This wiki is about open fuzzy questions regarding the GH-JD thrust. As fuzziness become less, articles will be linked to forward the critical analys regarding the GH-JD world and related impacts on the soundness of hang gliding history.
Visitors and editors are invited to post questions, fuzzy matters, and answerings. Gradually more polished separate articles will be developed.
Do you know?
- [_]??... Do you know that it has yet to surface for me that any human foot-launched without boat tow into gliding flight a kite-glider made by Aerostructures or JD until six years after the start of JD kite making in 1963 ...when Moyes in 1969 snow-skied wing off a mountain? There is some kind of 1968 parking lot incident mentioned somewhere by GH about JD trying something; clarity on this would be welcome. I would be glad for someone to announce some fact about this question.
- Meanwhile, two years before JD started his kite making for boat-tow flying, others elsewhere were continuing to foot-launch pilot-carriable hang gliders off hills to be in air near the birds.
- [_]??... Do you know how deeply in 1962 Australia had incorporated via Mike Burns the NASA four-boomed foldable flexible wing along with the mechanics of the 1908 triangle control frame along with pendulumed pilot and payload? All done supposedly out of sight and mind of countryman JD; however, notice the deep Bensen involvement of JD that speaks to the study on exclamations made about these matters by GH. Being so close to the Igor Bensen tech flow and being blind to the NASA and countryman progress has a troublesome juxtaposition. To get at and use the Bensen gyro kite-glider material and craft and miss awareness of the world-around publishing of the four-boom Rogallo-leadership-caused images is to cause researchers a challenge as to how such involvement could have missed the NASA-related images. Perhaps such matter will become clear through this open wiki process.
- [_]??... Do you know that Aerostructures was able to help so well JD because Mike Burns had already gotten clear on the involved mechanics in 1962, all prior art in public domain? Part of the energy of the unfulfilled moot application for patent resulted in JD approaching Aerostructors with legal notice to cease and desist or something close to that...and that Burns was not moved by such approach except to offer to help make some more kites and add the Burns aeronautical safety-critical awarenesses to the kite structuring.
- [_]??... Do you know that others using the public domain mechanics just like JD used public domain mechanics does NOT mean that one or the other of users of public domain matter is global inventors, as the global inventors occurred before both followers. Thus, it is a non-sequitor to see GH grab claim for JD over those who would use public domain mechanics to make hang gliders. More on target was the meek progress made by Barry Palmer and Jim Hobson and Charles Richards where they did not get into grabbing claim of invention, but just personal instances of making; it was for them too obvious that the mechanics was already pathed in aviation for what they were doing. Distinguishing between mechanic global invention and the very different personal-make ornamental appearance novelty-for-oneself is working here.
- [_]??... Do you know how aggressive GH was in pushing through the phrasing that ended up through HGFA to be posted into the text for a FAI Diploma for JD? Very aggressive. And there are motions to appeal some of text in that Diploma in order to more respect the invention space of hang gliding and the contributions of others where in the wording there is severe slight by logic of the phrasing of the facts in the broad world of hang gliding; and since the FAI is international, then it would seem to be important that they get the matter clear of hurtful statement that are untenable. See the Antipodes link for one source of the Diploma. And feel free as a contributor to analyze the text and perhaps be part of the appeal process to the FAI and to HGFA. An amendment to the Diploma may be in the offing. Will the community of hang gliding move to protect on merit mechanical inventors that bring breakthroughs into our sport? Or will the hang gliding community sit back idly and let any maker walk over mechanical invention merit? We see some apathy on this issue; and we see some apathy regarding the international rights of Seedwings against a breaking-contract usurper. Our sport deserves more energy on such tactics.
- [_]??... Do you know that due diligence by JD's patent attorney would have uncovered hundreds of publicly available notes revealing applicable prior art that would set aside the wing and control system as not novel and not unknown to those skilled in the art of towed aircraft. But apparently by the October 1964 lodgement of disclosure, that due diligence was apparently absent. Did the attorney do any search at all? [_]??... How much did JD pay Mr. Griffith and Frazer? Search of prior patents would have revealed weight-shift control, four-boomed foldable flexible-sailed gliders with one of the booms being the cross-bar mentioned in JD's disclosure, and control-wing mechanics.
- [_]??... Do you know that associating untenable exclamations near some facts that cannot prove the untenable exclamations is a tactic of persuasion that is overcome by good critical thinking? Some editor will come up with the classic name for such tactic: __________________. It is a joy for many to know the facts of any kite-glider story and of the story of JD; but any raw facts cannot prove an untenable interpretive exclamation. Watch out throughout the GH presentation and discuss what you find while enjoying the neat raw facts. That JD in October 1964 could sign in full equitable conjuction with Amy Barbara Dickenson about some facts of dimensions of a kite-glider in no way wins global invention; actual novelty of the wing and control system would be needed for invention; and that actual novelty was absent globally.
- [_]??... Do you know that IF the patent application was ever approved that the patent would have been in jeopardy of being overcome by appeal by someone who had enough interest to bring forward the prior art?
- [_]??... Do you know that IF the patent application was approved that the matter would be formally equally credited to two persons, the other being Amy Barbara Dickenson? I wonder how much research Amy did to be aware of prior art as she moved in the matter toward the October 8, 1964, lodgement deadline.
- [_]??... Do you know that JD and Amy signed that the kite-glider weighed about "60 lbs" (sic: lb); with that in mind and signed, then take a look at the photograph of Amy again and study a 60-lb balancing act; invited is a biomechanics expert to examine the photo in light of the signed weight. How much did Amy weigh when the photograph was taken? Examine fulcrum points and lack of bend or lean that might be expected for "60 lbs. approximately" lodgement disclosure. What goes here, JD?
Questions (someone might answer the questions)
- [_]??... Why does the planform of the JD 1964 drawing of wing look very much like the planform shown in the following patent 1961 patent, years before JD even started his boat-towed kite? Click HERE for full teachings by Craigo, et al.
- [_]??... And Peter F. Girard in August 20, 1962, after considerable earlier work. The teams were no longer interested in the most basic control system that was in public domain: pendulum weight-shift of pilot mass behind cable-stayed triangle control frame that was evident from at least 1908; rather the working teams were wanting both human and larger payload tasks to be handled. Thus Girard, Rogallo, Craigo, James, Hand, and others were solving advanced control systems to meet niche needs. Click HERE for full instruction by Girard. See more.
- [_]??... Rogallo gets into the party again and again from1945 forward, here sample of a host of configurations filed finally in April 29, 1963.
For full instructions with the many configurations, click HERE.
- More soon by editors
- Related articles' links: