Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.197; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <003f01c546ba$becc5250$becf1fd3@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-910279@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Author's Credit
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:40:32 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Fred,
>
> snip:
>
> BTW, the drawing you attached is NOT originally from the hand of my really
> good "friend" Paul Lamar. He fliched it, without due credit, from the
> original author. Someone ought to have a go at him for being of double
> standard about this copyright thing - I've seen dozens of drawings etc
> published on ACRE without due credit given to the original authors.
>
> Mazda produced a book many years ago called "The Rotary Engine" (as you
> would), a fairly slim silver publicastion, but choc a block full of
> information. The author was the head of Mazda's rotary development,
> oneYamamoto San. So it is to him that the credit for the drawing should
go.
>
> Leon,
>
> In my communication with Paul L. regarding an error in Kenichi Yamamota's
> single rotor balance diagram he made it very clear that the diagram was
> from Yamamota's book and that there was indeed an error which had been
> corrected in later editions. If there was a flaw in my attribution it
> was mine,
> not Paul's. I did mention Paul because I believed that he had done the
> markup
> on the diagram.
>
> Me, I'm just a simple engineer, retired from Cal Tech's Jet Propulsion
Lab,
> who discovered long ago to learn whenever and from whoever I could without
> being concerned with demanding credit for my own contributions. That
> attitude allowed me to work on many very remarkable programs with many
> very competent people who were interested in accomplishment as opposed
> to credit. There also were a few ego maniacs. 'Nuff said.
>
> Fred O.

 Fred,
That error of the maths diagram had me scratching my head for a little
while, but I believe from memory Paul's additional comments were correct -
were they not?
I guessing a lot of people didn't look too deeply into the maths.
George ( down under)