Robot That Flies Like A Bird

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 10:52:49 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Walks like a duck!
>
>They don't need to mimic the mechanism. He copied the mechanisms years
>after the toy manufacturers engineered it.

Bullshit. 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.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 13:35:01 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 7/24/2011 9:52 AM, m II wrote:
--snip--
>
>Very short sighted comment.

What, you want your trolls to be bright, too?

PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.
PDFTFT.


--
Self-development is a higher duty than self-sacrifice.
-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

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 <[email protected]>, Dave
<[email protected]> 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.

"m II" <--- the stolen "nym", lifted by Josepi/Eric/mHo
fell on it's arse again with:

[top posted drivel corrected]
>"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:35:01 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit 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.

Why i s that?
You use Agent, regular like.
Other than the display YOU cannot fix, the s'Ware really
says little unless you use it to yabber shit with, as you do.
What then becomes very obvious is that the dribbler uses
what is understood (easiest for their owned pea-brain)
and so the correlation is made - MSOE = WOFTP

>
>Another incarnation of George Watson?
>
You saying you do not know..!!..?
Are you ill?

err.. now THAT is a wasted question.

george

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:44:10 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> 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.

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/hi-tech-company-invents-mechanical-bird?page=39

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.

In article <230720110042324231%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave
> <[email protected]> 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.

In article <1301e9fc-04c9-4325-a747-
[email protected]>, [email protected] 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

In article <[email protected]>, 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/hi-tech-company-invents-mechanical-bird?page=39

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

In article <[email protected]>, 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 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)

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 news:[email protected]...
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" <[email protected]> wrote:
Radio Shack sells battery operated remote control birds that flap to fly for
$29

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.
>
> ---------------
> "Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Radio Shack sells battery operated remote control birds that flap to fly
> for
> $29
>
>
>
>


Very short sighted comment.

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

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

"Gerald Ross" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 22:35:01 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> 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 bullshit 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.

Swingman <[email protected]> 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).

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 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.

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 news:[email protected]...
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 bullshit 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" <[email protected]> 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

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.

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
news:[email protected]...
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.

Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Gerald Ross" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:44:10 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote
>>in:<[email protected]>
>>
>>>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.


Josepi/Eric/'mII'/mHo/Bengi did not post the comment you rely on.
The record should be as above.
george

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.