E-Concept

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

FAI have introduced "E-Concept" to the sport of Gliding. Most of the details are yet to be worked out, but the essence of the concept is that the use of stored energy will be allowed during the credited portion of the flight performance.

Powered flight for credit.

Does this belong in our sport?

[jfitch]

We already used stored energy. Are you saying there are types you like and types you don't?

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 7:50:51 AM UTC-8, Pat Russell wrote:
> FAI have introduced "E-Concept" to the sport of Gliding. Most of the details are yet to be worked out, but the essence of the concept is that the use of stored energy will be allowed during the credited portion of the flight performance.
>
> Powered flight for credit.
>
> Does this belong in our sport?

[BobW]

> We already used stored energy. Are you saying there are types you like and
> types you don't?
>
>> FAI have introduced "E-Concept" to the sport of Gliding. Most of the
>> details are yet to be worked out, but the essence of the concept is that
>> the use of stored energy will be allowed during the credited portion of
>> the flight performance.
>>
>> Powered flight for credit.
>>
>> Does this belong in our sport?

A stronger argument can be made that "Flight is flight," than "All flight is
the same." To use an analogy, "This particular fish seems more mullet than
salmon."

Yeah! Let's have a "soaring competition" in which no distinction is made
between "direct solar-powered flight" and "battery-(dinosaur-juice-;
rubber-band-) powered flight. And to be sure we don't lose any competition
days to bad weather, let's continue scoring during and after using
"non-natural power."

Let the semanticists begin!!!

Bob - all flight is good; not all flight is soaring flight - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[jfitch]

I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the physics is the same, only the details of execution are different.

There is a direct parallel in yacht racing, with a parallel controversy. Stored power is used to operate winches or cant keels, leading to the anomaly of a sailboat race with engines running the entire time to power these accessories. Even in traditional racing, engine power has been used to charge batteries for instruments, autopilots, watermakers, etc. We do the same thing in gliders, carrying stored energy in a battery to power sophisticated instruments, charged from the grid on the ground. In the recent A-cup races, stored energy was allowed but had to be generated on board. You had a team of winch grinders grinding away to refill the hydraulic storage units even when no sail trimming was being done, which would be used later.

For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is that subverting soaring? I guess if we define soaring as only the direct use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street, charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the air though is well down a slippery cliff.


On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 9:43:34 AM UTC-8, BobW wrote:
> > We already used stored energy. Are you saying there are types you like and
> > types you don't?
> >
> >> FAI have introduced "E-Concept" to the sport of Gliding. Most of the
> >> details are yet to be worked out, but the essence of the concept is that
> >> the use of stored energy will be allowed during the credited portion of
> >> the flight performance.
> >>
> >> Powered flight for credit.
> >>
> >> Does this belong in our sport?
>
> A stronger argument can be made that "Flight is flight," than "All flight is
> the same." To use an analogy, "This particular fish seems more mullet than
> salmon."
>
> Yeah! Let's have a "soaring competition" in which no distinction is made
> between "direct solar-powered flight" and "battery-(dinosaur-juice-;
> rubber-band-) powered flight. And to be sure we don't lose any competition
> days to bad weather, let's continue scoring during and after using
> "non-natural power."
>
> Let the semanticists begin!!!
>
> Bob - all flight is good; not all flight is soaring flight - W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

[Pat Russell[_2_]]

Apologies for not being clear.

E-concept proposes to allow the use of battery power for propulsion during the credited portion of the flight: the competition task, the record attempt, the badge flight.

This would be new. This line has never been crossed before. The question is whether this is Gliding sport.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
> energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
> physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
>
And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.

Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
flight?

> For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
> started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
> instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
> wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
> that subverting soaring?

Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.

> I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
> use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
> the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
> charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
> hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
> air though is well down a slippery cliff.
We disagree that, "[I]t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
"usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
makes soaring possible.

Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere. All
the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!

And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
(averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
non-soaring flight as soaring flight.


Bob - believes first principles matter - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[John Foster]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 8:28:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:[i]
> > I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
> > energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
> > physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
> >
> And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
> require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
> energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
> energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.
>
> Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
> no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
> atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
> around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
> flight?
>
> > For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
> > started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
> > instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
> > wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
> > that subverting soaring?
>
> Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
> entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
> isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.
>
> > I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
> > use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
> > the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
> > charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
> > hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
> > air though is well down a slippery cliff.
> We disagree that, "t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
> simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
> flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
> "usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
> atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
> of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
> expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
> soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
> isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
> with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
> makes soaring possible.
>
> Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
> extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere. All
> the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
> skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
> gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!
>
> And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
> IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
> (averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
> view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
> soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
> non-soaring flight as soaring flight.
>
>
> Bob - believes first principles matter - W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

I tend to be a bit more of a "purist", so in my view, if a motor is used (during the competition/task) then its not soaring. Simple.

[jfitch]

Technology will catch up and pass your definitions. I'm quite sure is it technically possible, and even practical, to install an autopilot and modest AI computer that would thermal better than the best competition pilot. It has not been done only because there is no economic incentive. Again there are parallels in yacht racing: in the 2014 A-Cup races, computers were not allowed to directly control sails or foils - so instead, a computer moved a needle on a dial to indicate its desired setpoint, a second needle indicated the current position of the foils and a crewman was assigned to turn a knob to keep the needles aligned, satisfying the rules.

In physics, the storage of energy in potential (altitude), kinetic (speed) or chemical (batteries) is equivalent and the distinction in this context arbitrary. Gravity isn't "absorbed" but the potential energy from it certainly is. In F1 racing, hybrid technology captures excess energy from braking which is used to accelerate out of the corner. What is different about using excess energy at cloud base to improve speed or distance to the next cloud? We already do this by diving away from the cloud.

I'm not advocating all or any of this. But you better start thinking about it now as some of it at least is inevitable. The line is in fact *very* fuzzy if it can be defined at all. It is possible (but not trivial*) to define potential energy at beginning of task = potential energy at end of task. The storage and retrieval of energy during the task is a very slippery subject.

*example of complexity: we are currently allowed to tow aloft and start with 500 or more lbs of water ballast. We are not required to bring that home. That represents quite a lot of watts of stored energy left on the course. By your definition, this should be illegal.

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:[i]
> > I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
> > energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
> > physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
> >
> And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
> require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
> energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
> energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.
>
> Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
> no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
> atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
> around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
> flight?
>
> > For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
> > started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
> > instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
> > wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
> > that subverting soaring?
>
> Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
> entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
> isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.
>
> > I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
> > use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
> > the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
> > charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
> > hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
> > air though is well down a slippery cliff.
> We disagree that, "t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
> simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
> flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
> "usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
> atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
> of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
> expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
> soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
> isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
> with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
> makes soaring possible.
>
> Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
> extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere.. All
> the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
> skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
> gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!
>
> And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
> IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
> (averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
> view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
> soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
> non-soaring flight as soaring flight.
>
>
> Bob - believes first principles matter - W.
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com

[Dan Marotta]

Water, or the weight thereof, does neither keep the glider in the air,
nor give it the energy to make it home on a dying day.Â* Sure, the
technology is there and will probably be used by those who either can't
soar or who care more about winning than enjoying soaring.Â* That's fine
with me and just another reason why I won't be participating.



On 12/24/2017 12:30 PM, jfitch wrote:
> Technology will catch up and pass your definitions. I'm quite sure is it technically possible, and even practical, to install an autopilot and modest AI computer that would thermal better than the best competition pilot. It has not been done only because there is no economic incentive. Again there are parallels in yacht racing: in the 2014 A-Cup races, computers were not allowed to directly control sails or foils - so instead, a computer moved a needle on a dial to indicate its desired setpoint, a second needle indicated the current position of the foils and a crewman was assigned to turn a knob to keep the needles aligned, satisfying the rules.
>
> In physics, the storage of energy in potential (altitude), kinetic (speed) or chemical (batteries) is equivalent and the distinction in this context arbitrary. Gravity isn't "absorbed" but the potential energy from it certainly is. In F1 racing, hybrid technology captures excess energy from braking which is used to accelerate out of the corner. What is different about using excess energy at cloud base to improve speed or distance to the next cloud? We already do this by diving away from the cloud.
>
> I'm not advocating all or any of this. But you better start thinking about it now as some of it at least is inevitable. The line is in fact *very* fuzzy if it can be defined at all. It is possible (but not trivial*) to define potential energy at beginning of task = potential energy at end of task. The storage and retrieval of energy during the task is a very slippery subject.
>
> *example of complexity: we are currently allowed to tow aloft and start with 500 or more lbs of water ballast. We are not required to bring that home. That represents quite a lot of watts of stored energy left on the course. By your definition, this should be illegal.
>
> On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:[i]
>>> I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
>>> energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
>>> physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
>>>
>> And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
>> require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
>> energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
>> energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.
>>
>> Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
>> no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
>> atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
>> around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
>> flight?
>>
>>> For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
>>> started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
>>> instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
>>> wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
>>> that subverting soaring?
>> Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
>> entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
>> isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.
>>
>>> I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
>>> use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
>>> the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
>>> charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
>>> hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
>>> air though is well down a slippery cliff.
>> We disagree that, "t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
>> simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
>> flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
>> "usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
>> atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
>> of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
>> expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
>> soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
>> isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
>> with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
>> makes soaring possible.
>>
>> Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
>> extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere. All
>> the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
>> skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
>> gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!
>>
>> And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
>> IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
>> (averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
>> view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
>> soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
>> non-soaring flight as soaring flight.
>>
>>
>> Bob - believes first principles matter - W.
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com

--
Dan, 5J

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

I look forward to the possibility of competition events that fly more or less every day (because the tasking possibilities expand so greatly with a little propulsion), in locations with tasks over terrain which would otherwise be untaskable due to landing options, with no tugs or crews required.

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:54:40 AM UTC+10:30, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Water, or the weight thereof, does neither keep the glider in the air,
> nor give it the energy to make it home on a dying day.Â* Sure, the
> technology is there and will probably be used by those who either can't
> soar or who care more about winning than enjoying soaring.Â* That's fine
> with me and just another reason why I won't be participating.
>
>
>
> On 12/24/2017 12:30 PM, jfitch wrote:
> > Technology will catch up and pass your definitions. I'm quite sure is it technically possible, and even practical, to install an autopilot and modest AI computer that would thermal better than the best competition pilot. It has not been done only because there is no economic incentive. Again there are parallels in yacht racing: in the 2014 A-Cup races, computers were not allowed to directly control sails or foils - so instead, a computer moved a needle on a dial to indicate its desired setpoint, a second needle indicated the current position of the foils and a crewman was assigned to turn a knob to keep the needles aligned, satisfying the rules.
> >
> > In physics, the storage of energy in potential (altitude), kinetic (speed) or chemical (batteries) is equivalent and the distinction in this context arbitrary. Gravity isn't "absorbed" but the potential energy from it certainly is. In F1 racing, hybrid technology captures excess energy from braking which is used to accelerate out of the corner. What is different about using excess energy at cloud base to improve speed or distance to the next cloud? We already do this by diving away from the cloud.
> >
> > I'm not advocating all or any of this. But you better start thinking about it now as some of it at least is inevitable. The line is in fact *very* fuzzy if it can be defined at all. It is possible (but not trivial*) to define potential energy at beginning of task = potential energy at end of task. The storage and retrieval of energy during the task is a very slippery subject.
> >
> > *example of complexity: we are currently allowed to tow aloft and start with 500 or more lbs of water ballast. We are not required to bring that home. That represents quite a lot of watts of stored energy left on the course. By your definition, this should be illegal.
> >
> > On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:
> >>> I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
> >>> energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
> >>> physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
> >>>
> >> And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
> >> require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
> >> energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
> >> energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.
> >>
> >> Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
> >> no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
> >> atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
> >> around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
> >> flight?
> >>
> >>> For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
> >>> started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
> >>> instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
> >>> wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
> >>> that subverting soaring?
> >> Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
> >> entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
> >> isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.
> >>
> >>> I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
> >>> use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
> >>> the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
> >>> charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
> >>> hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
> >>> air though is well down a slippery cliff.
> >> We disagree that, "[I]t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
> >> simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
> >> flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
> >> "usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
> >> atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
> >> of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
> >> expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
> >> soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
> >> isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
> >> with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
> >> makes soaring possible.
> >>
> >> Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
> >> extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere. All
> >> the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
> >> skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
> >> gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!
> >>
> >> And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
> >> IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
> >> (averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
> >> view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
> >> soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
> >> non-soaring flight as soaring flight.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob - believes first principles matter - W.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> >> http://www.avg.com
>
> --
> Dan, 5J
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JS[_5_]]

On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 2:48:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> I look forward to the possibility of competition events that fly more or less every day (because the tasking possibilities expand so greatly with a little propulsion), in locations with tasks over terrain which would otherwise be untaskable due to landing options, with no tugs or crews required.
>
> On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:54:40 AM UTC+10:30, Dan Marotta wrote:
> > Water, or the weight thereof, does neither keep the glider in the air,
> > nor give it the energy to make it home on a dying day.Â* Sure, the
> > technology is there and will probably be used by those who either can't
> > soar or who care more about winning than enjoying soaring.Â* That's fine
> > with me and just another reason why I won't be participating.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/24/2017 12:30 PM, jfitch wrote:
> > > Technology will catch up and pass your definitions. I'm quite sure is it technically possible, and even practical, to install an autopilot and modest AI computer that would thermal better than the best competition pilot.. It has not been done only because there is no economic incentive. Again there are parallels in yacht racing: in the 2014 A-Cup races, computers were not allowed to directly control sails or foils - so instead, a computer moved a needle on a dial to indicate its desired setpoint, a second needle indicated the current position of the foils and a crewman was assigned to turn a knob to keep the needles aligned, satisfying the rules.
> > >
> > > In physics, the storage of energy in potential (altitude), kinetic (speed) or chemical (batteries) is equivalent and the distinction in this context arbitrary. Gravity isn't "absorbed" but the potential energy from it certainly is. In F1 racing, hybrid technology captures excess energy from braking which is used to accelerate out of the corner. What is different about using excess energy at cloud base to improve speed or distance to the next cloud? We already do this by diving away from the cloud.
> > >
> > > I'm not advocating all or any of this. But you better start thinking about it now as some of it at least is inevitable. The line is in fact *very* fuzzy if it can be defined at all. It is possible (but not trivial*) to define potential energy at beginning of task = potential energy at end of task. The storage and retrieval of energy during the task is a very slippery subject.
> > >
> > > *example of complexity: we are currently allowed to tow aloft and start with 500 or more lbs of water ballast. We are not required to bring that home. That represents quite a lot of watts of stored energy left on the course. By your definition, this should be illegal.
> > >
> > > On Sunday, December 24, 2017 at 7:28:37 AM UTC-8, Bob Whelan wrote:
> > >>> I'll admit to not understanding their concept. If it involves storing
> > >>> energy while flying, to be used in the weak spots then I would say the
> > >>> physics is the same, only the details of execution are different...
> > >>>
> > >> And in details lie devils. Not only does the in-flight storing of solar energy
> > >> require no piloting skill (quite unlike thermalling or orographically-induced
> > >> energy storing, i.e. the very essences of soaring flight), how the stored
> > >> energy is subsequently used cuts to the same issue.
> > >>
> > >> Using electrical energy to make noisy variometers and display pretty maps in
> > >> no way adds directly to the sailplane's energy state relative to the earth or
> > >> atmosphere, while using it to rotate a propeller, or otherwise muscle air
> > >> around, does. Just a "...detail of execution..." or the termination of soaring
> > >> flight?
> > >>
> > >>> For me the line is crossed when you finish with less energy than you
> > >>> started with. That line has already been crossed in a modest way with
> > >>> instrument batteries, but that is trivial. If I built solar panels into the
> > >>> wings and used the energy stored during the task to cross a blue hole, is
> > >>> that subverting soaring?
> > >> Whether the question posed immediately above is "subverting soaring flight" is
> > >> entirely up to the individual pilot to decide in my view...but it certainly
> > >> isn't *soaring* flight...and no IGC ruling will ever make it so.
> > >>
> > >>> I guess if we define soaring as only the direct
> > >>> use of variations in air mass movement, then it is. How about if I deploy
> > >>> the prop rather than the spoilers racing along under a cloud street,
> > >>> charging the batteries to later use to cross a blue hole? It gets pretty
> > >>> hard to draw a line. Loading up the energy on the ground to expend in the
> > >>> air though is well down a slippery cliff.
> > >> We disagree that, "[I]t gets pretty hard to draw a line." In my view it's
> > >> simple to draw the line between soaring flight and "some other kind of
> > >> flight," as the above paragraph's first sentence easily does. When all the
> > >> "usable energy" (following launch, of course) is drawn *directly* from the
> > >> atmosphere (not indirectly, from the sun, or from dinosaurs), *and* when zero
> > >> of the plane's absorbed energies come from other sources (e.g. propellers,
> > >> expelled dinosaur-juice motivated/modified atmosphere, etc.), then it is
> > >> soaring flight. Gravity - nothing else - is soaring's engine. And gravity
> > >> isn't "absorbed" but rather "inherently positional" and in constant exchange
> > >> with the atmosphere. Gravity in conjunction with a non-quiescent atmosphere
> > >> makes soaring possible.
> > >>
> > >> Consider what we presently call "dynamic soaring." All of the energy to be
> > >> extracted and put into the plane are directly derived from the atmosphere. All
> > >> the deriving and stored energy increase comes about directly from the pilot's
> > >> skill and control inputs. All the dissipation of that energy is
> > >> gravitationally driven. Qualifies as "soaring flight" to me!
> > >>
> > >> And *that* seems to be the question posed by the O.P. (and perhaps by the
> > >> IGC). In my view it has zero to do with personal enjoyment vis-a-vis landouts
> > >> (averted or not), competition participation, or anything else. Because (in my
> > >> view) all flight is good, but not all flight is soaring flight, the sport of
> > >> soaring and its Powers that Be ought not to be attempting to fob off
> > >> non-soaring flight as soaring flight.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Bob - believes first principles matter - W.
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > >> http://www.avg.com
> >
> > --
> > Dan, 5J
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Gerhard Waibel was considering computer controlled air pumps for boundary layer control ages ago, but the technicality of it not being pure soaring flight unless the batteries had as much charge in them after flight as before was a concern - if I remember. It was in his "Sailplanes of 2050" talk.
It'd be nice to see what the definition of soaring is. Is a bird soaring when it flaps its wings? Hummingbirds soar!
Perhaps if we want competitions with more days of soaring, don't hold them where the weather is rubbish?
Jim

[sisu1a]

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 7:50:51 AM UTC-8, Pat Russell wrote:
> FAI have introduced "E-Concept" to the sport of Gliding. Most of the details are yet to be worked out, but the essence of the concept is that the use of stored energy will be allowed during the credited portion of the flight performance.
>
> Powered flight for credit.
>
> Does this belong in our sport?


I, for one, welcome our new LS-22 overlords