h a l f b a k e r yAlas, poor spelling!
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Wing Spring Bone
energy storing bouncey wing structure to allow human powered flapping flight | |
This wing bone structure is in the shape of a cornucopia
and
is bouncey -- allows for energy storage. Another smaller
version of the wing bone should be added and a wing
material
stretched inbetween, and the flyer would wear one on each
arm, as well as one attached to both legs, to allow
human
powered flapping flight. Picture attached.
Wing Spring Bone Model
http://netfreedombl...s-of-wing-bone.html
[JesusHChrist, Jan 22 2014]
[link]
|
| |
[+] though mostly I can imagine the charley-horse in the back. Is (say) double the power going to be enough to enable powered flight ? |
|
| |
Human powered flight is possible. Not easy, but
possible. |
|
| |
Human powered flapping wing flight is not if the
wings are arm based. It might be possible if the
wings were somehow leg based, but I wouldn't bet
on success with that approach. |
|
| |
<<humans are BMI challenged>> |
|
| |
But we have technologies like leverage and energy
storage on our side. All I am saying is that these
don't have to come in the form of gears, pulleys,
chemical interactions etc. There has got to be a
minimal way of doing it. |
|
| |
[JHC], we've been through this before--in fact, we've been
through it in the last few weeks: human-powered flapping
flight is not physically possible. Birds are lightweight
creatures with bodies evolved specifically to acheive
dynamic flight. They are clumsy as hell and vulnerable on
the ground, which is why their primary mode of defense is
to fly away from a threat. Humans, on the other hand, are
heavy-boned and densely muscled creatures with bodies
evolved specifically to run down and inflict savage violence
upon anything we think might be good to eat, which is why
our primary mode of defense is not to take flight but
instead run like hell along the ground (or to turn around
and beat eight shades of shit out of anything foolish enough
to attack an apex predator). |
|
| |
So, one more time, even if you could stack enough muscle
on the human body to overcome its own heavy build, which
you can't, and even if you could make human skeleton
strong enough to withstand the force exerted by all of
those bulging muscle, which you can't, and even if you
could make the human breastbone the right shape to
anchor effective flight muscles, which it isn't, even then
you will not be able to build a human capable of sustained
bird-like flight, and this is why: |
|
| |
HUMANS AREN'T BIRDS. Buy a plane ticket. |
|
| |
I think human powered flight is possible givin windy
enough conditions. It won't be human evolution that
allows flapping flight, but extreme weather brought by
global climate crisis that ultimately will allow near naked
humans to take to the skies. Battling high speed gusts of
wind won't be easy but with wingspring bones, enough
carbs and a lot of luck humans can fly with the birds. |
|
| |
// I think human powered flight is possible givin windy
enough conditions. // |
|
| |
If there's enough wind to lift a human off the ground then
it's not human-powered flight, it's wind-powered flight. |
|
| |
Well how much of birds' flight is wind powered compared
to bird powered. I'd say all of bird flight is bird powered
simultaneous with wind power. At all times human
powered flight will be human powered, but also
simultaneously wind powered. Because human fliers will
ultimately be using the power of the wind to fly, human
powered flight will require substantial wind power to lift
heavier forms with lightweight aerodynamic appendages,
and kite like ccostumes. That a bird requires less wind
power than a human, and a bird can generate that lesser
amount, but a human can't produce that greater amount
shouldn't mean flight that is wind powered isn't also
human powered. |
|
| |
// I'd say all of bird flight is bird powered simultaneous
with wind power. // |
|
| |
So you're saying that birds can't fly unless the wind is
blowing? |
|
| |
No, but wind is an essential element that they produce,
but that they produce wind does not mean they are not
wind powered. They rely on wind, but humans cannot
produce enough wind power to lift themselves aas birdds
do. It's something like a tautology to say wind powered
flight. |
|
| |
Ultimately all flight is wind powered, but in the case of
using nonpowered tools like wing spring bones, if I
understand the idea correctly, is to acieve solely human
powered flight in conjunction with flight's inseparable
friend wind, and it's power. |
|
| |
Recently a large light four bladed bicycle powered
helicopter achieved record setteing sustained flight. It
was a human powered vehicle in a "windless"
environment. But the craft had to pproduce enough
wind to power its flight. Therefore the human powered
flight is also a windpowered flight. And therfore to say
wind powered flight is a tautology. |
|
| |
Even a kite is a human powered flight example because
some human power is required to keep the line taut,
although nothing is flying except the kite, although it is
a memorable sensation to jump and be pulled by a kite,
sustaining a human powered flight. |
|
| |
So in conclusion you have erred significantly as there is
no windless flight, other than descending in a gliding
manner. I'd further argue that falling is not flight, and
that only wind powered ascending or horizontal motion
is flying. Although that would be wrong and I'd lose some
ground. |
|
| |
//Even a kite is a human powered flight example
because some human power is required to keep the
line taut// |
|
| |
No, work done = force * distance, taut line, no
distance, no work done. You could replace the
human with a sand bag. |
|
| |
I'm sorry but even the deft reactions of a sandbag could
not replace a human in this instance. |
|
| |
Certainly not in _your_ instance. |
|
| |
[rcarty] "Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale."
(Wikipedia). |
|
| |
I think it is useful to maintain the distinction
between air flow generated by a bird's flapping
and other motion (not wind), and wind. |
|
| |
Thus, while all flying birds derive lift from the
movement of air relative to the bird, some (e.g.
albatross) are largely wind-powered, while others
(e.g. hummingbirds) are essentially not wind
powered, and others again (e.g. gulls) are in
between. Wind is a thing. Air movement is a
thing. They aren't the same thing. |
|
| |
The sandbag-kite thing is a false dichotomy. A
good kite in a steady wind can often fly with the
string anchored to a fixed point, but there are a
range of conditions in which the operator, by
manipulating the string, allows a kite to fly that
would not fly if anchored. So, kites are mostly
wind powered, but human power is sometimes
involved too. |
|
| |
//Although that would be wrong and I'd lose some
ground.// |
|
| |
I'd think you'd gain some, probably lodged in
between your teeth as you hit it. |
|
| |
Anyway I had fun making the argument. There is a fine line between wind power and air movement that is fun to dance around. In the end the argument that wind powered flight is a tautology fails, but only by that fine thread that shows that there is a nonwind air movement that lofts some birds. |
|
| |
//technologies like leverage// |
|
| |
Well there's the answer. Give me a long enough lever
and I can lift myself. |
|
| |