First Human Powered Ornithopter

[[email protected]]

http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html
Karl

[CaveLamb]

wrote:
> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html
> Karl

LOL!

That's funny.

--

Richard Lamb

[TonyW]

On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html
> Karl

Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.

Tony

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> > http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.htm
> > l
> > Karl
>
> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
>
> Tony

Ummm... ...no.

The Kremer prize for the first human powered *flight* was won by the
Gossamer *Condor* in 1977. The Gossamer Albatross won the prize for
human powered flight between France and England on June 12, 1979.

But neither of them was a human powered *ornithopter*: an aircraft that
works by flapping its wings.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> > http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.htm
> > l
> > Karl
>
> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.

GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).

This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but enough to
barely maintain level flight.

Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
low-frequency flutter.

[CaveLamb]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> TonyW > wrote:
>
>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.htm
>>> l
>>> Karl
>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
>
> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
>
> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but enough to
> barely maintain level flight.
>
> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> low-frequency flutter.


This one was not an ornithopter either...
It just LOOKS like one...

--

Richard Lamb

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
CaveLamb > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > TonyW > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.h
> >>> tm
> >>> l
> >>> Karl
> >> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >
> > GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >
> > This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
> > enough to
> > barely maintain level flight.
> >
> > Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> > low-frequency flutter.
>
>
> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> It just LOOKS like one...

How do you conclude that?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
CaveLamb > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > TonyW > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.h
> >>> tm
> >>> l
> >>> Karl
> >> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >
> > GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >
> > This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
> > enough to
> > barely maintain level flight.
> >
> > Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> > low-frequency flutter.
>
>
> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> It just LOOKS like one...

How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?

Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.

[Flash60601]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> CaveLamb > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > TonyW > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
>> >>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.h
>> >>> tm
>> >>> l
>> >>> Karl
>> >> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
>> >
>> > GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
>> >
>> > This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
>> > enough to
>> > barely maintain level flight.
>> >
>> > Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
>> > low-frequency flutter.
>>
>>
>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
>> It just LOOKS like one...
>
> How do you conclude that?
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>


Well, to be atrue ornithopter, its takeoff would not be towed by an
automobile, for the first thing.
And secondly, it should be able to sustain flight by flapping. This thing
was simply a unique-looking glider with wings that flexed a bit in ground
effect, after the car towing it got it moving.

It may indeed be a comendable piece of aerdymanic ingenuity, but an
"ornithopter it is NOT.

Flash

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Flash60601" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > TonyW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >> >>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-vide
> >> >>> o.h
> >> >>> tm
> >> >>> l
> >> >>> Karl
> >> >> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >> >
> >> > GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >> >
> >> > This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
> >> > enough to
> >> > barely maintain level flight.
> >> >
> >> > Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> >> > low-frequency flutter.
> >>
> >>
> >> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> >> It just LOOKS like one...
> >
> > How do you conclude that?
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
>
> Well, to be atrue ornithopter, its takeoff would not be towed by an
> automobile, for the first thing.
> And secondly, it should be able to sustain flight by flapping. This thing
> was simply a unique-looking glider with wings that flexed a bit in ground
> effect, after the car towing it got it moving.
>
> It may indeed be a comendable piece of aerdymanic ingenuity, but an
> "ornithopter it is NOT.
>
> Flash

You're reaching a little bit, I think.

It was definitely flapping its wings and the folks who built it know how
to make that work. They based it on a powered ornithopter that achieved
flight on its own from a standing start.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[CaveLamb]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> CaveLamb > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> TonyW > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
>>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.h
>>>>> tm
>>>>> l
>>>>> Karl
>>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
>>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
>>>
>>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
>>> enough to
>>> barely maintain level flight.
>>>
>>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
>>> low-frequency flutter.
>>
>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
>> It just LOOKS like one...
>
> How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
>
> Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.


Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just FLEX.



--

Richard Lamb

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
CaveLamb > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> TonyW > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video
> >>>>> .h
> >>>>> tm
> >>>>> l
> >>>>> Karl
> >>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >>>
> >>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
> >>> enough to
> >>> barely maintain level flight.
> >>>
> >>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> >>> low-frequency flutter.
> >>
> >> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> >> It just LOOKS like one...
> >
> > How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
> >
> > Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.
>
>
> Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just FLEX.

To your mind, what would make it flapping rather than flexing?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[CaveLamb]

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> CaveLamb > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> CaveLamb > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> TonyW > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video
>>>>>>> .h
>>>>>>> tm
>>>>>>> l
>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
>>>>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
>>>>>
>>>>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
>>>>> enough to
>>>>> barely maintain level flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
>>>>> low-frequency flutter.
>>>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
>>>> It just LOOKS like one...
>>> How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
>>>
>>> Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.
>>
>> Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just FLEX.
>
> To your mind, what would make it flapping rather than flexing?
>


No, I'm not interested in a debate on this.

Pick your pony - believe what you want...


--

Richard Lamb

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
CaveLamb > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> CaveLamb > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Steve Hix wrote:
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> TonyW > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >>>>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-vid
> >>>>>>> eo
> >>>>>>> .h
> >>>>>>> tm
> >>>>>>> l
> >>>>>>> Karl
> >>>>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >>>>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own, but
> >>>>> enough to
> >>>>> barely maintain level flight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with severe
> >>>>> low-frequency flutter.
> >>>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> >>>> It just LOOKS like one...
> >>> How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
> >>>
> >>> Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.
> >>
> >> Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just
> >> FLEX.
> >
> > To your mind, what would make it flapping rather than flexing?
> >
>
>
> No, I'm not interested in a debate on this.
>
> Pick your pony - believe what you want...

So... ...you're just interested in making unsupported pronouncements?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Flash60601]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> CaveLamb > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > CaveLamb > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steve Hix wrote:
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> CaveLamb > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>> >>>>> In article >,
>> >>>>> TonyW > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
>> >>>>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-vid
>> >>>>>>> eo
>> >>>>>>> .h
>> >>>>>>> tm
>> >>>>>>> l
>> >>>>>>> Karl
>> >>>>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer
>> >>>>>> Albatross.
>> >>>>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own,
>> >>>>> but
>> >>>>> enough to
>> >>>>> barely maintain level flight.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with
>> >>>>> severe
>> >>>>> low-frequency flutter.
>> >>>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
>> >>>> It just LOOKS like one...
>> >>> How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
>> >>>
>> >>> Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just
>> >> FLEX.
>> >
>> > To your mind, what would make it flapping rather than flexing?
>> >
>>
>>
>> No, I'm not interested in a debate on this.
>>
>> Pick your pony - believe what you want...
>
> So... ...you're just interested in making unsupported pronouncements?
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

Alan, I'll be pleased to hear what you have to say on this:
1. At what speed and altitude did the craft release from the auto-tow?.
2.. How far and how long did it fly under its own power until it was no
longer able to maintain that altitude and airspeed?

Would you think that those two questions are pertinent to the discussion?

Also, have you any connection with this project at all? (You know,
"Disclaimer", as it were).

Thanks,

Flash

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Flash60601" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >> >>> In article >,
> >> >>> CaveLamb > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Steve Hix wrote:
> >> >>>>> In article >,
> >> >>>>> TonyW > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-
> >> >>>>>>> vid
> >> >>>>>>> eo
> >> >>>>>>> .h
> >> >>>>>>> tm
> >> >>>>>>> l
> >> >>>>>>> Karl
> >> >>>>>> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer
> >> >>>>>> Albatross.
> >> >>>>> GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own,
> >> >>>>> but
> >> >>>>> enough to
> >> >>>>> barely maintain level flight.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with
> >> >>>>> severe
> >> >>>>> low-frequency flutter.
> >> >>>> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> >> >>>> It just LOOKS like one...
> >> >>> How much flapping do you have to do before it's an ornithopter?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Not being able to take off under its own power doesn't help, mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I'd guess - enough for the wings to actually FLAP rather than just
> >> >> FLEX.
> >> >
> >> > To your mind, what would make it flapping rather than flexing?
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> No, I'm not interested in a debate on this.
> >>
> >> Pick your pony - believe what you want...
> >
> > So... ...you're just interested in making unsupported pronouncements?
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
>
> Alan, I'll be pleased to hear what you have to say on this:
> 1. At what speed and altitude did the craft release from the auto-tow?.
> 2.. How far and how long did it fly under its own power until it was no
> longer able to maintain that altitude and airspeed?

I don't know the answer to either of them...

....but I'm betting large that CaveLamb doesn't know the answer either.

And simply declaring it's not flapping and the refusing to define his
terms...

Come on.

>
> Would you think that those two questions are pertinent to the discussion?

Of course they're pertinent. I don't know how you want to qualify
successful flight, but it's pretty clearly an ornithopter...

....which is the point I was trying to make.

But if you're interested in its success, you might want to read this:

'The "Snowbird" performed its record-breaking flight on August 2 at the
Great Lakes Gliding Club in Tottenham, Ont., witnessed by the
vice-president (Canada) of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
(FAI), the world-governing body for air sports and aeronautical world
records. The official record claim was filed this month, and the FAI is
expected to confirm the ornithopter's world record at its meeting in
October.'

<http://www.physorg.com/news204386550.html>

It goes on:

'For centuries engineers have attempted such a feat, ever since Leonardo
da Vinci sketched the first human-powered ornithopter in 1485.
But under the power and piloting of Todd Reichert, an Engineering PhD
candidate at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
(UTIAS), the wing-flapping device sustained both altitude and airspeed
for 19.3 seconds, and covered a distance of 145 metres at an average
speed of 25.6 kilometres per hour.'

'sustained both altitude and airspeed' seems to be fairly definitive.

>
> Also, have you any connection with this project at all? (You know,
> "Disclaimer", as it were).

Nope. No connection of any kind.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Flash60601" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Flash60601" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > CaveLamb > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > TonyW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 10/6/2010 2:43 AM, wrote:
> >> >> >>> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-v
> >> >> >>> ide
> >> >> >>> o.h
> >> >> >>> tm
> >> >> >>> l
> >> >> >>> Karl
> >> >> >> Not the first, it was done 30 years ago, Google Gossamer Albatross.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > GA was prop-driven, not an ornithopter (thrust from wing flapping).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This one doesn't seem to have enough power to take off on its own,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > enough to
> >> >> > barely maintain level flight.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mildly creepy looking under weigh; looks like a sailplane with
> >> >> > severe
> >> >> > low-frequency flutter.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This one was not an ornithopter either...
> >> >> It just LOOKS like one...
> >> >
> >> > How do you conclude that?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Alan Baker
> >> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> >> > <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, to be atrue ornithopter, its takeoff would not be towed by an
> >> automobile, for the first thing.
> >> And secondly, it should be able to sustain flight by flapping. This
> >> thing
> >> was simply a unique-looking glider with wings that flexed a bit in ground
> >> effect, after the car towing it got it moving.
> >>
> >> It may indeed be a comendable piece of aerdymanic ingenuity, but an
> >> "ornithopter it is NOT.
> >>
> >> Flash
> >
> > You're reaching a little bit, I think.
> >
> > It was definitely flapping its wings and the folks who built it know how
> > to make that work. They based it on a powered ornithopter that achieved
> > flight on its own from a standing start.
>
> Cool!. Got any videos or link to that one???


Yup.

<http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html>

But start here:

<http://www.ornithopter.net/MediaGallery/Videos/index_e.html>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[CaveLamb]

Alan Baker wrote:
> I
>>
>> No, I'm not interested in a debate on this.
>>
>> Pick your pony - believe what you want...
>
> So... ...you're just interested in making unsupported pronouncements?
>

I've heard from you before, Alan.
Have no intention of repeating the experience.



--

Richard Lamb

[CaveLamb]

The op gave us this link...

http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html



Which is NOT the same machine as this...

<http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html>

But start here:

<http://www.ornithopter.net/MediaGallery/Videos/index_e.html>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
CaveLamb > wrote:

> The op gave us this link...
>
> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html
>
>

Yes. That is the human powered machine.

>
> Which is NOT the same machine as this...
>
> <http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html>
>
> But start here:
>
> <http://www.ornithopter.net/MediaGallery/Videos/index_e.html>

It's not the same, because the poster to whom I was replying was asking
about the engine powered ornithopter that had definitely taken off from
a standing start.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[TonyW]

On 10/8/2010 7:37 AM, CaveLamb wrote:
> The op gave us this link...
>
> http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.html
>
>
>
>
> Which is NOT the same machine as this...
>
> <http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html>
>
> But start here:
>
> <http://www.ornithopter.net/MediaGallery/Videos/index_e.html>
>

I went back and looked at all the pix and video and I think it's nothing
more than a flapping glider. I seriously doubt it would have ever flown
if not towed...

The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
time and money on their hands...

Tony

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/8/2010 7:37 AM, CaveLamb wrote:
> > The op gave us this link...
> >
> > http://acidcow.com/pics/13751-made-by-canadian-engineers-23-pics-1-video.htm
> > l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Which is NOT the same machine as this...
> >
> > <http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html>
> >
> > But start here:
> >
> > <http://www.ornithopter.net/MediaGallery/Videos/index_e.html>
> >
>
> I went back and looked at all the pix and video and I think it's nothing
> more than a flapping glider. I seriously doubt it would have ever flown
> if not towed...

Apparently, the FAI thinks differently.

<http://www.physorg.com/news204386550.html>

"But under the power and piloting of Todd Reichert, an Engineering PhD
candidate at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
(UTIAS), the wing-flapping device sustained both altitude and airspeed
for 19.3 seconds, and covered a distance of 145 metres at an average
speed of 25.6 kilometres per hour."

>
> The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
> time and money on their hands...

I don't know whether the ability has any practical use or not...

....but then, I'm betting that you don't either... :-)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[TonyW]

On 10/8/2010 2:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

> "But under the power and piloting of Todd Reichert, an Engineering PhD
> candidate at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
> (UTIAS), the wing-flapping device sustained both altitude and airspeed
> for 19.3 seconds, and covered a distance of 145 metres at an average
> speed of 25.6 kilometres per hour."

I don't think that's far or long enough to prove anything. A light
breeze of a headwind would have done the same.

>> The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
>> time and money on their hands...
>
> I don't know whether the ability has any practical use or not...
>
> ...but then, I'm betting that you don't either... :-)

That's one thing we can agree on.

BTW, I might have bought human powered if the had towed it with a rope
pulled by the track team but then again, I still think it's a flapping
glider...

Tony

[Flash60601]

"TonyW" > wrote in message
...

>
> The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
> time and money on their hands...
>
> Tony

I kinda think there were some folks in Dayton saying the same thing about a
hundren and ten or so years ago.

Who knows what will come of this. There are bound to be some side-benefits.
.... Eventually.

Flash

Flash

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/8/2010 2:16 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > "But under the power and piloting of Todd Reichert, an Engineering PhD
> > candidate at the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies
> > (UTIAS), the wing-flapping device sustained both altitude and airspeed
> > for 19.3 seconds, and covered a distance of 145 metres at an average
> > speed of 25.6 kilometres per hour."
>
> I don't think that's far or long enough to prove anything. A light
> breeze of a headwind would have done the same.

Alas, you are not the arbiter of what is and what is not... ...flight.

:-)

>
> >> The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
> >> time and money on their hands...
> >
> > I don't know whether the ability has any practical use or not...
> >
> > ...but then, I'm betting that you don't either... :-)
>
> That's one thing we can agree on.
>
> BTW, I might have bought human powered if the had towed it with a rope
> pulled by the track team but then again, I still think it's a flapping
> glider...

You can think whatever you like, but if it can maintain airspeed and
altitude...

....that seems like flight to me.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Flash60601" > wrote:

> "TonyW" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > The engine powered one is a great study of what people do with too much
> > time and money on their hands...
> >
> > Tony
>
> I kinda think there were some folks in Dayton saying the same thing about a
> hundren and ten or so years ago.
>
> Who knows what will come of this. There are bound to be some side-benefits.
> ... Eventually.
>
> Flash
>
> Flash

And the Wright's first attempts gained airspeed by sliding down a track
on a hill...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Alan Baker" > wrote

> You can think whatever you like, but if it can maintain airspeed and
> altitude...
>
> ...that seems like flight to me.

Alan;

I gotta' ask; what dog do you have in this fight?

Why do you argue your point so strongly, to the point of putting down people
that have an opinion that differs from yours?

This seems to be very much a discussion of opinion on a subject

You opining one point of view holds no more weight than Lamb or someone else
spouting their opinion, to me. It isn't as if this is an open and shut
case. They did not make a flight with the basic definition of taking off,
maintaining flight, and returning to a place with the same elevation. Even
early definitions of powered flight with the Wright Brothers had some or all
of these basic definitions.

Yes, they seem to have flown by human power, but only with help to start
the flight.

The flapping shown is a type that I have never seen a bird use. All of the
birds have their wings hinged where they attach to their bodies and these
hinges allow the wing to pivot up and down to initiate flight, and they
usually have a joint out further on their wing that also hinges for
additional power and control... but this man powered creation has none of
those characteristics.

Seems to me that this whole thing was supposed to be imitating nature's
animals methods of flying. That, it does not do, in my opinion. Seems like
it is a way to "cheat" the imitation of flapping creature's flying
methodology.

Please note that this has been expressed as my opinion, and I did not put
anyone else "down" as I presented it, as all civil discussions should strive
to do.

Jim in NC

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote
>
> > You can think whatever you like, but if it can maintain airspeed and
> > altitude...
> >
> > ...that seems like flight to me.
>
> Alan;
>
> I gotta' ask; what dog do you have in this fight?
>
> Why do you argue your point so strongly, to the point of putting down people
> that have an opinion that differs from yours?

What put downs have I made?

I find it annoying when people just make pronouncements on subjects they
haven't even bother to investigate.

>
> This seems to be very much a discussion of opinion on a subject

And I gave mine in response to TonyW. I didn't put him down, I simply
pointed out a fact.

>
> You opining one point of view holds no more weight than Lamb or someone else
> spouting their opinion, to me. It isn't as if this is an open and shut
> case. They did not make a flight with the basic definition of taking off,
> maintaining flight, and returning to a place with the same elevation. Even
> early definitions of powered flight with the Wright Brothers had some or all
> of these basic definitions.

I'm doing rather more than giving my opinion. I'm presenting supporting
evidence.

>
> Yes, they seem to have flown by human power, but only with help to start
> the flight.
>
> The flapping shown is a type that I have never seen a bird use. All of the
> birds have their wings hinged where they attach to their bodies and these
> hinges allow the wing to pivot up and down to initiate flight, and they
> usually have a joint out further on their wing that also hinges for
> additional power and control... but this man powered creation has none of
> those characteristics.

What has that got to with whether or not the flight is powered by the
flapping of the wings? Are you really saying that the definition of
"flapping" hinges (if you'll pardon the pun) on the existence of joints?
Does it have to actually be a joint where two separate structures meet
and surfaces slide over one another?

>
> Seems to me that this whole thing was supposed to be imitating nature's
> animals methods of flying. That, it does not do, in my opinion. Seems like
> it is a way to "cheat" the imitation of flapping creature's flying
> methodology.

The thrust and lift both come from the wings.

>
> Please note that this has been expressed as my opinion, and I did not put
> anyone else "down" as I presented it, as all civil discussions should strive
> to do.

I think if you see a put down in my previous post, you're way too
thin-skinned...

....or is that a put down, too?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> I went back and looked at all the pix and video and I think it's nothing
> more than a flapping glider. I seriously doubt it would have ever flown
> if not towed...
>
>
>

That is not the question. A human can produce over an extended period of
time about 200 W (or roughly 1/3 of a HP). It's kind of hard to take off
with that kind of horsepower.

The builders claim that they extended the glide by flapping the wings
only using human power.

That should be sufficient to be an ornithopter: they could also be
lauched from a clif of a (big) birdnest to gain the initial start
energy.

Anyway: a man-carrying ornithopter remains an elusif bird, let alone a
human powered one.

Tom De Moor

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > I went back and looked at all the pix and video and I think it's nothing
> > more than a flapping glider. I seriously doubt it would have ever flown
> > if not towed...
> >
> >
> >
>
> That is not the question. A human can produce over an extended period of
> time about 200 W (or roughly 1/3 of a HP). It's kind of hard to take off
> with that kind of horsepower.
>
> The builders claim that they extended the glide by flapping the wings
> only using human power.
>
> That should be sufficient to be an ornithopter: they could also be
> lauched from a clif of a (big) birdnest to gain the initial start
> energy.
>
> Anyway: a man-carrying ornithopter remains an elusif bird, let alone a
> human powered one.

A man-carry engine-powered ornithopter has already been done.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Flash60601]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tom De Moor > wrote:
>

Alan, thanks for the links provided. This craft's claimn is to have
maintained altitude and airspeed for 19.3 seconds, as the videos show, and
that is certianly a notable step. Auto-tow for them versus a rail and
falling weight for the Wrights, fairenough. Good baby-steps, and nothing at
all to be discounted. This is not a finished projec is it?

I think that the "Figure eight around two pylons one-half mile apart,
starting and finishing at 3 meters altitude" that the Gossamer Condor did
for the Kremer prize they won in 1977 would be a good measure of flight, and
it will take a lot of engineering and experimentation to achieve that for an
ornithopter , as it did for the Gossamer bunch. What a goal ! But I'll bet
some ingenious soul is already working at that.

Flash

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> A man-carry engine-powered ornithopter has already been done.
>
>
>

I suppose you refer to 'The (Canadian) Flapper'. But this ornithopter
needed jet assistance / a pusher propellor and a second wing to get
airborn.

There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
described as sustained flight.

Tom De Moor

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > A man-carry engine-powered ornithopter has already been done.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I suppose you refer to 'The (Canadian) Flapper'. But this ornithopter
> needed jet assistance / a pusher propellor and a second wing to get
> airborn.

No, it didn't. It needed a tow.

>
> There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
> without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
> described as sustained flight.

The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?

If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
airspeed and altitude on its own?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> > There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
> > without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
> > described as sustained flight.
>
> The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?
>
> If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
> speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
> airspeed and altitude on its own?
>

Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter

The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider.

The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain
flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings.

It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that
the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing
wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the
flapping did contribute to lift generation.

Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and
when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall
(immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add
nothing but drag.

In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by
iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet.
He added clapping paddles to a glider.

Tom De Moor

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > > There is quite a possibility that the Flapper would also take off
> > > without its wings flapping. In that scenario the flapping can hardly be
> > > described as sustained flight.
> >
> > The Wright Flyer needed a run down a hill. Was that not sustained flight?
> >
> > If you fire a Super Hornet off an aircraft carrier to get it up to
> > speed, does that mean that it's not sustained flight when it maintains
> > airspeed and altitude on its own?
> >
>
> Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter

Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on
the type of craft?

>
> The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider.
>
> The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain
> flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings.

There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved.

>
> It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that
> the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing
> wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the
> flapping did contribute to lift generation.

There was no other source of thrust involved.

>
> Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and
> when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall
> (immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add
> nothing but drag.

That won't meet the definition of "sustained flight" even if you don't
flap, because a glider cannot maintain both altitude and airspeed
simultaneously.

>
> In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by
> iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet.
> He added clapping paddles to a glider.

I'm sorry, but you're veering into weird, here...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> >
> > Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter
>
> Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on
> the type of craft?
>
> >

Because the subject is not sustained flight but sustained flight by an
ORNITHOPTER

> > The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider.
> >
> > The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain
> > flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings.
>
> There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA


'unless your eyes are cheated by some spell'
> >
> > It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that
> > the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing
> > wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the
> > flapping did contribute to lift generation.
>
> There was no other source of thrust involved.
>

See above

> >
> > Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and
> > when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall
> > (immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add
> > nothing but drag.
>
> That won't meet the definition of "sustained flight" even if you don't
> flap, because a glider cannot maintain both altitude and airspeed
> simultaneously.
>
> >
> > In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by
> > iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet.
> > He added clapping paddles to a glider.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're veering into weird, here...
>

http://www.ornithopter.org/a.schmid.shtml


Tom De Moor

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > >
> > > Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter
> >
> > Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on
> > the type of craft?
> >
> > >
>
> Because the subject is not sustained flight but sustained flight by an
> ORNITHOPTER

So why does that change the definition of "sustained flight"?

Try an answer that is not begging the question this time.

>
> > > The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider.
> > >
> > > The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain
> > > flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings.
> >
> > There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved.
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1

Right. Where's the jet or the propeller?

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA

Again, where?

>
>
> 'unless your eyes are cheated by some spell'

Sorry, but it's not there.

> > >
> > > It is not certain that it achieved that because it is quite likely that
> > > the lift originated from the small wing combined with the flapping wing
> > > wether the big wing was flapping or not. So it is not certain that the
> > > flapping did contribute to lift generation.
> >
> > There was no other source of thrust involved.
> >
>
> See above

I did see. Moreover, I looked. You should try it.

>
> > >
> > > Otherwise building an ornithopter would be quite ease: take a glider and
> > > when in flight open the canopy and flap your arms. The glider won't fall
> > > (immédiately) out the sky but I suspect that the armflapping will add
> > > nothing but drag.
> >
> > That won't meet the definition of "sustained flight" even if you don't
> > flap, because a glider cannot maintain both altitude and airspeed
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > >
> > > In fact the first claims for ornithopter were following this method by
> > > iirc the same German engineer who develloped the Messcherschmidt Comet.
> > > He added clapping paddles to a glider.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you're veering into weird, here...
> >
>
> http://www.ornithopter.org/a.schmid.shtml

Yup. "Sustained flight" requires constant altitude and airspeed. The
Comet didn't meet the second criterion.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Tom De Moor > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > >
> > > Sustained flight as an aircraft =/= sustained flight as an ornithopter
> >
> > Why? Why would the definition of "sustained flight" change depending on
> > the type of craft?
> >
> > >
>
> Because the subject is not sustained flight but sustained flight by an
> ORNITHOPTER
>
> > > The Wright Flyer is not an ornithopter but an airplane/glider.
> > >
> > > The Flapper (jet powered or propellor pushed) was claimed to maintain
> > > flight / propulsion by the sole use of flapping wings.
> >
> > There was neither a jet nor a propellor involved.
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-qS7oN-3tA
>
>
> 'unless your eyes are cheated by some spell'

<http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg>

The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from
a standing start.

Where's the jet or propellor?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[TonyW]

On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1
>
> <http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg>
>
> The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from
> a standing start.
>
> Where's the jet or propellor?

First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article
mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for
it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop
around the field, it would be more believable...

As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal
stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post...

Tony

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1
> >
> > <http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg>
> >
> > The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from
> > a standing start.
> >
> > Where's the jet or propellor?
>
> First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article
> mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for
> it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop
> around the field, it would be more believable...

The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit.

The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only
accomplished by taking off with gravity assist.

Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway.

>
> As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal
> stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post...

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[TonyW]

On 10/11/2010 3:30 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1
>>>
>>> <http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg>
>>>
>>> The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from
>>> a standing start.
>>>
>>> Where's the jet or propellor?
>>
>> First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article
>> mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for
>> it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop
>> around the field, it would be more believable...
>
> The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit.
>
> The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only
> accomplished by taking off with gravity assist.
>
> Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway.
>
>>
>> As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal
>> stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post...
>
> LOL

You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
latter than the former...

Tony

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/11/2010 3:30 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/11/2010 1:17 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTIAS_Ornithopter_No.1
> >>>
> >>> <http://ornithopter.net/images/fullscale640-hq.mpg>
> >>>
> >>> The ornithopter you claim has a jet engine or propellor moving away from
> >>> a standing start.
> >>>
> >>> Where's the jet or propellor?
> >>
> >> First read the article and then look closely at the pix. The article
> >> mentions it and it's clearly visible in the pix if you're looking for
> >> it. Also 300 meters isn't much of a flight. If it had flown a loop
> >> around the field, it would be more believable...
> >
> > The "article" is a page on Wikipedia that anyone can edit.
> >
> > The first flight of the Wright Flyer was only 36 meters and was only
> > accomplished by taking off with gravity assist.
> >
> > Deslaurier's craft took off from a level runway.
> >
> >>
> >> As it has been mentioned before, you're acting as if you have a personal
> >> stake in this and it seems more and more like that every time you post...
> >
> > LOL
>
> You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
> facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
> latter than the former...

I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[CaveLamb]

This was fascinating...
A hummingbird (several in fact) in slow motion...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NQv89pCYU8&NR=1

I was surprised how seldom the wings move in phase.
It looks like a swimmer's crawl most of the time.

Camera Artifact?

Or hovering hummingbird?

[TonyW]

On 10/11/2010 5:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

>> You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
>> facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
>> latter than the former...
>
> I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony.

I'm more inclined to believe you're trolling.

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/11/2010 5:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >> You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
> >> facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
> >> latter than the former...
> >
> > I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony.
>
> I'm more inclined to believe you're trolling.

Everyone's got to believe what they want to believe, Tony.

But people who have facts can present them.

So far you haven't.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>

[TonyW]

On 10/11/2010 7:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2010 5:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>>> You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
>>>> facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
>>>> latter than the former...
>>>
>>> I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony.
>>
>> I'm more inclined to believe you're trolling.
>
> Everyone's got to believe what they want to believe, Tony.
>
> But people who have facts can present them.
>
> So far you haven't.

You have twisted some facts and ignored others. I stand by my
conclusion that you're trolling...

Tony

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
TonyW > wrote:

> On 10/11/2010 7:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/11/2010 5:15 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You either have a stake in this or you're a toll. The way you ignore
> >>>> facts and bring up irrelevant information, it's looking more like the
> >>>> latter than the former...
> >>>
> >>> I have a stake in facts and truth, Tony.
> >>
> >> I'm more inclined to believe you're trolling.
> >
> > Everyone's got to believe what they want to believe, Tony.
> >
> > But people who have facts can present them.
> >
> > So far you haven't.
>
> You have twisted some facts and ignored others.

What actual facts have you presented and how have I twisted them?

> I stand by my
> conclusion that you're trolling...
>
> Tony

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>