Talk:Kite/Archive 1

Types of kites...more needed for comprehensivity

 * Hybrid kites that have strong elements of more basic types of kites are in need of some citations and calling out in name. The Allison sled kite with ram-air inflated stiffening is distinct from a Jalbert parafoil and distinct from an Allison sled or Scott Sled. A ram-air set of air beams in a Scott Sled is distnct from a generic Scott Sled. Then also, hard-inflated airbeams in a hybrid Allison or a hybrid Scott Sled are distinct types of kites. Also, micro-stiffened double-surface sails in a hybrid of a Scott Sled is a distinct construction; the special sail may be thick or thin; inflation by ram-air may be easily dumped or difficult to dump depending on valving; the degree of valving and inflation maintenance bring new distinct kites using distinct technologies. Joefaust (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kite get broken, lost, worn, damaged, stolen, ...
Mechanical objects wear, get broken, receive repain, receive certain kinds of inspection, get lost, get stolen... The literature has citations about these matters for different types of kites. There are disposable kites that are not expected to last an art-class session, sometimes not even to fly. Artists sometimes destroy early versions of a kite concept. Kite parties will have kites disappear for various reasons. What breaks and why? How are repairs made on certain types of kites? The kite line is an essential part of the kite; how does the line get broken, torn, worn, super-twisted, frayed, cut, overly-knotted, wet, damage by UV rays, injured by storage, weakened by heat, changed by chemicals, etc. When either kite line or the wing of the kite is readied for flight, what inspections are made and what are the reasons for those inspections; what if something is found that needs certain attention? Citations for these aspects of the kite are part of the story of kites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deadly kite articles
Here are some articles about kite related deaths:


 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3491057.stm
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2978988.stm
 * http://headlines.sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13664233

Someone may be able to fit it into the article --Sketchee 07:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

There was a thread on rec.kites in Sept 1995 entitled "A Death in the UK" about a child who was killed in a kiting accident. Pleriche 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what about the festivals?


 * 1) http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12172137%5E1702,00.html
 * 2) Didn't the Aztecs or Incas fly large kites with a slave onboard?  If the kite crashed and killed the slave, it was a bad omen or something. - Omegatron 18:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * at least for the slave :-) Clappingsimon talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins
""No one knows exactly who flew the first kites or where they were first created, but historians believe that kites developed almost simultaneously and independently in both China and Malaysia approximately 3000 years ago."" http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/kitehistorymak_slhl.htm Joefaust (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * History note, reference for the doubt that would be more accurate to express in the foundational article about the early history:
 * First Chinese kite: http://www.chinakite.com/maindoc/en/htm/jiaosi/qi.htm
 * Indonesian/NZ kite: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.kites/browse_thread/thread/cb2b92896ea22f1f

Rope or twine?
I have checked both references and I wonder whether rope is better than twine?

misterb 1 Oct 2005

Practical & cultural uses
While I find the references Northern India kite festivals to be interesting, I don't necessarily think these should be listed foremost in the "Practical & Cultural use" section. It seems that the broader references should come first and have more prominence. Are there any objections to moving some of these things around and doing some editing? Alki 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Made the changes. Alki 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Bought some kites recently. It's 18:58 on Mon April 24, 2006 in Quezon City,Metro Manila,Philipines. My site is at Just Surfing. Thanks.

Rename from Kite Flying
I suggest moving this article so its name represents the object kite instead of the activity kite flying. Any thoughts? --Bensin 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Clappingsimon 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with Bensin. The article should be 'kite'. There is no need to attach the word flying with kite. You name an article as 'apple' not 'apple consumption' .. car not 'car driving'. I searched for kite and the page found was 'kite flying'. Change it immediately. I will change it soon, if nobody objects here. Saurabh Mangal 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Kite is a disambiguation page, and for good reasons, so a move is not possible. Clappingsimon talk 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A move is possible if it is specified which kite the article refers to. I suggest "Kite (toy)". Does anyone have a better suggestion? --Bensin 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Toy) is too specific, the entry has one sentence on toy and introduces much wider uses including Sport, Science and Cultural festival and I thiink actually does focus on Kite Flying. All of WP is indexed and searchable, and using the Go button takes you straight to the 'Kite' disambig page, so what is the improvement to WP? or rather - as I asked before - Why? Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For the reasons Saurabh Mangal specified above. And also because there is no article in Wikipedia (that I've found) that deals with the object kites in general. I agree with Clappingsimon that "toy" might be too narrow, it was the only thing that sprung to mind. A move is, however, desireable. --Bensin 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (Corrected by Bensin 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC))


 * How about Kites and kite flying cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Singular nouns are preferable according to Naming conventions. Even though the name of the article should only reflect the noun "kite" I see no reason why the article itself should not also deal with the art of flying them. Any suggestions for something besides "toy" that sets this kind kind of kites aside from any other noun "kite"? --Bensin 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you've renamed it, but you should have waited until we've reached consensus. I know I can change it back anytime, so I'll leave it for now. You objected to the page not being named 'kite' which is reasonable, but when I pointed out that 'Kite' was unavailable you leapt to 'Toy' which I don't see as reasonable at all. You have not chosen a name that addressed Saurabh's reasons for a change or really answered my objections to (toy). I offered 'Kites and kite flying', apart from the second noun in what way does it not describe the page contents? You are saying the article describes 'Kite (toy)' rather than 'Kites and kite flying'? Are you okay with me moving out all the non-toy content to other pages (ie Sport kites;Kite (culture);Kite (science)). Cheers! Clappingsimon talk 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I tought a consensus was reached since there was no answer posted to my last comment. I admit I might have rushed it a bit though. "Kites and kite flying" is unnessecarily long since an article dealing with kites inherently also deals with flying them. Also, Naming conventions says "Prefer singular nouns". "Kite" is not unavailable, it's a disambiguation page. I chose a name that addressed Saurabh Mangal's reasons perfectly; namely the argument that the article should be a count noun because it can be. "Kite" can be used as long as it is specified which kite the article refers to. Since no other suggestion than "toy" came up, I went with it. If anyone comes up with a better way to specify it, then we'll simply use that instead. --Bensin 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. I missed your 20th July reply - another page I'm watching is in edit war and mediation simultaneously :-). The aim of the title is to succinctly describe the content. There is no absolute requirement for single nouns. Naming it Kite (toy) doesn't solve the problem that you can't find 'object kite' in WP. Just look at 'what links here' - all of those links come from it's naming as 'Kite Flying', which the authors would have chosen off the disamb page. Anyway I still think 'Kites and Kite Flying' addresses both our concerns, please explain how Kite (toy) is a better solution.

I finally went and looked at conventions: so you want the page named 'Kite' (singular noun form) without an 's'. That's a convention - not a policy. The example they give: Prefer singular nouns Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). That would be fine if we could name the page 'Kite', but we can't. Note that there is a 'Kites' redirect to 'Kite'. Did a google search on 'Kite toy' and 'Kites and kite flying'. I think the second one describes what the page is on about, but I'd be pleased if you did the same 2 searches and gave your opinion. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "We can't name the page 'Kite'". That's the name the article has when I'm writing this message. It just has the appendix "(toy)", an appendix which I agree with you could be changed to a more appropriate one. Nevertheless, the article can, is and should be 'Kite'. We simply seem to have different opinions on how the article should be named. Perhaps we should call it to attention to other editors and get fresh perspectives on the matter. I can't state my view more clearly than I already have. --Bensin 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that some fresh perspectives would be the right way to resolve this. How do we ask for those? Clappingsimon talk 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted a question on the Help desk and asked that they respond to us here. See Help desk --Bensin 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen your question on the help desk: The usual approach if you want some neutral, outside comment is wp:rfc. That is Requests for Comment. Personally, I think you need the title to be Kites(some specific type), but I can't think what to put in those brackets since toy is too narrow. Skittle 11:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If not for Kite (bird), I think moving Kite to Kite (disambiguation) and moving this article to Kite would be a reasonable solution. Perhaps Kite (man-made)? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC at Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Kite (bird) effects that solution. Having Kite (bird), Kite (disambiguation) and Kite (this page) seems ideal to me.  This seems like exactly the type of case Disambiguation is refering to. --jwandersTalk 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * jwanders suggestion sounds good to me. --Bensin 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I am in favour of Kites and kite flying (and utterly opposed to '(toy)'), jwanders' suggestion also sounds acceptable to me, though if used, it should then have a Template:otheruses. - Jc37 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved Kite to Kite (disambiguation), but the remainder will need to be done by an admin as Kite is now a redirect page. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please delete the redirect page 'Kite' and move 'Kite (toy)' to 'Kite' Thanks! Clappingsimon talk 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please only use helpme on your user talk page. And things like these need to be done at Requested moves. Ryūlóng 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and did the move, the consensus seemed ok. Of course if there are stirrings about moving the page again, requested moves is probably the way to go.--Commander Keane 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Just went and did an entry for 'requested move' - I'll remove it. BTW thanks to User:Ryulong, I never knew there was a 'requested moves' page. Clappingsimon talk 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Images and Copyright Violations
Firstly, most of the images in this article are very small and do not serve to illustrate kites well. Moreover, I strongly suspect that the top image is a copyright violation. It was taken by Philbert Ono and on his website he claims most of his images are available for sale or rent, and the only reference I can find googling: Philbert Ono GFDL is on WikiMedia sites or mirrors thereof. I would like to hear other opinions on both of these matters. --Douglas Whitaker 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Philbert Ono was the one who uploaded it. He's no longer active on WP according to his user page, where he clearly states photojpn.org is his own website and on that website that "My primary Web sites are PhotoGuide Japan and PHOTOGUIDE.JP". He uploaded under GNU free license along with a lot of other images, see his uploads. If you're really concerned this is his contact webpage. If an email satisfies you, you'll need to sort out the copyvio inserted on the image page. This research took me 10 clicks and 3 minutes, sheesh, hope you tip as well as Google Answers :-) Cheers Clappingsimon talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to upload better images - I probably have an old transparency of giant kites from Yokaichi, Shirone or Nagasaki if the image gets deleted, just don't want to have to go through thousands of slides to find them. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, oops. Well... heh. I really don't know why I didn't see that. I'll probably chock it up to lack of sleep, but I honestly didn't see that he was the actual user who uploaded it. Oh, you know what I did? I ended up looking at the file on WikiCommons where he wasn't the user to upload it. Brainfart I guess in not checking here. Thanks for the information. Wow, I feel like a complete idiot and rightfullly so. And I'll go through my images and see if I can find a high-res image of a kite, or upload one from Commons. Heh, please be patient with me... --Douglas Whitaker 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great Clappingsimon talk 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Flying children
Under Safety issues, it is stated there have been instances of children being skirted away by strong winds and highly effective kites; while this is certainly plausible, I think it deserves some sort of attention regarding its validity (to lift, say, a 30kg child would require immmense drag and very strong line).

For now it’s just tagged with a ‘citation needed’. Ben Webber 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Recreational uses
Many people use kites only for recreational uses. This subsection should include pages like Sport Kite (also known as Stunt Kite) or Revolution kite.

This should separate 3 major types of kites. 1 line (static and fighting kites) 2 lines (stunt or sport kites) 4 lines (stunt or sport kites)

With stunt kites, people create teams to fly together at festivals and other events. This coreography, played by the manouverers, is most times called "kite ballet". There are also tricks you can make with stunt kites that can fill in a "kite ballet".

The most popular 4 lines kite is the Revolution kite. This is a very manouverable kite and is mostly used with large teams (6 and more). With this kite you can stop it where you want it in the sky.

There are also competitions at festivals. This include kite stunts, kite ballets (single or teams), kite battles, and other.

RfC: Is the recent expanded definition of kite to include kites that work in soil, plasma and underwater original research?
Is the recent expanded definition of kite to include kites that work in soil, plasma and underwater original research? Clappingsimon talk 08:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Clappingsimon. No, the situation is that extant facts in human culture for "kite" are much larger than the constrained POV of early parts of the article. An article that grabs the strong term "Kite" ought not avoid the rich sectors of fact where "kite" lives in many other sectors of human culture. Specialty fields of kiting will have their own articles branching perhaps from this article; there are hundreds of specialty kite activities that deserve their own articles; many have such articles started already. I have no original research up in the article; all notes are verifiable; the soil kites are facts beyond me; the plasma kites are beyond any original research; the water kites are beyond any original research. The work to get up the citations, patents, links takes some time, as is usual in Wikipedia. You are invited to contact me by e-mail on matters that concern you, or place a note on my talk page in Wikipedia. I see the first attempts at kite definition as draft definitions that represented very narrow POV; the article grab of such a rich term as "kite" obligates Wikipedians to install definitions that capture the rich flow of facts that culture has produced verifiably and with citations. Before quickly deleting my additions, I invite you to notify me of an issue as I will be diligently forwarding the article "kite" with citations on any and all factoids. Thank you; that will save some value and time. Joefaust (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can comment on "hydro kites", having once worked professionally in this field. Fluid dynamically they are not very different to air kites, but forms and uses are very different and there is no single term used by everybody: we have "hapa", "sea dog" or "chien de mer", "paravane", and a few more. Therefore including such water kites here is OK.
 * Theosch, thanks. ____ Did you by chance come across Bruce Carmichael in your work on hydro kites? ___In hydro kites there have been some performance-art hydro-kiting with SCUBA divers flying hydro kites. And hydro kites for electricity generation are on the upswing of research.___ Joefaust (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)   Theosch, it would be great for you to develop the inclusion of what you know about the hydro kites with which you worked! Joefaust (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps rename the section "plasma kites" to "space kites" and clean up a bit.
 * Theosch, thanks for the suggestion. However, limiting plasma to space would miss the plasmas that are in near-earth and even sea-level objects made by man in which controlled objects are in the plasma spaces. References will be set before much is done. Two sections, perhaps later: space plasma and then other plasma.  Also, the distinct different plasma of blood part a have some stream flows that are to be left open for kite application--both macroscopic and microscopic. ___ Joefaust (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the term "soil kite" isn't logical as used here. One thinks of anchors and parts of ploughs. But soil isn't a fluid. Therefore just leave away the "soil". --Theosch (talk)
 * Theosch, thanks. You are well focused to see the realm of anchors and ploughs. But there is more. And the foundational defintion of "kite" has no need to limit the ambient embedding material to fluids; such limiting would do an injustice to the umbrella grand term "kite" and leave out a huge realm of human cultural investment in kites that are soil kites and even solid kites. Soil is a generlly a conglomerate or aggregate of solids, gases, water, gases, organic debris, live plants and animals, decaying matter, etc. ___. So, distinguishing soil from solids will be maintained.   Soil kiting is also very important in saving lives, maintaining landscapes, soil engineering. ___. Scientific soil kites are used to dredge and collect. Correcting surfaces of sport fields involve soil kiting.  Do you want the section removed until the section is well written? ____     Joefaust (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just worked on the section "air kites" and felt compelled to an extensive rewrite and deletion of sentences. Sorry if it seems a bit heavy-handed, Joe, but I really think it needed shortening and clarification. Your additions are factually fine and very poetic, but IMHO too flowery and long for an encyclopedia. --Theosch (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Theosch, I appreciate your time and focus. I will see what core items were removed and see what might be better developed before posting somewhere.   Nice to have some company on these matters.     Joefaust (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Question??
207.160.43.1 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)--207.160.43.1 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) How can u tell were the kite is made from? Placing your question here. Please clarify your question; thanks. The shown kite was made by NASA in the Paresev program. 69.106.204.33 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Plasma discussion, development
Working comments to fellow editors on this section: For later work, a plasma kite of the sort that tethers a kite within blood plasma will be described and sited here. Scientists who are using magnetic lines of force to tether objects in the flow of plasma will later be included in this seciton.The Space Kite and Tom Swift fiction story by Victor Appleton II has a kiteline that is thrusting space plasma flows; this kite is a fictional plasma kite that near the non-fiction plasma kites of NASA and other non-NASA engineers. Flying electric generators in the upper troposhere are still air kites; but kites flying in the ionosphere sector of a planet's atmosphere are plasma kites. Plasma kites tethered from satellites as scientific study experiments and as slowing devices for reentry have been part of human experience; these will be documented for this section. Space Elevator tethered high altitude anchoring will result in the elevator tether passing through various plasma densities; at those various plasma-saturated altitudes  there will be devices, platforms, experiments that will involve kites anchored at the main tether; such kites flying in the plasmasphere and the plasma-dense ionosphere will be plasma kites. Plasma kites fly in relative plasma winds or in non-static plasma winds. Images, citations coming soon. February 16 Joefaust (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. A google search for +kite +"blood plasma" show NO RELEVANT VERIFIABLE EXTERNAL SOURCES. Have you read WP:REF? You can't just make stuff up and put it into Wikipedia. Provide verifiable sources for your stuff about soil kites, plasma kites etc. In most cases a single patent with no practical working uses will not be enough. Read WP:REF. A continued failure to provide sources will lead to all your recent edits being treated as original research. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A narrow POV ought not dominate such a grand article as Kite; Kite is not just about one or two types of kites; those one or two types can have articles on their own. Sport kites can have and do already have some articles that carry their history and disclosure. Toy recreational kites can have their articles. But leave open Kite for a comprehensive treatment. Google is not the whole of literature. You are invited to "hang on" a bit while sincere editing progresses. "Verifiable" is extant for facts; citing work to demonstrate verifiability is a separate action and important work; good verifiable facts ought not be wiped away too quickly without careful consideration of the possibility of wiping out strong work toward Wiki targets. None of my forwarding is from my original research, but from having been in the literature since 1960...way before Google existed. Millions of dollars are spent on practical plasma and soil kites; many more than one practical patent in various nations apply toward plasma and soil kites and water kites. Google may or may not easy divulge citations, depending on one's search protocol.   You wiped out two weeks of work where many errors and omissions were installed...and many citations.  Please work on content, not content deletion.  If a fact is verifiable, then help get citations...or hang on a bit and cooperate in getting citations. There is lots of items up on the article that you had reverted to that are not cited; some cannot be cited as some things are simply false; e.g. 2800 years ago someone invented....No way can that be fact...cannot be verified, though some citations can arrive....; opposing citation and can show that such cannot be true; invention is ever in dispute; and an exact number of 2800 years is fuzzy; and if a kite was evident 2800 years ago, then who and when did that kite maker get his or her ideas, etc.   Hoping to make with you and others a great Kite article. Easily some separation is suggested by the size and scope of Kite. Perhaps "Kite history" can become an article; perhaps "Kite sports" can be separted; perhaps "Kites of China" and "Kites of India" and "Kites of Japan" and "Kites of Tibet" etc. can become articles, as each is very fertile.  Indeed, each  of thousands of uses of kites deserve an article separated. These seaprable steps could lighten the article as Kite permits a comprehensivity that is evident in human culture related to kite.  Also, perhaps: "Kite: how to fly kits"  might be separated.

I very carefully keep my personal orginal research out of Wikipedia and only place what has been found to come from other people and sources; that is my working rule; I invite you to respect that as far as you might and see if indeed something is verifiable without solely depending on Google; and of course, any editor is invited to help give citations for verifiable items. Joefaust (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The guide you mentioned has "Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person)," So, please challenge and give a reasonable amount of time.  I am not sure what a reasonable amount of time to you is; but I am working daily on Kite and putting in large amounts of time and am fully willing to face any particular challenge with a reasonable work effort to bring forward citations and sources and argument for verifiability.   To me, your GIANT WIPE DELETION removed unreasonably lots of cited verifiable items; and none of the matter was original research; my original research would be starkly evident and I would claim the matters as original. I did not reasearch what your contributions have been for Kite yet, but if what you left this morning after revert is claimed as yours, then much of it can be suspected as not verifiable, not cited, and perhaps original research and narrow POV; but I am not tacking that way yet. There is a great deal of work to be done on article Kite in order for it even to be a respectable presentation for visitors deserving a non-narrow-POV situation; visitors ought to be served with a comprehensive encyclopedic presentation that respects the findings about kite that have shown up in human culture, practical yet or not; artistic, fictional, impractical, commercial, health orientated,etc. references are equally proper to answer the comprehensivity that should be served to visitors who decide to look up "kite" in Wikipedia.   Shameful sockpuppetry toward controllable sport kites and commercially available commercial kites is something that must be watched about this article Kite.  Large reverts toward a narrow POV goes against the Wikipedia policies, I am guessing...as I am still learning about Wikipedia policies as a newbie; but I have seen that POV and sockpuppetry are prevalent in some editors' actions.  The effort to knock out soil kites indicates some kind of narrow situation; I do not know quite what it is yet, but the million-dollar activities involving soil kites (not even limited to the anchor industry, which is no small player in soil kites) ought to invite you to "hang-on" a bit and cooperate in citing the verifiables therein. Do other mature editors of Wikipedia care about such massive deletions of fair work on articles???? I do not know yet how to present such matters to caring editors, but that will come in time. Joefaust (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Joefaust (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Open invitation to editors: Separate applications to Kite applications
The Kite article will be getting too long; its direct focus is on the kite, as it should be. Applying the kite to tasks is a different matter. I recommend that Kite be just with a referral to Kite applications where focus will be on how kites are used and applied in human culture. Applications are at least into the 100s count; significant verifiable applications continue to be exposed. A neat place for keeping the applications for encyclopedia reference could be Kite applications where branching would occur for each particular application. Consenus is invited.

Kite types ...: potential separable article to lighten the load from Kite
Open for discussion from caring editors of Kite: Suggestion: Since Kite is becoming very long, the Kite types is suggested as branching separable. The sector of concern over "Kite" that is typing of kites is a very extensive sector. Kite clubs type kites. Manufacturers type kites. National kite organizations type kites. Engineers type kites. Scientists type kites. There are types of kites within types...subtypes. And sub-subtypes. Regulatory agencies group and type kites according to their needs. Festivals type kites for their needs. Suppliers of kites type kites according to their needs. Buyers type kites along their own perceptions and write about such too! Competitors have their own street or field typing of kites. Makers type in their ways. Patent offices type kites in their own classification system. The literature is vast about types of kites. Sometimes a generic structural typing is used. At other times the cost categorization is used. Anyway, as even just the one of several ways of typing kites...by popular names and local names gets into the hundreds, the sector for Kite article will become too long. I suggest moving such to a separate branched article Kite types. None of this is original research; all such mentioned have evidence in the literature. What say you? Joefaust (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening the narrow POV about what a kite is, an invitation to caring editors of "Kite" article:
Editors are invited to help broaden the narrow "man-made" definition of kite, as non-man-made kites exist and are in respectable references. Revert warring is not wanted. Please bring forward reputable references for non-man-made kites and discuss them. One day the honorable article Kite may become less narrow than it stands today on Feb. 22, 2003. My effort was reverted twice to something that makes narrow statements that reflect a POV that I feel does not do honor to "kite". What say you? Someday some consenus may be reached. Joefaust (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors of "Kite" are invited here to find some agreement about kiting spiders:
The anthrocentric pride of thinking humans are the only ones to have found the coolness of kite has competition.

Here is a start (please note how I distinguish personal orginal research from referencing others who have noted the flight of spiders): You are invited to work on this matter with the possibility of strong inclusion in the article "kite:. ::: spiders and kiting This is an invitation for other editors to reference the literture for spider flight that involves basic kite mechanics, to discuss the noteworthy natural kite, to bring forward notable reference for this part of nature.

NON-ORIGINAL REFERENCE notable references for non-man-made natural kites:

Some spiders use their webs to hang from tensionally in free-flight kiting to go long distances.This has been observed and noted; it has been the focus of inquiry regarding transfer of life across bodies of water.

Why does the garden orb spider kite its silk?

When a spider is found hanging by a silk in the wind, then observe how gusts kite the spider. People have observed spiders being kited in the wind.

What is the origin of the name "Biscuit Kite Spider"?

http://www.spiderclub.co.za/Gallery.html for Biscuit Kite Spider shown kiting in the breeze obtain some lift and some drag as it is held tensionally by its self-made kite line.

The well-noted "ballooning" spiders are a misnamed aircraft system as they are actually kiting as the wing is heavier than air and is not a balloon. So such ballooning spiders are actually kiting spiders. This is not original research, it is just applying the well-worn definitions of kites. From: http://www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/Spiders/Linyphiidae/Linyphiidae.htm

""The spider raises her abdomen and releases a thread in the breeze that grows longer and longer until the upward lift is sufficient and the spider is lifted. They can reachs heights of up to 10000 meter and are transported to every spot on the world. They are often one of the first inhabitants of a devastated area like after the eruption of the Krakatoa in August 1883. In May 1884 scientist already reported microspopic spiders spinning their webs. Gossamer is connected with ballooning and the word comes from "goose summer". It is the moment that millions of spiders are taking off or landing"" What is described is a kite system mechanically---a non-man-made kite system.""

Some noting authors have poorly analyzed the flight of the spiderlings and spiders that fly off to disperese and thus the name ballooning; following kite definitions, the spiderings in Gossamer are actually kite systems; the long silk is heavier than air but gets gusted enough and gets long enough to have enough friction with the interaction with the air so that it tugs at its mooring which is the spider; the kite's wing is being hit by the wind and gusts and getting a net lift and drag to pull the moored kite into the air; then the spider's pulled body oppositely kites and anchors; the dual system does truely kite fly in a mobile manner through the sky; some of the flights are long, some are short. http://www.bugs.org/BUGQuiz/answers/spiders.shtml Those researchers got to the point of modelling to the use of the term, not ballooning, but "parachuting": How parachute spiders invade new territory 12 July 2006

Here is an author who carefully observes spiders flying their kites in her garden: http://www.tintota.com/archive/spider.htm  The author even notes clearly the much noted fact that the spider will eat its kites that fly out but do not find a landing place.

Here is an author that uses gets close, but still with a misnaming of what goes on: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070510/news_lz1c10spiders.html "The strongest is dragline silk, which must support the weight of the spider as it moves and swings about." Guess what happens when a spider swings about on a silk thread in some wind? Right, it kites about. "Tiny parachute spiders cast long, single strands of silk into the air – like a kite string without the kite" ...the author was not analyzing as an aeronautics expert who would be able to see the simple long line as being a wing that wafts this way and that with contortions so that the net effect is some actual winging...that sets it up as a true kite and a kite line with tension from dragging and lifting-drag mechanics in the non-straight shaping of the wind-blown silk. Fits definition of a dynamic soaring kite.

Also: and Kite line from spider silk. Gossamer, gossamers Rothamsted Research  spider

The garden orb spider will crawl to distant places after kiting lead kited silks that lodge onto distant objects. They let out silk kites as the spider keeps some mooring going until the kited silk finds a landing or treeing or building-ing.

Richard Miller in 1965 in Without Visible Means of Support (much referenced booklet) described carefully a dual-kite system unmanned or manned that flys long distance exactly by well-noted dynamic dual-kite principles of aeronautics. The kiting spiders just describer are dynamically soaring kite systems following the dual-kite mechanics; the web gets enough drag and kiting effect in itself that it drags the anchor....the spider which at times wafts dynamically also; the spiders that get enough dynamic soaring go longer distances; those that do not get much dynamic soaring from their kiting go short distances only. Joefaust (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I recognize: ORIGINAL RESEARCH not fit for an article in Wikipedia:

How many spiders are kiting each day in the world?

What is the largest spider obseved kiting itself?

When does a garden orb spider know, if it does, that its kited silk gets caught to a remote tree or rock?

Has anyone studied comparative kiting among spiders.If so, then this discussion would jump into referenced article matter for Wikepedia.

I personally have kited spiders with their own webs; but this fact is my personal research which I do not include in Wikipedia articles; however others have noted their observations of the same nature's kite systems.

Personally I have observe a large spider kiting a silk at UCLA Women's gymnasium in 1961 from a tree to a building. Then the spider built a more complex web in center space between the tree and the building; its kiting session was successful. Joefaust (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) What happens when an insect or leaf gets tethered with spider silk (millions of times a day around the earth)? With air

streaming around the tethered items, many of them will kite. TASK: What authors, observers, photographers have caught this kind of kiting in their view? What are the literature

references for their observations?

When the wind blows this tethered spider, some lift and drag and flying occurs: http://www.davidkphotography.com/index.php?showimage=41

This spider hanging on a line... When wind blows its body, some lift and drag will occur; deflection from its positon will

occur because of kiting; the tether is the kite line. http://sharkforum.org/archives/Spider3.jpg

Unraveling spider web? http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/11/071121144937.jpg http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121144937.htm

Rappeling spider... What happens when a spider drops down on a silk tether and the wind blows? Kiting occur; the kite is the wing and the tether

is a kite line; true lifting and dragging and deflection occur.

Noted caption to a scientific article. Spider Scientific Facts http://www.geocities.com/brisbane_weavers/ScientificPage.htm "8. Kiting - spider let go a bundle of silk, wind blow the silk and carry it to the other end, and attached." This regards the "bridge" line making. But notice when the anchor to ground is made; the spider hangs in the air by a single tether; when the wind blows, guess what happens: the kite becomes a kite wing on its own kite tether...and some flying occurs. Joefaust (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/brisbane_weavers/Garden_sp.htm Garden Orb Web Spider - Eriophora transmarina FAMILY ARANEIDAE Joefaust (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Joe, see Ballooning (spider), particularly the last pdf in the references. In the most extreme cases observed and reported in the scientific literature, the spiders body is the anchor point for 100's of threads which bind to form a triangular shaped balloon. It is this which gets lifted by the wind. The spider is not anchored to the ground, so it's not like kiting. As I said elsewhere, a Google search doesn't show that what you are proposing as a known concept, so I'm afraid it is original research. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the threads spread apart....to a triangular sector....without binding...; the researchers are wondering if perhaps static electricity might play a part in keeping the threads aprat; I have not found what you stated about "bind to form", but oppositely...stay apart. No true balloon is formed. The combination of gusts, thermals, undulation of the threads......for some events, a net kiting occurs, never true ballooning....only "ballooning" by habit of term. Joefaust (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you are noting in the discussion what is not my orginal research. For a mechanical well-known kite regime: anchoring to the ground is not necessary for a kite to be a kite, even in the man-made-only tight sector. Anyone who has had a toy kite out very very far so that the line at had is horizontal or even lower ...and then let go ....had a chance to see the kite still flying as a true kite with a long line with air drag maining tension in the line to permit the kiting to contiue. Richard Miller in his book 1965 well described dual kite systems that were not connected to the ground.  No sound encyclopedic article on kite would force kites to be connecte to the ground. A human holding a toy kite that jumps up in the air does not stop the kite from being a kite during the air-flight of the jump; thus, it is not mechanically essential for a kite to be anchored to the ground. When a coterie of kites is formed, the individual kites  have their kite lines anchored to another main kite line. This paragraph is not original research.That thread with whatever shape it is...undulating silk, triangular balloon-like, etc., its not a balloon ...no matter how many tiny threads make it. It is a body that reacts with the wind and gets deflections; as the curves and twists occur with gusts, then the following gusts, etc. sometimes gets enough lift to achieve the job; kiting sometimes occurs.

In the references in this discussion, there is more than one kind of spider kiting: 1. The ballooning, parachuting (actually sometimes kiting...and not ever really balloonig) situation gives some real kiting. When finally the heavenly silk gets enough lift and drag going, then the spider is jerked off its grass perch; at that time some of the spiders are in lower wind than the upper silk and has its own drag portfolio.....a Richard Miller dual-kite system results. Some of the observers describers went to "ballooning" as a term for mechanical kiting; others go to parachuting which mechanical is astronomically exactly maybe rare because of the mechanical asymmetry of the "parachute"...which brings the item into kiting again for aaccuracy. Some get to "kiting" as would be proper in so very many cases. Various terms, but one mechanical situation for those "ballooning" spiders. They fit the kiting seen. Words. Not original research. It would be fair to cite all of them in a kiting article; the visitor could see the citations for balooning, parachuting, and kiting....and note how such compares with basic definitions of kiting (hopefully the article will get to the point where it opens to the traditional and long-standing well-known kiting that does not required grounded anchoring).

2. The second kind of kiting is where some spiders simply hang from one line and are kited in the wind. The line may be anchored from a grounded or tree anchor or building or from a bridge other other line or other perch or even from some flying object....Does not matter. What has been observed by others is a spider hanging from a line in the wind getting deflected about. In deflection and wafting, lift and drag about the body of the spider occurs. Fits kite. Not original; people have been observing such hung spiders since....     In this category is the multiple-strung spider in mid-air getting wafted by wind; the web moves, the spider moves. Aerodynamic lift and drag over the tensionally held spider. Multiple-kite lined spider body. Easy kite. Not original. This kite situation has been being observed since spider and their webs have been observed.

Man is not the only kite makers. Joefaust (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Inserting that a kite--to be a kite--must be made by a human person is a POV that overburdens kite definition unnecessarily. Coming upon a kite moored to a tree, it is not necessary to determine whether a man or manchine or nature built the kite; that source of making is a distinct separate question--a fully separable topic; start an article on "man-made kites" for just such would be a solution; or keep open this article that allows kite to be the focus, not so much who or what made the kite; a kite is presumptively an object in itself and in focus, regardless of how that kite came to be; of course, one can wonder where do kites come from or who or what makes the kite---a respectable wondering and a very traditional wondering. A group of men have made programs and machines; then the programs and machines have made kites, even should the programmer and machine maker dies; those non-man-made kites are sold each year to the public. A spider hung by a silk wafting in the wind kites (man did not make such a kite; although human have made kites that are figure kites of spider images: ). Some leaves of long stem on some trees kite in the wind with the stem in tension and the leaf the wing anchored to the tree. The silkend "balloons" of the balooning spiders are not true balloons, but shapes of silk that sometimes kite while the spider is the mooring device of the flying transport system; some scientists got to the term "parachuting" but the term does not rule; the mechanics are kiting mechanics per the article's lift and drag and deflection developed in flow when tethering brings tension. Other observes cited in discussion got to the bridge silk as an undulating shaping that sometimes kites in order to sometimes reach a far point for anchoring; man has done the same in bridge buuilding---flying a kite across a chasm to set a lead line for beginning bridge building.

Look at the Kite Spider bridled well with many tethers hanging in the wind; when the wind blows that tethered Kite Spider, the aerodynmic lift and drag over and under the Kite Spider's body is just as simply a true kite as if a human made a mimic of the situation in form and size or larger. Though the bridling web shown in this photo is complex, such does not make the situation non-kitable. http://bugguide.net/node/view/39826 Joefaust (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That it is verifiable that a large subset of hang gliders are true kites, that they have been notably respected for what they are, that they receive such language, etc.
1. At Wasserkuppe in the 1920 gliders were kited for launch. However, only some of those gliders were kites after being kites during the tow-launch kiting phase; the particular gliders that had the pilot hang tensionionally in a hung seat from the center of pressure was in low evidence as primary gliders opted for not having a tethered pilot. But the hung-seated pilot in a biplane hang glider _________, and the hung-seated Gottlob Espenlaub who controlled his hang glider using a trussed triangle control frame was in free-flight a mechanical kite with a short-set of hang lines as kite lines.

2. The published discussions by NASA as they interfaced in 1958 onwards with Francis Rogallodid publish kite language in their progress toward reentry solutions. Ultimately, the Paresev 1B had a tensionally-hung-from-a-single-point holder of the pilot's mass which tensionally-hanging provided the means to tow the stiffened Rogallo kite wing through the air after the truck and airplane tows (kiting) were released. In the Paresev 1B case, the kite tether was stiffened emphatically, but freely gimaled; other versions of the Paresev used flexible bridling of the wing in free-flight as payloads were free-flight kited governably to landings. Language in reports mixed parachute terms and kite terms to describe the flying situation; some writers failed to keep up the mechanically accurate language as they used parachute terms; but NASA did have some kiting language for the situation...and thus being more accurage, as that is what what occuring; the Rogallo kite wings were being towed through the air by the falling mass of the payloads which in many cases were pilot bodies who pushed and pulled the kite-wing's frame to control the kite's wing ...just like sport kiters of today direct stunt-kite frames to control the direction of the wing; and just like sport kiters who jump and glide with their kites---they have multiple lines to pull on the kite wing's framing this way or that to have the kite's wing move through the relative airstream as wanted.

3. In 1971 with Mark Lambie working for the FAA, the FAA was ready to give violations for the hang gliders in Newport Beach, California; but Mark Lambie correctly described that most of the hang gliders were being tethered as kites in the free-flight mode also. Mark's comments are published in the movie by Bill Liscomb called Big Blue Sky, premier showing of the history of hang gliding at Encinitas, Califonia, on Febrary 23, 2008. Subsequent to Mark Lambie's successful communication with the FAA, the FAR Part 101 and Part 103 were seen as being applicable to what was happening in the hanging pilots who would control the Rogallo kite wings by pushing and pulling the kite's wing airframe from the kite line tethered position. Mark Lambie's brother Jack Lambie is a highly notable person in aviation.

4. Two-hundred and sixteen distinct issues of the run of periodicals from 1970 to 1985 beginning with thirty-six issues of its first name: Low & Slow, then following name of Hang Glider Weekly, and two issues of Ground Skimmer, and two issues of Hang Glider Manufacturers Association newsletter, ...published by Self-Soar Association, held by some library archives, and the first 24 issues on a CD presently published by United States Hang Gliding Association, did emphatically, consistently describe the factual situation of the tethered short-hang-line hang gliders were free-flying kite system. The mechanical kite situation for the subset of hang gliders that does have the kite's pilot hanging from a hang loop from the center of pressure supported the early FAA decision to allow Part 103 of the FARs to apply to the overall sport of hang gliding, so long as system weight and operations were following some other regulations. Even the powered-harness microlights are kite systems as the powered harness directs the thrust of motor at the main massed pilot; the thrust is then sent through the hang line kite line to tow the kite's wing to form a relative airspeed.

5. Further, the highly noted ways of kiting hang gliders for launch off flatland now includes the improved-safety method of having the towing kite line from a vehicle (schooter, airplane, car, truck, friends, etc. ) be connected directly ---no longer to the kite wing's airframe---but directly to the pilot's tight-fitting harness which is hung from the main kite's wing via the hang-loop and main hang lines; this validates during secondary launching tow kiting that the system is a kite system; upon the pilot releasing the secondary launching long kite line, the tensional path to tow the kite's wing is still operating as the pilot's mass pulled by gravity is tugging the tether to give the essential tension that the kite's wing uses to convert to lift and drag for sustaining flight in the air stream.

6. That there has been some historical low-status in aviation for the word "kite" when applied to serious manned aircraft is well known. In an effort to be respected, some manufacturers wanted to emphasize that the modern Rogallo free-flight kites were gliders; they wanted to quiet the kite word to up the status for sales profit purposes; that tendency does not negate the mechanical fact of the kite system status of the tethered-pilot on the Rogallo kite. However, not all businesses in hang gliding succumbed to such a misapplication; one of the largest and most successful hang glider businesses is Kitty Hawk Kites where they maintain the full recognition that the hang gliders with the hang loop,etc. are kite systems. From their hang glider start to today, they began with the kites that were hang gliders and have added their business line of stunt kites, etc.  http://www.kittyhawk.com/info/history.cfm That some of the related literature emphasizes "glider" for the subject discussed here, the "hang" part of the hang gliders involved keeps scratching the fact that the situation involves a kite system where the kite wing is being towed by a falling pilot mass; the relative air speed and stream around the kite wing gives a net lift and drag that is adeqaute to give a flight path that is useful for placing the kite where the pilot wish it to be (mostly). Just like any other kite, when a thermal or slope updraft or gust hits the kite wing, the kite may rise or divert here or there (kiters know how to control kites....change the shape of the kite or change the speed of the kite with changed balances or tow tugs, or change the attitude of the kite frame, etc....common on most all kinds of ktes). The hang gliders that are true kites do the same: change the attitude of the kite wing's frame relative to the relative wind or stream, alter the shape of the kite with sprogs or sail-grab lines, or operate aerodynamic surfaces.

7. Some more references for this sub-topic discussion: http://members.amaonline.com/webpage/movies.htm See: Snow skiing with small hang glider kites. In that specialty hang gliding, the tether is the set of ligaments in the arms of the hanging massed kite pilot, yet the system is a kite, is a hang glider system also. The author chose the title mechanically accurately: "hang glider kites". Notice the other video on the same page that uses the word "kite" ...on a hang gliding page; this is so because of the mechanical facts that were supported in related literature told about above. Also, see the same page for the video Topless hang glider skimming the beach where one sees the hanging person who is flying the kite momentarily repositioning grab of the control barthat is as frequently occurs, even the pilot lets go 100% of the control bar and simply lets the balance trimmed kite be flown with the tethering without a push or pull of the kite's airframe.

Even more emphatic is when the Woopy Kite hangs the pilot from a short kite line for the Woopy Kite.

8. During modern hang gliding and paragliding (a form of hang gliding) instructions, the student is directed on a bunny slope flight to fully momentarily let go of the triangle control bar (wing's airframe part) and just let the tethering of the wing be the only active kiting of the kite's wing (or hang glider's wing for alternate phrasing, and "glider" wing for further common abbreviation). The instructors also have the student practice kiting the wing for ground handling. In paragliding, instruction sector called "kiting" has the pilot with feet on the ground ...mostly... while he or she kites the wing without intending to travel much with ground speed. During kiting, the pilot sometimes is lifted off the ground (but the kiting is not stopped at that moment, just like kite surfers with their smaller parafoils do not cease kiting during their kited jumps). The hang glider culture has mixed language and abbreviated language. Yet the kiting is strictly part of the culture no matter how much "glider" language is used.

9. Video of the powered harness where the towing tension-maker is the powered harnessed pilot; the tension is sent through the kite's tether to the kite's wing; the wing is not powered, but the towing system is powered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BAbFo74f6U

10. Expressing: http://bbs.acomic.net/archiver/?tid-6573.html  : "Hang gliders are kites"

11. That kiting has some huge branches to it does not make one branch not exist just because another branch exists. The toy and sport recreation kite branch is large. But the moving-anchorws-kite-line branch is also large and in an article on just "Kite" ...there is no reason to restrict kite to occurrences just in one branch and not the other. Separate sections or even full articles can develope one branch or the other; but "kite" ought to focus on "kite" without some POV dominatingly restricting kite just to applications in one branch and not the other. A running and jumping human holding a kite line is still holding that kite line while he or she jumps over a log while running the kite to tow the kite's wing in nil wind. A kite jumping kite surfer is no less kiting when aired than the kiting paraglider student who gets lifted off the ground during a gust fully like the "ballooning" (kiting, parachuting) spiders...who are really kiters in a hang gliding format, though the spders do not have a triangle control frame to gudie their kite wing misnamed "balloon" silk complex. These are all kite systems with non-empty subsets in other device fields; they they are at once kites as well as gliding systems does not stop their kite status; just like a lighter than air balloon is a balloon, but it is still a member of the set aircraft. kites are aircraft, some kites are hang gliders; some hang gliders are not kites, but some are indeed. Some kites are not hang gliders. Etc. Francis Rogallo flew his all-flexible Flexikite as a kite in two modes: hand-held and also as free-flying kiting by hanging a doll-mimic human below the kite's wing; he did so in the hangar at NASA to demonstrate that his parawing kite invention could kite also as a hung-mass-driven bridled free-flying kite; the photographs are on the internet; NASA understood that his kite patent was being applied in the hung-mass driven reentry experiments; these began the basis if the modern hung-mass Rogallo-wing hang gliders; the hang loop and hang lines hold the hung-mass person; the person decides to push and pull the wing's airframe to adjust how the air stream relatively flows about the kite's wing.

12. http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/kitehistorymak_slhl.htm "In the 1950’s and 60’s, NASA began to experiment with various kite designs to aid in spaceship recovery." Also: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/K4Guide/PDF/10sled.pdf Notice the company keeping that the Paresev hanging-pilot glider has to kiting here; this is not in error; the tethering of massed payload at a point brings the system into the kite world.

Joefaust (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe, there is a lot of great value in your research, but it is out of place in Wikipedia as has been explained again and again. Mainly your article sections and even these disscussions here are far too long for most people to read. You should write an online book on your own website and we will be happy to go there. --Theosch (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Power kiting flying during jumps?
Editors are invited to find and post appropriately citations showing the mechanical sameness of powerkiting gliding during jumping and paragliding kiting. Joefaust (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A kite can be towed by a kite or by another airplane powered or not.
Editors are invited to find and post the extant sources that show that kites can be anchored and towed by other kites, other kite lines, other aircraft including powered aircraft (kited troops during war, e.g.) Consider the dragon kite with its segments; following sub-kites are towed by other kites. Joefaust (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to other editors to incorporate the spiderling kiting
Editors are invited to incorporate in the article:


 * Balloon kite of the ballooning spiderlings; this kite is not a mechanical balloon but s collection of spider silk threads that are used for dispersal of spiders.    Richard Miller in 1967 in book Without Visible Means of Support described the mechanics of the double kite system where the upper kite lifts and drags in coupling with the lower kite that lifts downwards and drags; the common kite line results in a net kiting system in free-flight. In the 1800s Hiram Stevens Maxim in his chapter on Flying Kites observed the kiting of spiders; biologists used the misleading "ballooning" term which has stuck through time. Bug hunter Darrell Ubick correctly recognized that ballooning spiders actually are kiting as noted by author Pamela S. Turner in Super-powered spiders .  In Tales with Tails: Storytelling the Wonders of the Natural World by Kevin Strauss at three places (pages 184, and 185 and 187), shows correct understanding of the kiting of the ballooning spider (as no true balloon is ever made) . Three staffers of Straight Dope Science Advisory Board in Are cobwebs made by spiders? recognized the kiting of the ballooning spiders . Pest control company details spiders and they recognize that it is kiting that is done by instars (spiderlings) even though the historical term is ballooning . The Rare Species Conservatory affirm that ballooning spiders actually do not balloon but kite .   Joefaust (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page
Any objections to archiving some of the longer texts of this page? Beechhouse (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead Clappingsimon talk 14:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)