Kite Strings

2015/08/05 03:00:00 UTC - Content under revision.
---
2015/08/05 03:50:00 UTC - Content revised. Comments to follow.
---
2015/08/06 11:00:00 UTC - Content revised again. See following posts.
---

Brian Scharp - 2015/08/01 21:22:35 UTC

Lever Link

http://www.kitestrings.org/post8188.html#p8188

Jeff Roberson - 2015/08/03 15:17:38 UTC

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the link. I'm glad somebody (anybody) is discussing the Lever link idea!

I'd be happy to discuss the idea further with Tad as he appears to have some strong ideas/beliefs/feelings about this subject. But from his comments to date (2015/08/03), it is quite clear to me that he has not actually read the entire article in depth. For starters, he seems to have missed the fact that my design requires the complete elimination of the keel pocket. (I agree that getting rid of the keel pocket is a good idea.) Secondly, regarding the matter of keel attachment, I clearly describe how the lower keel/control bar static truss structure connects to the upper leading/edge/crossbar static truss structure using a pin joint at the nose. The hang glider described in my article is actually a machine composed of two moving parts which are free to move relative to one another (i.e. the lower structure is free to rotate about the pin joint at the nose (the keel can "wag" relative to the LE/X-Bar) and the sail, attached at the rear of the keel, is the member which (strongly) resists this relative motion.)

Also I do have my doubts about Tad's qualifications to rationally discuss this in a scientific/engineering language. Has he studied Newtonian mechanics and does he understand the importance of a free-body diagram that shows all external forces vectors acting on a body, and how they must sum up to zero to achieve steady-state equilibrium? And that when the sum of all forces acting on a body do NOT sum to zero, that there will be an acceleration proportional to and in the direction of the net resultant external force vector?

If anyone wants to rationally discuss my Leverlink idea, I am all ears. However, the discussion must consist of accepted scientific principles, (i.e. math and physics) otherwise I will not waste my time. (e.g. In the New observations on floating crossbar, keel pocket thread here on the Oz report, Karl Stice presented several ideas based solely on intuition which have no basis in reality. I gave up trying to talk physics with him.)

Thanks again for the link,
Jeff Roberson

p.s. As a general rule, I do NOT use the forum's PM system. I am an Open-Source kind of guy and prefer to discuss everything out in the open (e.g. the two threads I linked to at the end of the Forward section of my article). If Tad were to re-read my article and present a coherent rational scientific argument (sans emotional adjectives and adverbs) against my device on the Kite Strings forum, I would certainly be inclined to join that forum and discuss it there as well. Although a new thread would need to be created - (the Lever link idea has nothing to do with "Skyting Demolition"). Cheers!

Brian Scharp - 2015/08/03 17:09:27 UTC

Thanks for responding Jeff. I didn't have any other contact info for you. With permission I could forward your PM as a PM to Tad or start a new subject thread at Kite Strings with it. Or I could bump an old thread here with his comments. He's banned here, but I'm sure he'd respond at Kite Strings.

Jeff Roberson - 2015/08/03 18:39:09 UTC

Thanks for the quick response.

Feel free to forward any/all of my PM messages to Tad, but please note the conditions I placed on what it will take to get me to respond (i.e. a notable critique will be described in engineering terms: forces, moments, time, distance, velocity, acceleration, equilibrium, etc. preferably augmented with descriptive free-body diagrams showing all the relevant forces).

Note that there are many folk who do not understand/believe that the LL is a good idea. I have given up trying to explain the idea in words and have concluded that the only way I'll ever get traction for this idea is to actually build one to prove that it works (as I know it will). Until then, I am not going to bump any of the existing threads (although I will certainly respond to any thoughtful responses posted by others.)

Cheers!
Jeff

Brian Scharp - 2015/08/01 21:22:35 UTC

Lever Link

http://www.kitestrings.org/post8188.html#p8188

Yeah that's where this topic is picking up from.

Jeff Roberson - 2015/08/03 15:17:38 UTC

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the link. I'm glad somebody (anybody) is discussing the Lever link idea!

Yeah, notice who and where.

I'd be happy to discuss the idea further with Tad as he appears to have some strong ideas/beliefs/feelings about this subject.

Hopefully ideas and up. I try to keep beliefs and feelings out of technical discussions.

But from his comments to date (2015/08/03), it is quite clear to me that he has not actually read the entire article in depth.

Correct.

For starters, he seems to have missed the fact that my design requires the complete elimination of the keel pocket.

No it doesn't. Maybe you mean the EXTENDED keel pocket of three and a half decades ago that was supposed to deliver power steering but instead just gave us extra drag.

(I agree that getting rid of the keel pocket is a good idea.) Secondly, regarding the matter of keel attachment, I clearly describe how the lower keel/control bar static truss structure connects to the upper leading/edge/crossbar static truss structure using a pin joint at the nose. The hang glider described in my article is actually a machine composed of two moving parts which are free to move relative to one another (i.e. the lower structure is free to rotate about the pin joint at the nose (the keel can "wag" relative to the LE/X-Bar) and the sail, attached at the rear of the keel, is the member which (strongly) resists this relative motion.)

Also I do have my doubts about Tad's qualifications to rationally discuss this in a scientific/engineering language.

Fine, so do I. But you're in a religious cult flavor of aviation without much to choose from. In hang gliding the force being transmitted through the towline from the tug to the glider is...

Towing Aloft - 1998/01

Pro Tip: Once you gain experience under tow, you will learn to feel the tow pressure on your harness to anticipate speed and position changes. If you feel the force increase, you will invariably climb with regard climb with regard to the tug, and vice-versa. Learn to react to the pressure for a more steady tow in calm conditions, then gradually experience more active air.

"PRESSURE".

Has he studied Newtonian mechanics and does he understand the importance of a free-body diagram that shows all external forces vectors acting on a body, and how they must sum up to zero to achieve steady-state equilibrium?

I dunno. But I had a good enough grasp of this stuff to totally debunk physics professor Donnell Hewett's Skyting Theory - the single biggest disaster in the history of aviation theory and implementation - which nobody else had done in near three deadly decades worth of opportunity.

And that when the sum of all forces acting on a body do NOT sum to zero, that there will be an acceleration proportional to and in the direction of the net resultant external force vector?

If anyone wants to rationally discuss my Leverlink idea, I am all ears. However, the discussion must consist of accepted scientific principles, (i.e. math and physics) otherwise I will not waste my time.

If this doesn't get into the air and working you've already wasted a lot of your time. Not an entire waste, though. It's good to see ideas get out there and well documented.

(e.g. In the New observations on floating crossbar, keel pocket thread here on the Oz report, Karl Stice presented several ideas based solely on intuition which have no basis in reality. I gave up trying to talk physics with him.)

Good thing you weren't trying to talk physics on an issue that would've presented a threat to Davis and the u$hPa industries he's in bed with. He'd have given up the talk for you with his lock and ban buttons.

Thanks again for the link,
Jeff Roberson

p.s. As a general rule, I do NOT use the forum's PM system. I am an Open-Source kind of guy and prefer to discuss everything out in the open (e.g. the two threads I linked to at the end of the Forward section of my article).

Me too.

If Tad were to re-read my article and present a coherent rational scientific argument (sans emotional adjectives and adverbs) against my device on the Kite Strings forum, I would certainly be inclined to join that forum and discuss it there as well.

Tad's re-read your article and is now of the persuasion that the Lever Link WOULD function as you predict.

Although a new thread would need to be created...

OK.

...(the Lever link idea has nothing to do with "Skyting Demolition").

Well... This diagram:



bears a striking resemblance to (a rather crude) one on Page 5 of the 1982/09 issue of Donnell Hewett's Skyting newsletter. That one is flat out wrong/backwards. This one, as it shows no connection of the pilot to the basetube, is open to misinterpretation. If the pilot has pulled and is holding himself over to the left the glider will roll left as indicated. If he's BEEN pulled over by a towline or electromagnet the glider will roll in the opposite direction.

Granted, you show only a gravity vector pulling straight down so we have to assume weight shift control only so you're right and I'm wrong. Apologies. But when we're in an environment like THIS:

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=27217
Bad Launch!

Ryan Voight - 2012/09/26 14:23:55 UTC

Running to the right = weight shift to the right.

It's all about what the glider feels. Running to the right pulls the hang loop to the right, just like when you weight shift at 3,000 ft. Glider doesn't know or care what means you used to pull the hang loop to the right.

michael170 - 2012/09/26 19:52:56 UTC

Are you sure about that, Ryan?

Ryan Voight - 2012/09/26 20:05:16 UTC

You were never taught to run toward the lifting wing?

Yes, I'm sure.

I can (and have) run across a field and steer the glider without ever touching the DT's by simply changing the direction I run. At the beach (or South Side) I like to practice kiting my wing with no hands, and just moving my hips (and stepping if necessary) left/right.

Pulling the hang loop to the right is pulling the hang loop to the right- glider don't care if you're dangling beneath it or still touching the ground. As long as your mains are tight, you can weight shift it!

...one seldom goes wrong by assuming the worst and moving on.

Cheers!

Brian Scharp - 2015/08/03 17:09:27 UTC

Thanks for responding Jeff. I didn't have any other contact info for you.

Me either. And I didn't have the option of communicating with you via The Davis Show.

With permission I could forward your PM as a PM to Tad or start a new subject thread at Kite Strings with it. Or I could bump an old thread here with his comments.

Fuck that. The Davis Show doesn't deserve to have any attempts at rational discussion on it. And it appears to me that about two weekends ago he locked it back down so that only people on Davis's approved list can access it. I'll need to get on a device with none of my cookies to assure myself. Kite Strings has ALWAYS been fully accessible to anyone who can read English or get it translated.

He's banned here...

And just about everywhere else as well. And if you (Jeff) check out the discussions you'll note that I was banned for being right about stuff that everybody else was wrong and/or lying about.

Check out the circumstances in which Davis banned me from his shit heap:

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=592
Linknife

Any comment?

...but I'm sure he'd respond at Kite Strings.

Ya think?

Jeff Roberson - 2015/08/03 18:39:09 UTC

Thanks for the quick response.

Feel free to forward any/all of my PM messages to Tad, but please note the conditions I placed on what it will take to get me to respond (i.e. a notable critique will be described in engineering terms: forces, moments, time, distance, velocity, acceleration, equilibrium, etc. preferably augmented with descriptive free-body diagrams showing all the relevant forces).

Sorry, good diagrams are out of my league. Bob's really excellent at diagrams but when he then goes on about the harmlessness of stalls, the extreme danger of lifting one's wing into the turbulent jet stream at launch, and Torrey tandem paragliding instructors risking the lives of people of varying ages by inducing near frontal collapses...

Note that there are many folk who do not understand/believe that the LL is a good idea.

I now understand it and agree that it's a good idea but don't believe it's a good idea for implementation.

I have given up trying to explain the idea in words and have concluded that the only way I'll ever get traction for this idea is to actually build one to prove that it works (as I know it will).

- You're also gonna need to either have or build an otherwise identical glider minus the Lever Link so's that you have a control. And then you've got the problem of quantifying the handling performance advantage and assessing weight and drag penalties with respect to it.

- Based upon my experiences trying to get douchebag manufactures to build aerotow releases into their gliders the way I've done with my own glider and sailplane manufacturers have ALWAYS done with ALL of their gliders I feel pretty safe in assuring you that you will NEVER get any traction for this idea.

Until then, I am not going to bump any of the existing threads (although I will certainly respond to any thoughtful responses posted by others.)

You take a look at these Davis Show Zack Marzec postmortem threads:



and tell me just how much tolerance there is for thoughtful responses over there.

Cheers!
Jeff

I think it's a clever but not a very useful or viable idea.

If one isn't particularly interested in performance we have very light handling Falcon type gliders. If one is then we've got toplesses with VGs so's we can make the in-flight trade-off to handling a lot cheaper, simpler, lighter, cleaner. And we can make ANY glider handle TOO easily by pulling on speed - which any competent pilot WILL DO anyway when safety is an issue 'cause that also puts more distance between him and stall speed.

And hang gliding is saturated by a class of "pilots" utterly convinced that we've got so much roll authority as it is that most or all of it needs to be squandered to handle dangerous situations most safely. That's why we have Christopher LeFay's Five Second Rule for staying upright after a ramp launch, assholes going upright at the beginnings of long finals, and all of our tow releases within easy reach. (When you get your Lever Link up and running try to find out how much of an advantage you have flying with one hand.)

You can do these force diagrams and equations a lot better than I can but we need people like you prioritizing existing big bang-for-buck targets like autocorrecting bridles, easily reachable bent pin releases, Infallible Weak Links, stand-up spot landings, backup loops, and spreaders positioned to keep carabiners from being crushed.

Out of deference to Brian and concern for his position I took down every word, number, and punctuation mark of your deeply personal and completely out-of-context remarks. My responses to them are my responses to them and they remain.

I did an extensive search for the context I omitted to misrepresent and distort your intent and came up totally empty but I'll take your word for it.

To an extremely stupid reader, this new thread may appear to be an open discussion between you and "I" but, looking at my hit counts, I'm pretty sure I don't have enough stupid readers over here to be worth worrying about. Just about all of the stupid readers and writers in this sport seem to occupied 24/7 jerking each other off on the Jack and Davis Shows and local club forums.

Most of my readers, I'm pretty sure, and all of my active participants, I'm absolutely sure, clearly recognized the post for exactly what it was because it's obvious what it was and follows the pattern of the vast majority of my six thousand plus previous posts here.

You might wanna take a skim of the 8160 previous total posts here and find somebody besides Bob, whom I banned when his count had gotten up to 69, attacking anyone with out-of-context quotes and ask yourself why you've been singled out for such abuse.

Or maybe the problem is that you're not in the habit of choosing your words carefully and there actually weren't any out-of-context quotes.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38155
Steve Pearson on Wills Wing Innovations

Jeff Roberson - 2014/07/03 23:32:26 UTC

I just wonder when one of these "innovative" hang glider manufacturers will go so far as to even acknowledge the existence of my Lever Link:

http://www.jmrware.com/articles/2008/leverlink/LeverLink.html

design idea. (Which, once implemented, will simply redefine roll authority for flex-blade-wings - and may very well prove to be the greatest innovation since the advent of the double surface).

Six years and counting since I first published that article and yet not one peep heard from the lot of them.

Six plus one years and counting now.

Funny thing is, when I told John Dickenson about this, he said (paraphrasing): "Great idea - but be sure to get a patent on it or the manufacturers will steal it out from under you."

To this I reply: "Please - steal away!"

That's exactly what I told Rob Kells regarding my...

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=939
Weak link breaks?

Dan Tomlinson - 2005/08/31 00:33:01 UTC

Tad's post is difficult to read but I've seen his work. His release mechanism is elegant in its simplicity and effectiveness.

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=233
AT releases

Hugh McElrath - 2005/03/05 17:02:56 UTC

Thanks, Tad. I was too green to fully appreciate your system when you showed it to me a couple of years ago. Now I'm more interested. Do I have to fabricate this myself from parts or are you in business?

http://www.chgpa.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3347
Tad's barrel release tested

Janni Papakrivos - 2008/06/30 15:35:44 UTC

Tad showed me the release system he installed in Hugh's glider. I was amazed at the quality and complexity of the system. Being able to tow and release without ever having to take your hands off the base tube is wonderful and much safer.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=12587
weak links (here we go)

Patrick Halfhill - 2009/06/21 23:22:23 UTC

You and I met at the ECC a few years ago. We spent 45 minutes or more together going over your system. I saw it first hand. I was quite impressed with the quality of engineering and the time you spent on it.

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?t=11497
Aerotow release options?

Walt Conklin - 2009/05/03 16:19:44 UTC

Very nice engineering, Tad. I can see a lot of thought went into the systems and there is always room to "build a better mousetrap".

...two point aerotow release system. But the stuff Rob slaps on his demo gliders...


http://ozreport.com/pub/images/fingerlakesaccident2.jpg
http://ozreport.com/pub/images/fingerlakesaccident3.jpg


...is good enough just about...

Joe Gregor - 2004/09

The weak link broke after the glider entered a lockout attitude. Once free, the glider was reportedly too low (50-65 feet AGL, estimated) to recover from the unusual attitude and impacted the ground in a steep dive. The pilot suffered fatal injuries due to blunt trauma. There is no evidence that the pilot made an attempt to release from tow prior to the weak link break, the gate was found closed on the Wallaby-style tow release.

...all the time.

I actually BUILT my concept and put it in the air and Antoine duplicated it and put it in the air in France. I also helped Joe Street with his slap-on version:

01-1225
http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7436/13700570583_049b5b7ded_o.png

02-1302
http://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7117/13700891354_b31d51ed74_o.png

03-1304
http://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2938/13700558193_0e0946218e_o.png


It's gotten into reasonably widespread circulation and it's a pretty good bet that it limited a 2013/07/21 tandem crash in France to being a single fatal.

And note that the hated and deadly Tad-O-Link suddenly went into universal use right after the 2013/02/02 Davis Link inconvenience fatality. There's been absolutely nobody the slightest bit unhappy with it to date.

I'd gone out on the Jack and Davis Shows advocating MY babies and taken all manner of shit from the "moderators" and dickheads and cocksuckers they nurture. I find it exceedingly strange that somebody with a concept that would revolutionize hang glider roll control would be so very particular about having it publicized and discussed and being given an opportunity and platform on which to defend and promote it.

Be sure to keep me tuned in to any impending progress so I'll know when I should start holding my breath.

Hello everyone, this is my first post here at kitestrings. I am Jeff Roberson, the author of the Leverlink article. This thread is purportedly a discussion of this idea and I'd like shed some light on Tad's first post above. I joined this forum for the express purpose to add some context - as it stands above, it is quite confusing!

My PM exchange with Brian Scharp
Summary: Brian sent me a private message on the Oz Report website the other day with a link to the "Skyting demolition" thread here on the kitestrings forum. This thread was currently discussing my Lever Link idea and Brian figured I might be interested to know that my idea was being actively discussed. I am, and thanks Brian! I first tried to join this forum to add a comment, but discovered that this was a moderated forum which required approval from Tad. In general I don't like joining exclusive forums which require approval, so instead of commenting directly to the thread, I send a PM back to Brian with a summary of my first thoughts on the discussion and told him it was ok to send my comments to Tad. Tad took the entire text of this private message exchange between Brian and I, then published it here without describing where my words came from and added his comments. I considered this bad form (and just plain rude), so I told him so in my last PM to Brian.

Here is the complete PM exchange between Brian and myself:
1.)------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian's initial PM sending me a link to an ongoing discussion: (2015-08-01 3:22:35 pm MDT)

Brianscharp wrote:http://www.kitestrings.org/post8188.html#p8188

2.)------------------------------------------------------------------------
I encountered this first PM from Brian two days after he sent it. I followed the link, read the portions of the thread discussing to the LL idea, then responded to Brian as follows: (2015-08-03 9:17:38 am MDT)

ridgerunner wrote:Hi Brian,

Thanks for the link. I'm glad somebody (anybody) is discussing the Lever link idea!

I'd be happy to discuss the idea further with Tad as he appears to have some strong ideas/beliefs/feelings about this subject. But from his comments to date (2015/08/03), it is quite clear to me that he has not actually read the entire article in depth. For starters, he seems to have missed the fact that my design requires the complete elimination of the keel pocket. (I agree that getting rid of the keel pocket is a good idea.) Secondly, regarding the matter of keel attachment, I clearly describe how the lower keel/control bar static truss structure connects to the upper leading/edge/crossbar static truss structure using a pin joint at the nose. The hang glider described in my article is actually a machine composed of two moving parts which are free to move relative to one another (i.e. the lower structure is free to rotate about the pin joint at the nose (the keel can "wag" relative to the LE/X-Bar) and the sail, attached at the rear of the keel, is the member which (strongly) resists this relative motion.)

Also I do have my doubts about Tad's qualifications to rationally discuss this in a scientific/engineering language. Has he studied Newtonian mechanics and does he understand the importance of a free-body diagram that shows all external forces vectors acting on a body, and how they must sum up to zero to achieve steady-state equilibrium? And that when the sum of all forces acting on a body do NOT sum to zero, that there will be an acceleration proportional to and in the direction of the net resultant external force vector?

If anyone wants to rationally discuss my Leverlink idea, I am all ears. However, the discussion must consist of accepted scientific principles, (i.e. math and physics) otherwise I will not waste my time. (e.g. In the "New observations on floating crossbar, keel pocket" thread here on the Oz report, Karl Stice presented several ideas based solely on intuition which have no basis in reality. I gave up trying to talk physics with him.)

Thanks again for the link,
Jeff Roberson

p.s. As a general rule, I do NOT use the forum's PM system. I am an Open-Source kind of guy and prefer to discuss everything out in the open (e.g. the two threads I linked to at the end of the Forward section of my article). If Tad were to re-read my article and present a coherent rational scientific argument (sans emotional adjectives and adverbs) against my device on the Kite Strings forum, I would certainly be inclined to join that forum and discuss it there as well. Although a new thread would need to be created - (the Lever link idea has nothing to do with "Skyting Demolition"). Cheers!

3.)------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian graciously responded in short order: (2015-08-03 11:09:27 am MDT)

Brianscharp wrote:Thanks for responding Jeff. I didn't have any other contact info for you. With permission I could forward your PM as a PM to Tad or start a new subject thread at Kite Strings with it. Or I could bump an old thread here with his comments. He's banned here, but I'm sure he'd respond at Kitestrings.

4.)------------------------------------------------------------------------
To which I said: (2015-08-03 12:39:09 pm MDT)

ridgerunner wrote:Thanks for the quick response.

Feel free to forward any/all of my PM messages to Tad, but please note the conditions I placed on what it will take to get me to respond (i.e. a notable critique will be described in engineering terms: forces, moments, time, distance, velocity, acceleration, equilibrium, etc. preferably augmented with descriptive free-body diagrams showing all the relevant forces).

Note that there are many folk who do not understand/believe that the LL is a good idea. I have given up trying to explain the idea in words and have concluded that the only way I'll ever get traction for this idea is to actually build one to prove that it works (as I know it will). Until then, I am not going to bump any of the existing threads (although I will certainly respond to any thoughtful responses posted by others.)

Cheers!
Jeff

5.)------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian then sent Tad the texts of both my PMs. Tad then created a new thread and proceeded to directly quote the text from my (private) PMs without explaining where my words came from. I found this to be rather rude and replied thusly: (2015-08-04 7:28:19 pm MDT)

ridgerunner wrote:Brian,

It appears that Tad has decided to publish the full text of our private PM discussion (which I never intended to be public) with ZERO CONTEXT on his public forum. To a reader, this new thread appears to be an open discussion between he and I, but it is NOT. I told you it was ok for you to send these messages to him to read, but I assumed he would respect that this was a private discussion between you and I.

How rude!

As an OpenSource guy, I have nothing to hide and regret nothing that I said. He may choose to delete this completely-out-of-context post of his, or not. (Although I would prefer that he did.) If I want to say something on his forum, I will join it, choose my words carefully, then post it (using my real name or not - usually not). I have no problem with anything he said about the lever link - just the parts where he directly quotes me completely out-of-context.

I'm pretty sure that we're done here.
ridgerunner

p.s. You may share this PM with Tad but please do NOT make this public!

END of PM Exchange)------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian evidently forwarded this to Tad, who (with honor and respect) removed my words taken from the PM exchange, (thank you Tad). Unfortunately, he left a bunch of empty quotes, which makes the initial post in this thread pretty much incoherent gibberish. Thus, I have joined this forum for the express purpose of clearing this up a bit. If Tad wishes to discuss my LeverLink idea, I am still happy to do so, but I would prefer that he delete this entire abortion of a thread and start over with a *coherent* initial post (using his own words/thoughts specifically regarding the Lever Link idea).

Cheers, and thanks once again for considering my LeverLink idea.

Hello everyone...

A rather modest number here.

...this is my first post here at kitestrings.

- Kite Strings.
- Welcome. Glad to have you here and posting.

This thread is purportedly a discussion of this idea and I'd like shed some light on Tad's first post above. I joined this forum for the express purpose to add some context - as it stands above, it is quite confusing!

Most hang glider people are hopelessly confused about the differences between:
- angle of attack and pitch attitude
- tension and pressure
- hang checks and hook-in checks
- five seconds and five minutes
- releases and weak links
I'm pretty sure we do a lot better than that here.

Brian sent me a private message on the Oz Report website...

Yeah, I haven't had that option since the better part of eight months prior to the founding of Kite Strings. Otherwise we could've cut out the middleman and have had this discussion over three and a half years ago.

I am, and thanks Brian! I first tried to join this forum to add a comment, but discovered that this was a moderated forum which required approval from Tad.

Or Zack, Steve, or Brian if he wanted to. This isn't and never has been a dictatorship.

In general I don't like joining exclusive forums which require approval...

But you're obviously totally OK with joining exclusive shit heaps like the Jack and Davis Shows run by lying serial killing sociopaths who ban anyone they feel like for whatever reason they feel like and prohibit references to the individuals they've back-stabbed.

I got news for ya, Jeff... ALL glider forums are "moderated" and all of the ones that show up on the radar are exclusive. And the people most likely to be excluded are the ones who know that they're talking about.

And I think if you nose around the archives a bit you'll find Kite Strings the most astoundingly unmoderated forum on the planet. Members have never been the slightest bit restricted in what they want to say - short of spam and sabotage - and the total douchebags who've been banned or are prebanned get a really embarrassing volume of their material posted and fully addressed here.

http://www.kitestrings.org/post8096.html#p8096

Bob Kuczewski - 2015/07/11 18:16:54 UTC

I just wanted to offer a general thanks for all of the information that you capture and preserve on your site. I find it to be a helpful reference when all else fails.

There's nothing else in existence anything remotely like it.

When we started Kite Strings we left it open and got lotsa fakes and spammers. So I shifted things so's that approval is required. If someone appears to be a legitimate individual with a legitimate interest I click him in as soon I check the queue and see him. Known assholes need not apply. And we've never had a known asshole protesting that he actually wasn't an asshole.

...so instead of commenting directly to the thread, I send a PM back to Brian with a summary of my first thoughts on the discussion and told him it was ok to send my comments to Tad.

If you had instead registered you'd have been in pretty quick 'cause I was checking the queue very frequently and some complications could have been averted.

Tad took the entire text of this private message exchange between Brian and I...

I'm a grammar freak. Objective pronoun. "...between Brian and ME". Language is important in communications and in aviation correct precise language can make the difference between life and death. Your math and science is better than mine. Get the English on par. A lot of it uses the same logic which underlies the science and math.

...then published it here without describing where my words came from and added his comments. I considered this bad form (and just plain rude), so I told him so in my last PM to Brian.

- Hey, Kite Strings readers... Anybody have a problem understanding what was going on with that post?

- And if anybody hadn't understood what was going on what possible difference could it have made? What dangerous misconceptions might have been taken away?

- I delayed for near fourteen hours waiting to hear from you. There was nothing in your posts problematically personal or private and the gist of my post was that you were right and I'd made a bogus assumption and had been wrong (for years). So I went with it. I do not consider that to be bad form and/or just plain rude. In fact I'd have considered it to have been bad form and rude NOT to go with it. And I also kinda do consider not registering 'cause you don't like being moderated and exclusive forums bad form - and astoundingly naive.

- And for future reference nobody should assume that something that pops up on my screen won't appear publicly unless I've been specifically asked to keep it private. And, for good measure, agreed to.

...Also I do have my doubts about Tad's qualifications to rationally discuss this in a scientific/engineering language.

Now that you've posted this publicly I might as well go back and un-edit my original post.

I was kinda pissed off and went over to The Davis Show to search your posts and get some material with which to blast you but was disappointed to find that you and I were on the same pages with everything I looked at.

I REALLY appreciate independent and original thinkers with ideas - good, neutral, bad - for doing things better in this sport. I don't think the Lever Link is gonna hit the break-even point cost/benefit-wise and I'm pretty confident that it will never get off the ground unless you yourself get it off the ground. But it's a clever concept and something worth thinking about. I have myself been lately since I understood how it works.

With this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJLG3oUbkEg


from about four days ago we have ALL of hang gliding's major technological problems solved. The problem is that the sport has been totally hijacked by self-serving off-the-scale evil scumbags (I assume you're familiar with Ryan Instant-Hands-Free-Release Voight) who do everything in their power to keep these fixes out of circulation.

If you really wanna do something to benefit hang gliding - or at least slow its devolution - it's gonna have to be using your understanding of physics and putting your reputation on the line to rip these motherfuckers multiple new assholes. But be advised that the more progress you make the more retaliatory fire you're gonna draw.

P.S. - 2015/08/06 01:40:00 UTC

"Lever Link" "lever link" "LeverLink" "Leverlink"

Get it consistent. I'd do "LeverLink" if it were my baby.

I'll be following this thread, and I won't be shy about asking questions or posting comments.

ridgerunner wrote:... If Tad were to re-read my article and present a coherent rational scientific argument (sans emotional adjectives and adverbs) against my device on the Kite Strings forum, I would certainly be inclined to join that forum and discuss it there as well. ...

Tad Eareckson wrote:... rip these motherfuckers multiple new assholes. ...

Almost ALL of your words here have absolutely NOTHING to do with my LL design! I have no clue as to where all your anger is coming from. I'm done here.

- Oh, so you're only gonna talk to me if present a coherent rational scientific argument (sans emotional adjectives and adverbs) AGAINST your device on the Kite Strings forum. If tell you that it's a clever idea (that I'd actually like to see get in the air so's we can maybe get some useful test data) I can go fuck myself.

- Those were actually an emotional verb and two emotional nouns. I'm pretty sure I was OK in the adjectives and adverbs departments.

- Well, at least you concede that SOME of my words have absolutely SOMETHING to do with your LL design. That's a helluva lot better than I've gotten from you on any of MY designs.

- Doin' pretty good relative to the interest you've seen from Steve Pearson, Mike Meier, Dennis Pagen, Dr. Trisa Tilletti, Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney... combined as well, wouldn't you say?

I have no clue as to where all your anger is coming from.

Yeah, big freakin' surprise.

I'm done here.

Super. You consider someone posting "out of context" comments, conceding that he was wrong and that an idea might well be viable to be rude behavior, I have a quite different perspective.

Oops. I had just given everything after the first paragraph of your 2015/08/05 22:34:37 UTC post a skim and had missed this:

Brian evidently forwarded this to Tad, who (with honor and respect) removed my words taken from the PM exchange, (thank you Tad). Unfortunately, he left a bunch of empty quotes, which makes the initial post in this thread pretty much incoherent gibberish. Thus, I have joined this forum for the express purpose of clearing this up a bit. If Tad wishes to discuss my LeverLink idea, I am still happy to do so, but I would prefer that he delete this entire abortion of a thread and start over with a *coherent* initial post (using his own words/thoughts specifically regarding the Lever Link idea).

from the end.

- You're welcome - but I didn't remove with honor and respect. I took it out 'cause it had put Brian in something of a difficult position. And I was pissed off about doing it.

- Not really "incoherent gibberish". When a person with a functional brain hears just one side of a phone conversation he's usually getting a fair idea of what's being said at the other end of the line. If you really want incoherent gibberish be sure to check out some of Jim Keen-Intellect Rooney's contributions to Jack and Davis Show threads. (You'll have to go back a bit. A couple years ago he finally wised up enough to understand that he really needed to keep his mouth shut when anything of any substance was being discussed.)

- One who refers to his idea - the topic of the conversation - as a "LeverLink" in one sentence and a "Lever Link" in the next should probably avoid saying anything about anyone else's incoherency.

- I don't like seeing stuff deleted from the historical record. Don't mind editing for accuracy, clarity, extra detail however.

- I had and implemented a better idea for that abortion of a thread. After taking all of your out-of-context correspondence out I put it back in so's everybody could see and assess its out-of-contextness.

Tad Eareckson wrote:Granted, you show only a gravity vector pulling straight down so we have to assume weight shift control only so you're right and I'm wrong.

I know it's small of me, but this kind of thing happens so rarely. Me too?

<BS> wrote:I can't find it, but a couple times you've suggested someone tell Jeff Roberson his Lever Link won't work. If I understand the reason, it's because when towing forces are applied sideways to the keel, the glider goes the opposite direction. In a towing situation like that aren't the changes in victor forces the reason?

Yeah, fer sure. You too. Credit where it's due. And blame. (Ya know what they say about assumptions.)