Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

In article , Dave
wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Yes, but why? As a mechanical device it's terribly inefficient.

MTBF will be very high, probably less that the average lifespan of an
actual bird.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:42:32 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Yes, but why? As a mechanical device it's terribly inefficient.

MTBF will be very high, probably less that the average lifespan of an
actual bird.

Argh, you're being too practical and missing the whole point. It's not
that it's inefficient or has a high MTBF, it's that man has always
tried to design something that can mimic a bird and now he can ~
practical applications be damned.

On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Awesome technological feat ... actual, working reconstruction of bird
flight, a dream for thousands of years, is now a reality. Practical?
Who's to say when and how long, but thankfully practicality has little
place in dreams.

Interesting that Festo was the parent company of Festool ... proving
once again that German engineering is a force to be reckoned with.

About all the US excels in these days is social networking sites ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman writes:
On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Awesome technological feat ... actual, working reconstruction of bird
flight, a dream for thousands of years, is now a reality. Practical?
Who's to say when and how long, but thankfully practicality has little
place in dreams.

Interesting that Festo was the parent company of Festool ... proving
once again that German engineering is a force to be reckoned with.

About all the US excels in these days is social networking sites ...

And the following leading edge companies:

- Tesla Motors
- Scaled Composites (now part of Lockmart)
- SpaceX (et alia)

A couple of thousand bleeding edge startups.

The two companies with the largest market capitalizations in the world
(Apple and Exxon).

scott

(Interesting factoid: GWB's AIG bailout was larger than the entire amount
spent on the shuttle program over its entire 40 year span).

In article 230720110042324231%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone. ca,
says...

In article , Dave
wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Yes, but why? As a mechanical device it's terribly inefficient.

MTBF will be very high, probably less that the average lifespan of an
actual bird.

The obvious "why" is to confirm that we actually understand the
mechanisms of bird flight.

Something doesn't appear to be correct with that video demonstration.
Despite the weight of 1 pound and a wing span of 2 meters, the wing
flaps don't appear to be fast enough, nor long enough. How does it
control its turning and other maneuvers?

The different peoples' handling of the bird doesn't appear to be that
which is required for something as large, relative to its little
weight, i.e., very fragile. Another questionable demonstration of
this idea is hinted at, within the 4:15 time of the video, in this
link. In this link, outside, not indoors, a blonde headed girl's hair
(about 2 minutes into the clip) and another girl's purple shirt (near
the end) is blowing in the wind. If the wind is blowing that much, it
would take this very light craft and blow it away, making it unable
for it to control itself against that kind of wind force, in my
opinion. Something just doesn't appear to be correct.

http://blog.ted.com/

Beyond that, it may not be so important if one makes a flying bird
exactly like a real bird. The different technologies required would
likely lead to other applications that may be more relevant in the
practical world.

Sonny

In article 1301e9fc-04c9-4325-a747-
, says...

Something doesn't appear to be correct with that video demonstration.
Despite the weight of 1 pound and a wing span of 2 meters, the wing
flaps don't appear to be fast enough, nor long enough.

It's half the weight of a herring gull and with a third more wingspan.
Why should it need to flap any more rapidly than a real bird?

How does it
control its turning and other maneuvers?

The same way a real bird does?

The different peoples' handling of the bird doesn't appear to be that
which is required for something as large, relative to its little
weight, i.e., very fragile.

It's carbon fiber. It may not be as fragile as you think.

Another questionable demonstration of
this idea is hinted at, within the 4:15 time of the video, in this
link. In this link, outside, not indoors, a blonde headed girl's hair
(about 2 minutes into the clip) and another girl's purple shirt (near
the end) is blowing in the wind. If the wind is blowing that much, it
would take this very light craft and blow it away, making it unable
for it to control itself against that kind of wind force, in my
opinion.

And yet somehow the real birds manage to control themselves in that same
wind.

Something just doesn't appear to be correct.

http://blog.ted.com/

Beyond that, it may not be so important if one makes a flying bird
exactly like a real bird. The different technologies required would
likely lead to other applications that may be more relevant in the
practical world.

Sonny

Swingman wrote:
On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Awesome technological feat ... actual, working reconstruction of bird
flight, a dream for thousands of years, is now a reality. Practical?
Who's to say when and how long, but thankfully practicality has little
place in dreams.

Interesting that Festo was the parent company of Festool ... proving
once again that German engineering is a force to be reckoned with.

About all the US excels in these days is social networking sites ...


That's pretty cool! It does seem that inadequate credit is given to the
originator of the original design! : )

Bill

On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

The U.S. Defence had been using a mechanical bird, actually a humming
bird that can even hover.

On 7/23/2011 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

The U.S. Defence had been using a mechanical bird, actually a humming
bird that can even hover.

http://www.tweentribune.com/content/...l-bird?page=39

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 7/23/2011 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

The U.S. Defence had been using a mechanical bird, actually a humming
bird that can even hover.

http://www.tweentribune.com/content/...l-bird?page=39

There are videos of it on YouTube ... one is robobird, the other is pure
poetry in motion.

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

I saw wind-up birds that flew well in Japan 30+ years ago. They were
sold as toys.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

To thine own self be cool.

Radio Shack sells battery operated remote control birds that flap to fly for
$29

---------------------

"Gerald Ross" wrote in message
...
I saw wind-up birds that flew well in Japan 30+ years ago. They were
sold as toys.

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

To thine own self be cool.

Odd enough birds were old hat at one University I know of and
the research arm went on to insects. The physics of flight
don't apply to insects - they are far more complex.

Size and power were overcome.
Martin

On 7/23/2011 1:50 AM, Dave wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:42:32 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

Yes, but why? As a mechanical device it's terribly inefficient.

MTBF will be very high, probably less that the average lifespan of an
actual bird.

Argh, you're being too practical and missing the whole point. It's not
that it's inefficient or has a high MTBF, it's that man has always
tried to design something that can mimic a bird and now he can ~
practical applications be damned.

In article , lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...

On 7/23/2011 2:55 PM, Leon wrote:
On 7/23/2011 1:32 AM, Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

The U.S. Defence had been using a mechanical bird, actually a humming
bird that can even hover.

http://www.tweentribune.com/content/...l-bird?page=39

"Using" is too strong a word. It's a DARPA project which means it's
research.

In article , gwr40
@comsouth.net says...

Dave wrote:

Amazing engineering
http://tinyurl.com/3jgwwsn

I saw wind-up birds that flew well in Japan 30+ years ago. They were
sold as toys.

"Ornithopter" has been a category in AMA indoor competition for decades.

There was one made as a toy in France in the late 1800s.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:44:10 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Radio Shack sells battery operated remote control birds that flap to fly for
$29

I saw wind-up birds that flew well in Japan 30+ years ago. They were
sold as toys.

Your wind up and battery operated toys do NOT mimic the mechanics of
real birds. This new creation is much closer to that ideal than
anything that's come before it.

Walks like a duck!

They don't need to mimic the mechanism. He copied the mechanisms years
after the toy manufacturers engineered it.

---------------
"Dave" wrote in message ...
Your wind up and battery operated toys do NOT mimic the mechanics of
real birds. This new creation is much closer to that ideal than
anything that's come before it.

-----------------
On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:44:10 -0400, "m II" wrote:
Radio Shack sells battery operated remote control birds that flap to fly for
$29

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:52:49 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Walks like a duck!

They don't need to mimic the mechanism. He copied the mechanisms years
after the toy manufacturers engineered it.

Bull****. But, since you're so fired up to prove me wrong, get off
your ass and post a link to this "toy" that is functionally equivalent
to the current smart bird.

Copying an old technology toy and attempting to market it as a new
scientific breakthrough could be considered fraud.

Probably stealing from the Chinese so that makes it OK. Germans should not
attempt English without getting some extra teeth removed first.

Here is a newer model,not quite as small as the RS unit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kah4ODbZNFE


------------------
"Leon" wrote in message
...
Very short sighted comment.

-------------------
On 7/24/2011 9:52 AM, m II wrote:
Walks like a duck!

They don't need to mimic the mechanism. He copied the mechanisms years
after the toy manufacturers engineered it.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:35:01 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Probably stealing from the Chinese so that makes it OK. Germans should not
attempt English without getting some extra teeth removed first.
Here is a newer model,not quite as small as the RS unit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kah4ODbZNFE

Years old as a toy eh? That is NOT a copy of the broken wing action of
the Smartbird. At most, your example is reminiscent of a hummingbird
wing action. And the same for all the other utube birds.

As usual, you're full of bull**** because your limited mind is unable
to discern the difference between a simple up and down flapping action
and a broken wing action. Go troll your crap somewhere else josepi or
whomever you are.

Another arrogant Forte Agent user bites the dust in a classic display of
childish name calling.

Another incarnation of George Watson?

----------------

"Dave" wrote in message ...
Years old as a toy eh? That is NOT a copy of the broken wing action of
the Smartbird. At most, your example is reminiscent of a hummingbird
wing action. And the same for all the other utube birds.
As usual, you're full of bull**** because your limited mind is unable
to discern the difference between a simple up and down flapping action
and a broken wing action. Go troll your crap somewhere else josepi or
whomever you are.


On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:35:01 -0400, "m II" wrote:

Probably stealing from the Chinese so that makes it OK. Germans should not
attempt English without getting some extra teeth removed first.
Here is a newer model,not quite as small as the RS unit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kah4ODbZNFE