the invention claims are written, not drawn; drawings are often a minor cut of the unverse covered in the written claims. And explore the years of used invention prior to the shown.

Here is a 1962 item that had been worked on and used prior to 1962 by years.
SOARING AND GLIDING AIRCRAFT Effinger et al in 1962
http://tinyurl.com/6aj4b2 :thumbsup:
This is just one of hundreds of bits of invention prior to April 23, 1963, that pertain to the story and questions.

Modern hang gliders were made and used prior to 1963. There are false claims being promoted by one guy for one guy. Actually, by 1909, mechanicals in whole that are being used in the false claims were extant.
Have fun studying the matter.


:popcorn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Hill_Palmer
Since flexible wing hang gliders were used decades before the 1963,
then the inventors of so-called "modern" flexible wing hang gliders were people in those earlier decades.
Code: Select all
Explore the guy who designed, made, and flew the following pictured craft. He, in 196-1962 employed inventions of others to be one of the first to fly a Rogallo wing hang glider.  By end of 1962 there were over 12 people who had hang glided from stiffenend Rogallo wing hang gliders in several formats and styles of launching and with several control systems.  Bless yourself by getting the full story. Distinguish meta claims that are false; yes, savor facts, but watch out for the giant  grab of unmerited status.   
Attachments
Palmer-Paraplane.jpg
Palmer-Paraplane.jpg (9.84 KiB) Viewed 2017 times
classic low saves

https://youtu.be/tlRTOxmY8jg empty lots se[…]

Thanks blindrodie, got lucky missing them! Here is[…]

Arcones, Spain

That was cool to watch, thanks a lot!

For This Wanker U-S Pilot. Kariotahi is where my R[…]