It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Once trained, the bird flew through a laser sheet that illuminated nontoxic, micron-sized aerosol particles. As the bird flew through the seeded laser sheet, its wing motion disturbed the particles to generate a detailed record of the vortices created by the flight.
What they found is that to varying degrees, all three models failed to predict the actual lift generated by a flapping parrotlet.
(...)
Scientists rely on these models, developed to interpret the airflow generated by flying animals, to understand how animals support their weight during flight.
(...)
"The goal of our study was to compare very commonly used models in the literature to figure out how much lift a bird, or other flying animal, generates based off its wake," said Diana Chin (...). "What we found was that all three models we tried out were very inaccurate because they make assumptions that aren't necessarily true."
originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: swanne
The answer to your question is and was known for centuries by the Aztec.
Have a look at a picture of one of the 'Aztec golden aircraft'...check the wings out, more specifically the designs inscribed on them...they are vortices..swirls representing the vortices generated by a lifting body, or wing.
Once trained, the bird flew through a laser sheet that illuminated nontoxic, micron-sized aerosol particles. As the bird flew through the seeded laser sheet, its wing motion disturbed the particles to generate a detailed record of the vortices created by the flight.
What they found is that to varying degrees, all three models failed to predict the actual lift generated by a flapping parrotlet.
(...)
Scientists rely on these models, developed to interpret the airflow generated by flying animals, to understand how animals support their weight during flight.
(...)
"The goal of our study was to compare very commonly used models in the literature to figure out how much lift a bird, or other flying animal, generates based off its wake," said Diana Chin (...). "What we found was that all three models we tried out were very inaccurate because they make assumptions that aren't necessarily true."
What they found is that to varying degrees, all three models failed to predict the actual lift generated by a flapping parrotlet.
I've reached a similar conclusion. The only difference between a bird's wing and a modeled wing is the flapping movement.
originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: intrptr
True. Although I believe engines wouldn't be involved in modeling a wing's lift, since a propeller is a form of wing by itself.
Short and stubby, the bumblebee doesn't look very flight-worthy. Indeed, in the 1930s, French entomologist August Magnan even noted that the insect's flight is actually impossible, a notion that has stuck in popular consciousness since then. Now, you don't need to be a scientist to raise an eyebrow at this assertion, but it sure is easier to explain the bumblebee's physics-defying aerodynamics if you're Michael Dickinson, a professor of biology and insect flight expert at the University of Washington. "The whole question of how these little wings generate enough force to keep the insect in the air is resolved," Dickinson told Life's Little Mysteries. "There are details remaining, but it's just not an enigma anymore."
He says the big misconception about insect flight and perhaps what tripped up Magnan is the belief that bumblebees flap their wings up and down. "Actually, with rare exceptions, they flap their wings back and forth," Magnan said.
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I heard that it is a scientific impossibility that the bumble bee is capable of flight. Yet somehow it flies. So who do you believe, the bumble bee or science?
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I heard that it is a scientific impossibility that the bumble bee is capable of flight. Yet somehow it flies. So who do you believe, the bumble bee or science?