The one review on Amazon sums up the Curtis contribution to aviation quite nicely. But I didn’t know he teamed up with Bell. I’m ordering the book.

Roy

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.amazon.com/Glenn-Curtiss-Pioneer-Flight-Roseberry/dp/0815602642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263247293&sr=8-1

is a good book on Curtiss.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The basic error that Langley made was in using a catapult to launch his plane – but the Wrights did this too, and persisted in it for years. They used a weight attached to a cable, dropped from a tower, to accelerate their flyer.

So does this imply that if Langley had used a catapult that worked more like the Wright’s, which left their machine on a track until it had airspeed enough to fly, his attempt would have been successful?

I’m well aware that the Wrights wanted to make money on their invention and held it very closely for that reason. I’m not aware that Langley’s design ever flew. I’d be interested in the source (always want to learn). In any case, as I pointed out, there are problems with that 4 wing design. I would not want to ever stall a plane that I could not be confident would go down by the nose.

Wing warping and ailerons do the same thing in different ways and both solve the problem of roll control and steering. You change the angle of attack of the wings by one method and do essentially the same with the other. Engineers will yell at me about the details, but both methods worked. Admittedly, the Wright’s methods could not have been used in more rigid airframes. If anything can be said about the Wrights it’s that they finally turned out to be their own worst enemy.

Thanks much for the info. If you have any source material about Langley please let me know.

Best regards

Roy

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The basic error that Langley made was in using a catapult to launch his plane – but the Wrights did this too, and persisted in it for years. They used a weight attached to a cable, dropped from a tower, to accelerate their flyer.

If Langley had persisted, he would have beaten the Wrights to the invention of the first airplane.

Glenn Curtis later bought the Langley plane and made it fly, with its original engine. Unfortunately, he later improved the engine and this has been used to clain that the original Langley plane was not capable of flight – which is incorrect. Curtis flew it several times.

There were a number of people working on the problems of flight, and the Wrights took credit for work done by others, and held back the progress of the development of the airplane in the USA so much, that all the fighters and bombers used in World War I were not American.

The US government was so concerned by the rapid progress overseas, that they stepped in and forced the Wrights to cross license their patents with other airplane inventors.

And by the way, Alexander Graham Bell invented the aileron (on the west side of the Atlantic). The Wrights persisted in wing warping for many years.

Langley was the first to invent an airplane that could be successfully flown. The Wrights were the first to successfully fly an airplane.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here in the southeastern US, a much cooler winter was predicted because 2009 was a relatively cool and very wet year. The autumn was particularly wet, so those of us who’ve lived here for decades understood, “Look out! It’s gonna get cold!” Sure enough, November and December were quite cold; parts of Lousiana and Texas experienced their earliest snows on record; and it appears January 2010 will be the coldest January, since 1940, for this part of the country. On a contemporary basis, there are some records; but I’m pretty neither the cold nor the warmth we’ve had here are unprecedented: It all falls within the norm. But I’m not sure why it’s so predictable here.

The empirical evidence does, indeed, reveal the climate continues to behave in a normal fashion even as man has increased his numbers and his carbon dioxide emissions during the industrial era. Nothing in the climate record suggests that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causes a warmer climate. There is no evidence that our atmosphere, bombarded by many times the carbon dioxide as has or will be introduced by man, turn the oceans to acid or caused the number of catastrophes predicted by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Strong, et al.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

anne, i do not want your money. and you know nothing about the science of climate change. the cold snap in europe has to do with the fact that that warming creates more water vapour. in the northern hemisphere in winter this adds up to more ice and snow.

How exactly does more water vapour in the atmosphere, if that is even true, cause a cold snap?

Like or Dislike: 1  0

You said; “the evidence for climate change is largely circumstantial… [snip lots of ungrammatical non-sequiteurs, mixed with insults, patronising put-downs, unmatched with any references or insight]… we cannot wait around for empirical facts. the risk is too high”

1. We have empirical evidence and AGW has been falsified. The hot spot is missing, there is no expanded layer of water vapor, the models are wrong, some AGW scientists have committed scientific fraud, the ERBE data shows the feedback is negative wiping out 2/3rds of the scary predictions.

2. You don’t even have a circumstantial case. A loose correlation that’s present over 150 years, but absent over 500 million years disproves itself.

2. You can’t name any empirical evidence to support your faith. It’s not science.

We don’t need religious rude zealots here.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

the evidence for climate change is largely circumstantial. that does not mean it is incorrect. the link between smoking and lung cancer is circumstantial.

The case that smoking causes cancer and other diseases correlates with those diseases several thousand percent. And yes we all know that it’s still impossible to use that knowledge to predict or explain any individual case. So if someone smokes and lives to be 100 it means nothing.

Temperatures here on earth are another matter and they do not correlate with CO2 concentration at all. The following is from my post 324.

THEORY: as CO2 concentration increases the temperature of the planet must also increase.

FACT: CO2 has steadily increased yet the small amount of warming that could be shown (by cherry picking measurement start dates by the way) stopped in 2001. We are in fact now experiencing cooling.

Next, you accuse me of saying that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas. Better go back and read what you said that I responded to. You argued (wrongly for the global warming debate) that CO2 absorbs heat. And so it does. So does all matter. Put it in a place where it’s colder than its surroundings and it’ll warm up. If the simple ability to warm or cool is a problem for CO2 in the atmosphere then why is it not a problem for nitrogen? That was my question. You didn’t notice that you weren’t playing in the right ballpark. You should discuss the absorption and radiation spectra of CO2 if you want to be playing the right game.

Finally, that many things are circumstantial is true. The idea of “climate change” is not appealing as one of them. To put it in simple terms — what is shown by the changes you can call to my attention? Only that those things are changing. Kinda amounts to, “Roy is here, so Roy is here.”

In the end you betray yourself by the statement…

if the case for climate change is even 1% accurate you would have to be an idiot not to address the problem. the planet needs a clean up regardless . and that means getting rid of fossil fuel

This is the real goal of a large segment of the AGW world. Humans are themselves a pollutant of a sort, something to be gotten rid of — except of course, you the enlightened ones who will be allowed so you can ride herd over the few miserable humans who remain. Elimination of fossil fuels is a very good way to do what you want. Remove access to cheap energy from any society and watch people die.

I will disclose the energy companies from which I receive funding: NONE!

I will disclose the vested interests I have in this matter: THAT OF A PRIVATE CITIZEN WITH ENOUGH BRAINS TO REALIZE HE’S BEING SCREWED PLUS EDUCATION AND A LONG CAREER THAT GIVES ME THE TRAINING AND ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND (FORGIVE ME) JUST PLAIN GARBAGE!

I would disclose my sources of information but there are simply too many to list, several should be obvious, and I look at the stuff published by your point of view as well, except for Al Gore, who is so lacking in credibility that I just laugh at him.

NOW WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ACTIVIST GROUPS DO YOU BELONG TO? Turnabout is fair play.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Don’t you know or are you just guessing?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This is not proof of anything no matter how many times its repeated. Its a hypothetical.

Its no better than “If pigs could fly.”

Scientific proof would be established by the following:

1. A clear statement of what is to be proved
2. A clear statement of the mechanism by which 1 is accomplished
3. A demonstration that the specified mechanism can actually function
4. A demonstration that the mechanism is at work in the specific circumstances
5. A demonstration that the effects are sufficient to cause the specified consequences
6. Do the above in full context of human knowledge

For the AGW hypothesis you would have to take into account the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, the Real Gas Laws, and the fact that the so called global warming is happening in the free atmosphere rather than in an enclosed greenhouse.

Do that or admit you cannot prove your case.

Like or Dislike: 1  0