Date:	Sun, 8 May 1994 12:36:02 -1000
From:	salanne@convex.csc.FI (Simo Salanne)
Message-Id: <2qjpgi$sbg@pobox.csc.fi>
Organization: Centre for Scintific Computing
Subject: A Kite ? (Was: Re: Flying kites (was Re: Bow kites)

In <2qde38$36b@umd5.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:

>In article <2qd2fi$9pd@beta.qmw.ac.uk> andrewh@qmw.ac.uk writes:

>>In article h1e@umd5.umd.edu, jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:

...

>At first, I had included the definition that Bevan Brown always repeats,
>that a kite is a tethered aerodyne.  But I decided that that was
>superfluous.  The concept of tethering something during a tornado seems
>pretty absurd.

>So, while I'll agree that something must be tethered to be a kite, it's

What happens when the line breaks, isn't the kite any more a 'kite'
because it's not tethered? Does the line belong to the kite, so it's
broken?

>*still* hard to reconcile that with the original statement that *anything*
>could be made to fly with a bridle and enough wind--given the abundance of
>wind necessary for an item to 'fly', tethering may be impossible.

>Furthermore, it's worth noting that with Bevan's definition, it is
>necessary that a 'kite' be heavier than air and fly via aerodynamic
>principles.  Let's have no talk about filling our soft kites with helium...
>;-)

A bridled piece of brick can be "flown" in zero wind, too.
Short lines. A dictionary defines it a 'pendulum' :-)

May I claim I have just invented a new style of indoor kite flying?
Or have Dave Brittain flown a pendulum already?

Smooth Winds

Simo

P.S. I have never seen Dave's flying:-(

--
Simo.Salanne@csc.fi                      STACK Finland


 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =