[JoeF]

Injurious FAI statements in awards and diplomas that promote untenable claims of mechanical invention for John Dickenson should be changed to stop the injury to prior art merits; without changes injury to hang gliding will occur, as some inventors will turn away their glance at hang gliding because of the wrongful attributions. FAI has high responsibility to become historically and technically professional on the matter and move to make corrections in the text of the awards and diplomas. Inaction by the FAI will initiate a worldwide petition regarding the FAI and the matter.

The whole of the mechanical kite-glider was in public domain prior to John Dickenson's tinkerings. Calling him "inventor" of such mechanical system is very hurtful to many processes and people in several realms. Those hurts are festering.

The low professional historical scrutiny on the part of FAI and its feed organizations in the face of the push-bully-campaign by Graeme Henderson (traceable from day one in the literature and records) resulted in the stark injury to our sport's history. The facts of John Dickenson, like the facts of so many others, are fine; the hurting wrong attribution of global mechanical "invention" is now a record that needs to be officially changed by any involved organization that is sincere and responsible for the care of hang gliding's face to itself and to the broader aviation world.

_[ ]_______ Consider sending your own notes on the matter to the FAI.
_[ ] _______http://www.fai.org/contact-us

[recorded also in KitePatents group, in hanggliding.org forum and in OZ Report forum]

[JoeF]

====================
Edit at two hours later:
A John L. wondered who claims prior.
Answering in email:
Hi John,
The art itself stands starkly to speak for itself. Some 45 years late Graeme and JD claim untenable mechanical invention; that sets up a challenge. The FAI rubber stamps the pushed Australian-Graeme text of "inventor." The face of HG changes for the tilt. The low scrutiny invites hard work to alter the tilt. John Worth, James Hobson are just two histories in the prior-to-JD art that show the mechanical arts were extant. Ryan flowerings, NASA flowering, Breslau 1908 gliding-club arts, and much more ... all prior to JD on the mechanicals in part and in whole. Full appreciation of Palmer's full 7 to 8 versions matter. The full models and finished wings of Mike Burns matters. The fullness of the arts in all the doings of Rogallo matter on the mechanical invention issue here. The many patents that deal with the wing by scores of inventors ... all prior to JD's tinkering up the wing matter. The stark claim by JD of "single point hang" and A-frame simply do not hold as novel, as such was very old art by the time he arrived to make some wings. Australian org in HG got tired of Graeme's bullying and let slip through a tilt that finally ate its way into FAI. And now all of HG culture is tilted on an important matter that has HG look silly in the eyes of those skilled in the arts; some inventors will turn away from glancing at HG because of the wrongful attribution.

Thanks,
JoeF

[JoeF]

Mike,
You were mentioned honorably:
http://www.ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1210&p=5531
Mike, because of the unprofessional historical scrutiny of the FAI and the HGFA, the face of hang gliding invention history has been deeply tilted wrongly.
Perhaps some Australian aviation historians will take a careful look into Australian and international aviation invention history to help move HGFA to undo its slip ...and consequent FAI slip.
Lift,
Joe

[JoeF]

Personally, I have zero time and energy for intellectual property battles in courts, but I have very much energy to discern invention history; but results must remain personal satisfaction in simply "seeing" the flow of novelty; e.g. I just recently for five years put in thousands of hours on discerning novelty regarding an untenable claim of "invention" by John Dickenson under the campaign of his admirer Graeme Henderson; by yelling and threats they won untenable awards by wimpy organizations which orgs had very low scrutiny for professional facts regarding invention; so another false history branch has been created in aviation where a non-invention gets awarded as invention. My gain in the battle has been a happy seeing of the more factual flow of invention in that hang gliding aviation sector; but the robbery of merit is still standing in infamy. Sad and happy joys mixed in the fuzzy world of merits and "history."

[Merlin]

Whatever the Dickenson contribution, the salient point is the Rogallo is controllable by weight shift. This is a remarkable attribute rarely achieved with other configurations. One can imagine numerous methods that allow shifting weight, but all are useless if the wing won't respond to it. Pitch of course is easy, but with the Rogallo comes a yaw-roll coupling that actually works. Adverse yaw, so common in conventional designs, is not a problem generally. And it achieves this with incredible simplicity.

Yes the triangle-pendulum arrangement was a natural addition. But to suggest that Dickenson invented the entire system is having the tail wag the dog. Rogallos flew without the triangle bar, but the triangle bar without the Rogallo usually required the complexity of an additional control system.

[JoeF]

Hi Merlin,
"the triangle-pendulum arrangement was a natural addition."

remind us of how natural ... In 1908 in hang gliding on a simple hang glider was the EXACT mechanics of triangle-pendulum.
The pilot hung from keel and had the cable-stayed triangle control frame. That arrangement's mechanics was used further
in following decades. But more starkly, the mechanics was well known by those skilled in the arts as the powered planes were
emphasized with the mechanics of the most simple morphing to undercarriage for taking off and landing while the mass
of the pilot was either still below wing or moved up to wing level.
And the whole of the simple Rogallo hang glider was demonstrated with triangle frame holding pendulum mass by
John Worth for weight shifting prior to Mike Burns and certainly prior to the late-comer JD. The whole system and its parts: no global invention for JD.
JD contribution was not mechanical invention but elsewhere involved with synergistic rub with two athletes that about nine years after
Palmer and Hobson ... formed a solid influence on participation in hang gliding. FAI has cooperated in the injury to invention space that GH-JD push yet without respect for their robbery of invention merit from others; why they do not make the effort to discern professional invention from social and practice merit is sad, but a reason is in the record: campaign tactics: grab an untenable headline and yell it to conjure attention, controversy, and energy----to hell with integrity as GH gets attention to himself and JD. As it stands, the JD story is a mixed bag of facts and now infamy. But a key fact is being sidelined to the injury of merit to others: JD did NOT invent globally the mechanical system involved, as the whole and part was in public domain. JD has been being injured by the untenables pushed by GH; but now JD is culpable for tacit and complacent acceptance of the untenable face that GH pushed; and FAI and HGFA owe now HG much work to set the balance level and true. Will the orgs put in the energy to correct matters? Doubt it. Will the hang gliding community put in the energy to correct matters? Doubt it. GH claims "win" on the whole matter; I see that HG has taken into itself a huge loss that is correctable that probably won't ever be corrected. But just maybe some team of scholarly historians with academic disinterest and logic will story the whole matter with historic accuracy and balance.