Re: NEW ENERGY TIMES (tm) Jan. 10, 2005 -- Issue #8
Dave wrote: > The biggest controversy surrounding the Wright brothers is whether they > were actually the first to fly. I gather New Zealand has a prior claim > with Richard Pearse. > Others got into the air before the Wrights, including Pearse. The critical issue is controlled flight, including turns and landing, which the Wrights achieved first. Jed's the expert here, perhaps he can comment. Mike Carrell
Re: NEW ENERGY TIMES (tm) Jan. 10, 2005 -- Issue #8
The biggest controversy surrounding the Wright brothers is whether they were actually the first to fly. I gather New Zealand has a prior claim with Richard Pearse. http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html But claims of 'first' are always dubious. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. Interestingly, nobody seemed to doubt him. Not so much of the snake oil suspicion in NZ I guess - a particularly sad form of Pathological Scepticism. dave On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 06:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Item 23 in this newsletter, "Pathological Skepticism" by Bill Beaty, is incorrect about the nature and the chronology of the controversy between the Smithsonian and the Wright brothers. Langley himself had nothing to do with it. As far as I know, he accepted the Wright's claims. He died in 1906, long before the controversy erupted, and two years before the mainstream believed the Wright's claims. The controversy was caused by Langley's successors, especially Walcott, by Glen Curtiss (a commercial rival who used Langley's work to try to break the patent), and by A. G. Bell. Bell awarded the first Langley Medal to the Wrights in 1910, but in his speech he belittled their accomplishments, making it seem as if they were merely students of Langley. Bell was a great man but this was an ugly incident. In my opinion, Langley did not contribute much to the progress of aviation. - Jed
Re: NEW ENERGY TIMES (tm) Jan. 10, 2005 -- Issue #8
Item 23 in this newsletter, "Pathological Skepticism" by Bill Beaty, is incorrect about the nature and the chronology of the controversy between the Smithsonian and the Wright brothers. Langley himself had nothing to do with it. As far as I know, he accepted the Wright's claims. He died in 1906, long before the controversy erupted, and two years before the mainstream believed the Wright's claims. The controversy was caused by Langley's successors, especially Walcott, by Glen Curtiss (a commercial rival who used Langley's work to try to break the patent), and by A. G. Bell. Bell awarded the first Langley Medal to the Wrights in 1910, but in his speech he belittled their accomplishments, making it seem as if they were merely students of Langley. Bell was a great man but this was an ugly incident. In my opinion, Langley did not contribute much to the progress of aviation. - Jed
NEW ENERGY TIMES (tm) Jan. 10, 2005 -- Issue #8
NEW ENERGY TIMES (tm) Jan. 10, 2005 -- Issue #8 Your best source for cold fusion news and information. Copyright 2005 New Energy Times (tm) All photos by S.B. Krivit unless otherwise noted Available as follows: 1. E-mail version without images available to newsletter subscribers. 2. Full version on the Web: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/8.htm (Note, if the images don't load properly from the Web, try the following: a) refresh your browser window or b)try Mozilla Firefox or c) download the PDF version.) 3. Full version in PDF: http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/8.pdf Steve
