Nothing new under the sun

Not sure if I've posted this here before.

Here's something I found in an old issue of YR/C magazine. Looks like the current record holder. It has a couple of extra foils, but the idea was similar. Check out the date on this.

I would guess the materials and build tech back in '82 would have kept them from achieveing the speeds of the current record holder. They probably could have beat the record of the time, given the right conditions (FLAT water and some breeze). Looks like lack of funding kept them from getting the project going.

 

SailRocket: fastest (one way)sailboat on the Planet!

-------------------
It's entirely different than Sail Rocket:
1) SailRocket uses one hydrofoil that starts out lifting vertically and converts
automatically to generating downforce as well as lateral resistance.
2) SailRocket uses planing pods to get started and can start from zero.
3) SailRocket uses aerodynamic surfaces for lift in addition to the wing.
4) Sail Rocket flys at speed with one hydrofoil developing downforce and lateral resistance and part of the forward pod sometimes in the water.
---------------
When people want to denigrate new ideas or technology they often dredge up that old time worn phrase:" Nothing new under the sun" as the OP has done. I say that is plain BS especially in the context of Sail Rocket!

Picture on right shows forward pod clear of the water at 65 knots-only other things in the water were the hydrofoil and the rudder:

 

Bernard Smith had the initial conceptual idea over 50 years ago which Paul Larsen admits freely. It's one thing to draw up a bit of a sketch and another entirely to develop it through to a record breaking sailing speed craft. Apart from the technical aspects there is the challenge of operating a team which has to drive the project in the right direction and offer some kind of palpable benefit for it's sponsors.

http://www.sailrocket.com/node/259

 

New under the sun...

Bernard Smith was certainly Paul Larsens inspiration but I've read two of his books and I can say that there is a long way between Smith and Larsen. But even so the unmistakeable influence is certainly there.

 

How do you resolve the two above messages?

In the first you condemn Paul B. and label his post as BS, and label him as denigrating "new" ideas. In the second you acknowledge the heritage of Paul Larsen's evolution of the concept. If you acknowledge the second post as true, then you owe Paul B. an apology for the first.

Perhaps take Mr. Larsen's freely given attribution as a behavioural example - clearly giving credit where due shows you are a much bigger man than attempting to ignore history and call an existing concept a "new" idea.

"Nothing new under the sun" is not a offensive statement at all - it is a poignant reminder that "innovation" is often dependent on the obscurity of the source idea - and that many people may independently reach the same hypothesis from the same set of data.

--
CutOnce

 

What is new is what Larsen did- his solutions are unique and have produced a result never seen before in the history of the sun.
I have seen various individuals on this forum repeatedly use the phrase "Nothing new under the sun" as a pejorative phrase to dinigrate people claiming to have a "new" idea. In this case, there is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt of what Larsen accomplished..... under the sun.

 

DL,

Give it a rest, there is nothing denigrating in the first post.

 

Sun

RR, I disagree.

 

I was going to post a similar comment earlier when I saw you post Doug.

If I was the OP, I would want you to confirm your assumption before criticizing me. Then, no harm done if you are correct.

 

Thanks Paul - seeing that piece and the name Golly Gosh made me remember reading about it way back when.

 

Thought you might like that. Do you have any other info about the designer? I've never heard of him, so not sure if he was known in the multi community.

 

Guess this is the same designer - seems to have changed directions a little.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ray-harvey-b-sc-c-eng-frina-fimarest/36/45/7a9

 

Doug, I have to disagree with you on that affirmation. The similarities between the two concepts are more than evident, starting from the idea to get the hydro and aerodynamic forces act through the same line, which is the essence of the idea.

But I do agree with your message that the path between a revolutionary sketch and a completed revolutionary enterprise is long, hard and is only feasible by few gifted and stubborn persons.

Cheers

 

I would have to say that sail rocket is an development of the idea proposed by Golly Gosh. All based upon available knowledge at the time, then extending upon it.

 

Sun

===========================
Slavi, I disagree-the disparities between the two are greater than the similarities,in my opinion. But my biggest problem is the use of the phrase "Nothing new under the sun" which I find offensive in this case and in other cases where certain individuals on this forum have used it to denigrate new ideas.
I guess we'll agree to disagree-but I'm a bit surprised.....