7 ms·
The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. If humming birds had nothing to
by TriinT 17y ago
The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. If humming birds had nothing to teach us, papers such as the following one would not be published:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/nature03647.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7045/full/nature0...
- DannoHung 17y ago> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. Perhaps for aesthetics or mechanical and aerodynamic elegance, but never for practicality for human means.
- TriinT 17y agoSay that to da Vinci. His flying machines were inspired by birds. He studied Nature and tried to build machines based on the same principles as those that allowed birds to fly. Of course, that led his astray, because it's hard to design machines that fly by flapping their wings. However, the structural part remains. Take a look at how airplanes are designed these days, and you will see that their structure somewhat resembles the bone structure of actual birds. Last but not least: never say never, and never predict more than 10 years into the future. In 20 years your predictions might be ridiculed.
- jacquesm 17y agoSame for Otto Lilienthal. We design rigid body and rigid wing aircraft because of mechanical constraints.
- TriinT 17y agoQuoting Wilbur Wright: "I confess that, in 1901, I said to my brother Orville that men would not fly for 50 years. Two years later, we ourselves were making flights. This demonstration of my inability as a prophet gave me such a shock that I have ever since distrusted myself and have refrained from all prediction." No one has ever been able to predict where technology is going. This one is for you to tame your forecasting proclivities and for the moron who's downvoting my comments without explaining where my argument is weak. Cheers.
- DannoHung 17y agoOh, so it's perfectly fine for you to make a universal statement about aeronautics: > The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. But when I make one, it's wrong? Fuck you.
- anamax 17y ago> The lesson is that whatever flying machine we are able to design, it will always pale in comparison to Nature's flying machines. Those super-sonic eagles are extremely elegant. And, why do we bother with 747s when ostriches are so much more efficient.
- TriinT 17y ago"Those super-sonic eagles are extremely elegant. And, why do we bother with 747s when ostriches are so much more efficient." For starters, please do note that I wrote flying machines. As far as I know, ostriches do not fly. Besides, supersonic is not that impressive. Hell, a rocket can move at hypersonic speeds. When you design a fighter jet that is as maneuverable and energy-efficient as a hummingbird, please let me know.
- rimantas 17y agoWikipedia: "With the exception of insects, hummingbirds while in flight have the highest metabolism of all animals, a necessity in order to support the rapid beating of their wings. Their heart rate can reach as high as 1,260 beats per minute, a rate once measured in a Blue-throated Hummingbird.[9] They also consume more than their own weight in nectar each day, and to do so they must visit hundreds of flowers daily. Hummingbirds are continuously hours away from starving to death, and are able to store just enough energy to survive overnight."
- TriinT 17y agoGood find. But what is the efficiency of the nectar -> mechanical energy conversion? If you fly a F/A-18 at afterburner, you will be out of fuel pretty quickly, too. The issue is: how much of the chemical energy stored in the fuel is transformed into mechanical energy? In any case, you're picking on the wrong issue. The hummingbird can hover better than a Harrier or a JSF. If you want to start an argument, pick on that.
- anamax 17y ago
- andrewcooke 17y agoi think you're general point is either right but banal, or interesting but wrong. however, having said that, i thought you might appreciate this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/27/jets-fuel-geese-carbon-dioxide http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/27/jets-fuel-gee...