Merfluke Project Report #5: Yet another failure

Today I Merfluked 700 meters in 25 minutes at Lake Pflugerville.

This is a miserable failure; I can probably swim that distance in 15 minutes or less without any fins at at all.

On the bright side, I have invented an effective abdominal exercise machine. :->.

To explain the history of this trial, you may note that my last experiment taught me that despite my attempt to design pedals that would allow me to keep a firm contact with the Merfluke pedals, it didn't work. To correct this, I bought a pair of swim-fins, sawed the fins off the foot pockets with a hacksaw, and used a hot-melt glue gun to glue the foot pockets onto the pedals.

The glue did not work very well.  Within 10 minutes I had broken both foot pockets off.  However, since my foot was strapped into the pocket and the pocket thickened my foot I was indeed able to keep my feet in the pedals better.

Basically, my down kick provided a lot of propulsion, but the recovery stroke was very difficult and felt like it was actively slowing me down.  I had of course identified this as a problem before, but this trial has taught me that it is a critical problem.

Things look pretty grim for the success of the Merfluke, because:

• In order to make it work I have to have the feet securely in the pedals, and
• I previously claimed as an advantage NOT having to have the feet securely in the pedals.

So the combination of poor performance and needing to secure the feet is a double-whammy.

At present, my plan is to give my presentation at the Austin Mini-Maker Faire and then abandon this project.  I will probably move on to the Solar Cooker in a Public Park project I have written about here.

We cannot expect every project to succeed.  Hopefully, we learn something from our failures.

I do not believe that the design space of Thunniform swimming is completely exhausted.  That is, I think a better engineer than myself with additional effort might be able to achieve the stated goal of the Merfluke project: to allow a human athlete to swim faster than with a monofin.  However, I think the change of this happening is only 10-20%, and I think more benefit will be attained by going on to some other project.

Of course, if anyone disagrees and wants to continue working on this project, you have my blessing, support, and cooperation.

Brief Review of “On Combat”

I recently had the pleasure of finishing: OnCombat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War andPeace, by Dave Grossman and Loren W. Christensen.

 http://www.amazon.com/On-Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Conflict/dp/0964920514

Obviously, Public Invention has nothing to do with combat. In fact, I eschew the creation of weaponry. I believe mankind needs to focus on the creation of what Buckminster Fuller called “livingry”---inventions which make life better for mankind.

Nonetheless, this a great book in and of itself. However, it is also relevant to Public Invention.

Lt. Col. Grossman is creating (along with others) what he calls “warrior science”. This is simply the scientific study of the affect of combat on the warrior, and the warrior on combat. I emphasize scientific because of course since the Iliad and Mahabarata war has been a central theme of mankind's stories. Only recently has the warrior been studied scientifically, leading to insights that can help the warrior both in combat and more importantly after combat. Among the most important realizations of this science are physiological and psychological effects that were previously unexplained and therefore disbelieved, often leading to warriors being treated with shame and incredulity.

Although interesting, I will not recap these important findings here, because they are not relevant.  However I invite you to read this excellent book if you are interested in that sort of thing.

What is relevant, however, is that Grossman and others have done and are doing for a different field what I want to do for Public Invention. They have written Warrior Science 101. Perhaps only the first edition, but they have clearly amassed a valuable body of knowledge on the subject.

So, can we do the same for Public Invention? Well, invention is probably harder, because, by definition, it must be new. In 500 BC solving a triangle was a great and innovative achievement, but today it is not. In 1609 BCE a telescope was a great invention, today it is not.

However, we should not let this discourage us. The matter is simply untried at present. There have been studies of creativity. There are studies of genius. I don't think there has been a study of systematic attempts to improve the world by teams of inventors motivated by altruism rather than money.

So I remain hopeful that we can begin “Public Invention 101”, and develop a culture and technology of world changing.

As it happens, I am still waiting for you to join me---so don't be shy. Please comment or promote this blog.