*


All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:17 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2004 1:44 pm
Posts: 582
Location: italy
brunolgx wrote:
Quote:

Bruno,

Does that mean the GK Sonic and the OR One are not Bows?

Ed


No. If their TE is concave, what seems to be, they infringe Diamond White patents. What means that they will have to take a license or be sued.

Bruno


Just a question

do you mean there have been NO kites with concave TE before D white patents ??


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:53 pm 
Offline
Rare Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:33 am
Posts: 25
Would be interesting to get a more specific estimate of line drag. A quarter of the pilot resistance is a lot I think though. Faired guylines would be beneficial for many applications.. Tom Speer (http://www.tspeer.com) wrote somewhere something like that it had been tried, but not successfully for the reason you mention. I might have the quote on my HD, if so I'll dig it out.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:02 am 
Offline
Rare Poster

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 2:33 am
Posts: 25
here's the cable fairing link

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proa_file/message/9167


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:08 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:05 pm
Posts: 194
Location: DR - inventor
maddy wrote:
do you mean there have been NO kites with concave TE before D white patents ??


Please, take the context into account: like most patents, the bow concept mixes several know elements (concave TE, sweep, bridles along the LE only, negative dihedral...) I think there isn't one new invention that starts from nothing.

Some of these elements are easy to see on pictures of the kite flying, but it's difficult to see if the TE is slightly concave or convex. I previously showed a pic of a kite deflated and prepared so that it is easy to see the TE curvature.

Bruno


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:16 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 1764
Location: Miami @ 6" Flat Butter!
brunolgx wrote:
Please, take the context into account: like most patents, the bow concept mixes several know elements (concave TE, sweep, bridles along the LE only, negative dihedral...) I think there isn't one new invention that starts from nothing.

Than, is this sweep would be one of the element showing on the L.E.
also of the ParaskiFlex?:?:
Or it doesn't apply because of the rigid L.E.?:?:

I'd like to comment about L/D.
I experienced long time ago when double surface was made functional for hang-gliders,
it was a quantum leap forward in hang gliding.
From 7:1 rapidly increased over 10 with better profiles and aerodynamics.
Don't you feel after a point only double surface and rigidity will be the goal of he future?:?:

Thanks Bruno,

DrLightWind


Attachments:
ParaskiFex.jpeg
ParaskiFex.jpeg [ 16.01 KIB | Viewed 809 times ]
Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:09 am 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:05 pm
Posts: 194
Location: DR - inventor
Our patent describes the ParaskiFlex as part of the prior art and was written accordingly.

Section 103 of the US patent code provides that a patent may not be obtained "if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art."

I think that the reply is clear:
On our side we developed the bow concept in 2002 and heard about this kite in early 2004.
It can be imagined that other kite designers knew it (popular in Canada, website), however none of them has developped a bow kite independantly.

Double surface: the goal of the future?

Our 1984 patent describes a double surface kite (with possibility to reduce the Intrados surface length) and ALL OUR PROTOTYPES during the first 5 years were double surface, 100% then 80%, then 60%, 40%, 30%...
While theoretically a double surface is more efficient, the advantage is lost very quickly if the profile doesn't inflate enough or too much, if it flaps in the turns... We also met practical problems as weight and cost. Weight is a key point for kites, not necessarily for other sails/wings. Cost is a keypoint for kitesurfing, not necessarily for future kite markets. That are the reasons for us "evolving" to a single surface kite.

My view is that if we come back to heavier, costlier, more sophisticated kites (battens...), we will do what hang-gliding did: perfect machines that a small group of people can purchase, use and store.
Paragliding took advantage of it.
It isn't what I wish to kitesurfing.
Keep it simple !
Bruno



.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bebo, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Inhuman, tautologies, tilmann and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group