No I am saying you are and you are doing a starling job at proving it.kitexpert wrote:I'm not saying you are blind, foilholio.
No I haven't invented it. It is all based on physics principals. And I am quite certain is closer to reality than you are.kitexpert wrote: You have just invented your own way to explain kites, unfortunately it is weird and not very much (if at all) related to reality
I honestly couldn't care. I am only countering upon what I disagree with.kitexpert wrote: I'm not saying everything you write or give advice here is wrong
As I said you can't make a blind man (you) see.kitexpert wrote: Your basis is however wrong and it is not useful starting point to develop kites.
The principals are simple, being the explanation. The implementation is difficult, the physical world is far more demanding. I know you have asserted how easy it is to design kites etcetera. Making a mockery of kites design by most others, like Benoit Tremblay and Armin Harich to name a few. What you think is wrong with their designs and ultimately their understanding, I think is you are actually displaying your own lack of understanding. I can see reasons for how they have done things, yet you can't and only see errors, only see your line of thinking, only see that the bridles should really be like this or that because "less line is less drag"...you are only looking at things in one light.kitexpert wrote:Don't you see how complicated your explanations become?
Could be my fault or theirs. Like recently someone said just do a drawing. It is more effort to do this. If someone was to reach out to me and really desire a better explanation I would and have been quite forthcoming. I went through a really long amount of posts in private helping someone understand my thinking. I would have preferred it in public but they contacted me there.kitexpert wrote:Most people struggle to understand what do you mean.
We are really only talking about one mixer, this new one. What indication do you have or proof that it is not new? What issues does it have? and why do you think it is not applicable to kites? How do you define what is a "proper" kite?kitexpert wrote: These new mixers have at least couple of issues: they are not new and they are not needed in proper kites.
Well should the same mixer be used for all kites? NO! Altering bar travel is easy, use a shorter bar! Do all kites use the same bar length? I mean seriously you are not sounding at all like a "kite expert" at all.kitexpert wrote: If kite is small or if it has high AR (short chord) even this normal mixer is too effective, usual bar travel has to be limited to avoid over steering and over sheeting.
Increase bar travel is easy too.
I don't know it would depend on preference. I quite like how my 6m feels but I will try it with this new mixer and let you all know. Many people prefer and only know LEI kite feel so I think from that angle they will prefer this new mixer. Look at s2000kiters comments for proof of that. Bridle placement like A15 (which may be higher performance) will be more suited with this new mixer . It will improve the ratios for 3 row kites (though as a diablo line) but relaunch needs to be tested. There is so many potential uses that there is absolutely no way this is not new because kites would be otherwise thoroughly using it by now. You are just trying to save face that in your 15 years as a "kite designer" you missed such a simple rearrangement of the mixer. Me, Regis and I am sure many other people tried the Malabar but we all missed this. I even tried this for the diablo line, running it directly to B, but could not make the connection to the Malabar. I think I even tested them both at the same time! Still missed it. Someone completely new to foil kites comes in, discovers the malabar and then also this both all on his. I think that is more evidence that too much thinking or "education" in things can block one to discovering new things. Just like I am certain your "education" on aerodynamics is blocking you. Have you even revisited aerodynamics? It is even today still not a settled science, but some of the more new or should I say older theories (Newton) are much more useful to designing things. Vortexes are another thing of great value.kitexpert wrote: Using something even more efficient would be completely foolish.
Um no. Have you even tested the Malabar? or this mixer? More bar force means less backstall. And aswell the tow point is restricted further forward from the TE so less backstall. I mean with the Malabar you can not reverse the kite, that is proof of that. The mixer has the effect that as you get closer to the rearest tow point it gets harder to reach.kitexpert wrote: However this shorter bar travel may lead to unintentional back stalls and at least it makes system more critical to small changes.
No it is fine. They are never usually mentioned with the line ratio. Mathematically I should use colons : but anyone with half a brain can understand it without. No mixers used have 2 decimal places for a single ratio. I am not going to start always ::: just to please a few.kitexpert wrote: Apparently I must say it clearer: your method to announce pulling ratios (with bar ratios?) is bad.