if a bee can fly, then why not...
Eddie G
but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics? If so, then
who's to say other laws of physics cannot be broken.
RM Mentock
>
> be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm wrong,
you're wrong
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics? If so, then
> who's to say other laws of physics cannot be broken.
I'd prefer to believe that afca can come together in harmony
--
RM Mentock
Which color goes on first--the chickpea, or the eggplant?
Eddie G
wrong,
>
> you're wrong
I said CORRECT me if I'm wrong, not just tell me.
<g>
I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a bee
should NOT be able to fly.
<<I'd prefer to believe that afca can come together in harmony
Then I guess I better leave this well enough alone
;-)
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm wrong,
>but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics? If so, then
>who's to say other laws of physics cannot be broken.
Relax...the universe is not about to end.
REad up on it here:
http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos.html#Brilliant
"Conventional aerodymic analysis methods simply don't apply to insect
wings.
Big deal! It doesn't mean bees can't fly, or that engineers say they
can't fly. It just means that insect flight is very complicated and,
even with computers, our fluid dynamic modeling techniques aren't yet
able to quite handle such a complicated problem. Then there's the
problem of verification. If you can't measure the pressures and
velocities around a wing, how can you verify your calculations?"
Boron
John Hatpin
OTB:IF time:
"Is it aerodynamically impossible for bumblebees to fly?"
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html
(Short answer: they flap their little wings; that changes things)
On the subject of the speed of light, I don't believe the *actual*
laws of physics can be broken. But, over the centuries, our
understanding of these laws has been subject to periodic, sometimes
startling revision by new research, and there's no reason at all to
suppose that's going to stop happening.
For the moment, the speed of light is a restriction. Our
understanding of this branch of physics may always change, just so
long as we keep our interest up and keep learning stuff.
--
John Hatpin
Brett Bayne
God forbid I should just include a URL, so here's what it says:
Dear Cecil:
When I was in college, not so many eons ago, it was pretty much an article of
faith among us intellectual iconoclasts that, though we could put a man on the
moon, we still had no idea how a bumblebee could fly. Do we? --Keith Hanson,
Silver Spring, Maryland
Dear Keith:
Of course. You think this is on a par with quantum mechanics? The basic
principles of bumblebee flight, and insect flight generally, have been pretty
well understood for many years. Somehow, though, the idea that bees "violate
aerodynamic theory" got embedded in folklore.
According to an account at www.iop.org/Physics/News/0012i.1, the story was
initially circulated in German technical universities in the 1930s. Supposedly
during dinner a biologist asked an aerodynamics expert about insect flight. The
aerodynamicist did a few calculations and found that, according to the accepted
theory of the day, bumblebees didn't generate enough lift to fly. The
biologist, delighted to have a chance to show up those arrogant SOBs in the
hard sciences, promptly spread the story far and wide.
Once he sobered up, however, the aerodynamicist surely realized what the
problem was--a faulty analogy between bees and conventional fixed-wing
aircraft. Bees' wings are small relative to their bodies. If an airplane were
built the same way, it'd never get off the ground. But bees aren't like
airplanes, they're like helicopters. Their wings work on the same principle as
helicopter blades--to be precise, "reverse-pitch semirotary helicopter blades,"
to quote one authority. A moving airfoil, whether it's a helicopter blade or a
bee wing, generates a lot more lift than a stationary one.
The real challenge with bees wasn't figuring out the aerodynamics but the
mechanics: specifically, how bees can move their wings so fast--roughly 200
beats per second, which is 10 or 20 times the firing rate of the nervous
system. The trick apparently is that the bee's wing muscles (thorax muscles,
actually) don't expand and contract so much as vibrate, like a rubber band. A
nerve impulse comes along and twangs the muscle, much as you might pluck a
guitar string, and it vibrates the wing up and down a few times until the next
impulse comes along. Cecil is sliding over a few subtleties here, but nobody
ever said science for the masses was pretty.
--CECIL ADAMS
Lord Jubjub
"Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
ummm, the question has not been whether or not a bee can fly; it's been
what exactly are the wing and air motions that bees use to stay aloft.
They long ago discovered that bees are not using classical aerodynamics
(such as birds use) to stay aloft.
--
Lord Jubjub, ruler of the slithy toves.
If you want to contact me, remember I am a LORD.
John Hatpin
We could use tiny little speedometers and barometers. Where's
nanotechnology when you really need it?
--
John "Buzz" Hatpin
John Dean
>>> be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if
>>> I'm wrong,
>>
>> you're wrong
>
> I said CORRECT me if I'm wrong, not just tell me.
> <g>
>
> I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a
> bee should NOT be able to fly.
Yep. There are still people around who are prepared to pass on that hoary
old UL. Don't you think that someone would have put forard an amendment to
the laws of physics if it were true?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Boron Elgar
There used to be an old joke about moth balls & getting them to spread
their little legs...
Boron
StarChaser Tyger
>I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a bee
>should NOT be able to fly.
Probably one of those lists of 'facts'. Right next to no-echo ducks.
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvenience of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Bob E.
"Oh, you need little teeny eyes for reading little teeny print
like you need little teeny hands for milking mice."
--Bob
=======================================================================
Bob Ellingson bo...@halted.com
Halted Specialties Co., Inc. http://www.halted.com
3500 Ryder St. (408) 732-1573
Santa Clara, Calif. 95051 USA (408) 732-6428 (FAX)
James Gifford
> be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
No.
--
| James Gifford * jgif...@surewest.net |
| So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |
chris greville
"James Gifford" <jgif...@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3F6E8453...@surewest.net...
> Eddie G wrote:
> > be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm
wrong,
> > but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
>
> No.
>
A much better description of "no" is on
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/10/9/1
Chris Greville
chris greville
> > be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm
wrong,
> > but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
>
> No.
>
A much better description of "no" is on
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/10/9/1
Chris Greville
Jerry Bauer
(in message <Fvecnejvvsx...@comcast.com>):
> Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
The more amazing thing is the fly's ability to be.
chris greville
"Boron Elgar" <boron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fmfsmv0gcccbe9fvg...@4ax.com...
I thought Mr. H *was* the old joke <ducking/running>
Chris " :-) " Greville
Crashj
> Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
You are wrong. A bee can't GLIDE! Go drink a bottle of whiteout.
Crashj 'you stand corrected' Johnson
Charles A Lieberman
> Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
A bee's ability to fly contradicts the laws of physics as applied to
airplanes. Bees overcome this restriction by the simple expedient of not
being airplanes.
That means you've realized your full potential, your not smarter than
those fancy-pants scientists with their "degrees" and their "education"
and their "knowledge," and there is nothing you maintain your ability to
do solely by not knowing you're not supposed to be able to do it.
--
Charles A. Lieberman | When free speech is outlawed,
New York, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/ cali...@bigfoot.com
Brett Bayne
up the "bees should not be able to fly" thing. Of course
bees should not be able to fly. It's aerodynamically
impossible and breaks all proven laws of physics. What
we should be concerned about is how someone can
swallow a bunch of bees and shoot them out of his
mouth, bullet style.
M C Hamster
news:20030922132732...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Cite, please. Streaming video preferably. It sounds like it breaks several
laws of thermodynamics.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Charles A Lieberman
"Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a bee
> should NOT be able to fly.
You undoubtedly did, but it's still bullshit. I've heard lotsa stuff
somewhere.
Charles A Lieberman
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> Don't you think that someone would have put forard an amendment to
> the laws of physics if it were true?
Does that mean physics is unfalsifiable?
The mind boggles.
Blinky the Shark
> In article <Fvecnejvvsx...@comcast.com>,
> "Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong,
>> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
> A bee's ability to fly contradicts the laws of physics as applied to
> airplanes. Bees overcome this restriction by the simple expedient of not
> being airplanes.
Bees cheat!
(Sheep lie!)
--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
Nixon's secretary now at MS? http://snurl.com/rosemary
Brett Bayne
Wile E. Coyote.
Brett Bayne
> (Sheep lie!)
And ducks don't echo.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <calieber-F7B047...@news.fu-berlin.de>):
> In article <bkleh9$mme$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Don't you think that someone would have put forard an amendment to
>> the laws of physics if it were true?
>
> Does that mean physics is unfalsifiable?
>
> The mind boggles.
>
>
Physics itself is as unfalsifiable as nature. It is what it is.
Theories about physics, however, should be falsifiable. Bears bear,
fleas flee, flies fly, bees be, and beavers beave, theories
withstanding or notwithstanding.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Physics itself is as unfalsifiable as nature. It is what it is.
"The World is all that is the case."
I dunno...it seems an essentially falsifiable bit of business.
>Bears bear,
>fleas flee, flies fly, bees be, and beavers beave,
Incredible rhyme animals rhyme.
>theories
>withstanding or notwithstanding.
Also, there is no justice for George F. Haley. Something to keep in mind.
Lord Jubjub
george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible Rhyme Animal) wrote:
> Jerry Bauer use...@bauerstar.com writes:
>
> >Physics itself is as unfalsifiable as nature. It is what it is.
>
> "The World is all that is the case."
>
> I dunno...it seems an essentially falsifiable bit of business.
Well, I, for one, am not sure it isn't possible for an objective viewer
to exist. But such an existence is likely to be beyond our
comprehension and may well not be provable.
JB
>
> In article <aa83a82f.03092...@posting.google.com>,
> Crashj <cra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > "Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Fvecnejvvsx...@comcast.com>...
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong,
> > > but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
> >
> > You are wrong. A bee can't GLIDE!
>
> prepared to propose a slope as the cutoff for gliding.
An object is gliding when, as a result of aerodynamic forces, the unpowered
object's downward velocity ceases to increase, at some vertical velocity less
than its terminal velocity.
> (Does the Space Shuttle qualify?)
Yes. But a brick doesn't.
--JB
StarChaser Tyger
"Or what? You'll release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in
their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you?"
Mark Steese
> be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
> If so, then who's to say other laws of physics cannot be broken.
The mistake you're making, and it's a common one, is your assumption
that bees *do* fly. In point of fact, they don't; the wings of true
bees are for display purposes only. The flying insects commonly but
incorrectly called 'bees' aren't even members of the Hymenoptera. Their
correct classification is still a matter of some controversy, but most
entomologists now believe that they constitute a separate order, the
Magnamentiora.
-Mark
--
What a deal of cold business doth a man misspend the better part of life
in! In scattering compliments, tendering visits, gathering and venting
news, following feasts and plays, making a little winter-love in a dark
corner. -Ben Jonson
chris greville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbmuk8f....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
> Charles A Lieberman wrote:
>
> > In article <Fvecnejvvsx...@comcast.com>,
> > "Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong,
> >> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
>
> > A bee's ability to fly contradicts the laws of physics as applied to
> > airplanes. Bees overcome this restriction by the simple expedient of not
> > being airplanes.
>
> Bees cheat!
>
> (Sheep lie!)
>
True story time.
I played a lot of soccer in my younger days, our home field was next to a
meadow.
At the end of a game one day, someone noticed that a sheep was on its back
and really, really struggling to get up. Sheep have a very flat back, it
does make it very difficult for them to get back onto their feet if they
roll over.
Being a country lad, and knowing this lore (added to which I have a lot of
Welsh blood in me), I donned my shining armour and went to help. This
entailed climbing up an 8' tall fence, getting down the other side without
breaking anything, then a 50 yard or so stroll over to where the sheep was.
I got within a couple of yards of it and the damn thing rolled over, slowly
got up and then took off like a bat out of hell. Man, oh man, that thing
flew.
.
For the rest of my soccer playing days I was known as Sheep Shagger.
Life is cruel at times.
Chris Greville
Blinky the Shark
> "Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnbmuk8f....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
>> Charles A Lieberman wrote:
>> > In article <Fvecnejvvsx...@comcast.com>,
>> > "Eddie G" <mick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Correct me if I'm wrong,
>> >> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics?
>> > A bee's ability to fly contradicts the laws of physics as applied to
>> > airplanes. Bees overcome this restriction by the simple expedient of not
>> > being airplanes.
>> Bees cheat!
>> (Sheep lie!)
> Sheep fly, or at least, the one I attempted to rescue did.
Time flies like the wind; fruit flies like bananas.
> Being a country lad, and knowing this lore (added to which I have a lot of
> Welsh blood in me), I donned my shining armour and went to help. This
> entailed climbing up an 8' tall fence, getting down the other side without
> breaking anything, then a 50 yard or so stroll over to where the sheep was.
> I got within a couple of yards of it and the damn thing rolled over, slowly
> got up and then took off like a bat out of hell. Man, oh man, that thing
> flew.
Apparently it had been abused by others of your species, and your
presence provided all the motivation it needed to right itself.
> For the rest of my soccer playing days I was known as Sheep Shagger.
Re country lad: were you raised on a working farm?
Opus the Penguin
news:bkpge9$6gq$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Being a country lad, and knowing this lore (added to which I have a
> lot of Welsh blood in me), I donned my shining armour and went to
> help. This entailed climbing up an 8' tall fence, getting down the
> other side without breaking anything, then a 50 yard or so stroll over
> to where the sheep was. I got within a couple of yards of it and the
> damn thing rolled over, slowly got up and then took off like a bat out
> of hell. Man, oh man, that thing flew.
Speaking of which, I hear they've found a new use for sheep in Scotland.
--
Opus the Penguin
Watch this spot for sig file
Adam Smith
> That means you've realized your full potential, your not smarter than
> those fancy-pants scientists with their "degrees" and their "education"
> and their "knowledge," and there is nothing you maintain your ability to
> do solely by not knowing you're not supposed to be able to do it.
I feel the urge to say something applying this thesis to economics and
people who think they know squat about it, apparently having deduced
it from their Liberal Arts courses, but I won't.
Adam Smith
> be able to travel faster than the speed of light? Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but doesn't a bee's ability to fly defy the laws of physics? If so, then
> who's to say other laws of physics cannot be broken.
Yes,, and that's why NASA's next generation spaceship will be powered by bees . . .
Adam Smith
> On the subject of the speed of light, I don't believe the *actual*
> laws of physics can be broken. But, over the centuries, our
> understanding of these laws has been subject to periodic, sometimes
> startling revision by new research, and there's no reason at all to
> suppose that's going to stop happening.
On that topic, the theory by which we understand the workings of
gravity seem to be undergoing a revision. Stars orbit galaxies too
fast for the apparent mass, the Pioneer probes arent where General
Relativity predicts they should be. We got gravity wrong. There are
ad hoc adjustments (dark matter, correction factors) to make things
fit, but we need another Einstein to make it all cohesive.
chris greville
"Blinky the Shark" <no....@box.invalid> wrote in message
> chris greville wrote:
>
>.
>
> Apparently it had been abused by others of your species, and your
> presence provided all the motivation it needed to right itself.
The motivation was a jug of mint sauce in my hand.
>
> Re country lad: were you raised on a working farm?
>
> --
Within smelling distance of several farms.
Closest was a chicken farm at the end of our garden, an ordinary farm about
500 yards away. I spent a lot of my childhood roaming around both.
Believe me, a hot day in the countryside around Chez Greville was an
experience to be missed. If the flies did not get you, the smell would.
Especially the smell of burning feathers.
Chris Greville
Bob Ward
It was probably startled by the sound of your zipper.
chris greville
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93FF7A5E96C95op...@127.0.0.1...
<Waiting patiently for punch line>
Chris Greville
--
"As the last deep orange glow of the long sunset melted into the darkness of
the approaching night, as we lay there still entwined in an amorous embrace
and I kissed her longingly and whispered how good she had been, she tenderly
and sensuously licked my inner ear and whispered:
"Baaa". Then she rejoined the flock"
From an Australian story
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>
>I feel the urge to say something applying this thesis to economics and
>people who think they know squat about it, apparently having deduced
>it from their Liberal Arts courses, but I won't.
Good, because you'd only make yourself look like an ass, as Economics is a
liberal art.
chris greville
"Bob Ward" <bob....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dkd1nvkvjvih5rpfp...@4ax.com...
More likely the sight of my knees. I was wearing football kit, no zippers in
my shorts.
Chris Greville
StarChaser Tyger
Dirty Deeds, done with sheep!
Dirty Deeds, Little Bo Peep...
Velcro gloves...kneepads...late night dates...DONE WITH SHEEP!
Warning signs...electric fences...High voltage! Done with sheep!
groo
The old urban legend about insects not being able to fly (theoretically)
was based on some simple calculations of wing size, thrust, etc. These
calculations don't take into account the way that insects change the
angle of their wings during a wing flap cycle, and the resulting vortex
effects. Two effects are believed to be working to make this a very
efficient process, "delayed stall" and "wake capture". Both are related
to the air vortices which form as the wing is flapped.
Delayed stall: "How can stall, which is disastrous for an airplane, help
to lift an insect? The answer lies in the rate at which the wings flap.
Wings do not stall instantly; it takes some time for the lift-generating
flow to break down after the angle of attack increases. The initial
stage of stall actually briefly increases the lift because of a
short-lived flow structure called a leading-edge vortex...The
leading-edge vortex forms just above and behind the wing's leading edge,
like a long cylindrical whirlpool turned on its side. The airflow in the
vortex is very fast, and the resulting very low pressure adds
substantial lift. This effect was first recognized by aeronautics
engineers in England in the early 1930s, but it is too brief to be of
use to most aircraft. Very quickly, the vortex detaches from the wing
and is shed into the aircraft's wake, and lift drops precipitously, as
does the plane. The wing strokes of insects, however, are so brief that
the wing flips over and reverses direction, producing a new vortex in
the opposite direction immediately after the previous one is shed."
Wake capture: "Each stroke of the wing leaves behind a complicated wake
consisting of the vorticity it produced by traveling and rotating
through the fluid. When the wing reverses direction, it passes back
through this churning air. A wake contains energy lost from the insect
to the fluid, so wake capture provides a way for the insect to recover
some of that energy—to recycle it, one might say."
Although doing computer simulations of this is still pretty difficult,
researchers have effectively measured it by using larger scale models in
tanks of a viscous fluid. There is a ratio (Reynolds number) that if
maintained will account for the change in scale, which is why a viscous
fluid like mineral oil is used. They've also taken measurements from a
housefly stuck to a piece of instrumentation.
If you are really interested, the article I've quoted above is at:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EE5B1-DCA8-1C6F-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2
UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
--
"It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!" - Capt. Hank
Murphy, Sealab 2021
WM David
says...
> > Cite, please. Streaming video preferably.
> I think it was Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day. Or maybe it happened to
> Wile E. Coyote.
>
--
WMDave
--
"Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands
anything."
- A.A. Milne, *The House at Pooh Corner*
StarChaser Tyger
>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
Great, things you can't swat. Clobber them and their eyes glow red and
they come after you again...
StarChaser 'Turdminator' Tyger
Blinky the Shark
> groo <gr...@groo.org> wrote:
>>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
> Great, things you can't swat. Clobber them and their eyes glow red and
> they come after you again...
StarChaser slowly raises the swatter. The fly doesn't move. This is
gonna work...
...and then he hears, in a voice somehow extra menacing for its calm and
deliberate delivery, "I wouldn't try that, Dave."
Doom2 Archvile
>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
It's a good thing too, since I'm currently working on a swatter for robot
flies.
groo
I'm not too worried about the robot flies. The robot bees that shoot
missiles out their asses give me more reason for concern. And the flying
robot cows really worry me.
--
"Pudding can't fill the emptiness inside me... but it'll help!" - Capt.
Hank Murphy, Sealab 2021
Opus the Penguin
news:ic65nv4gj5l69lc0l...@4ax.com:
> groo <gr...@groo.org> wrote:
>
>>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
>
> Great, things you can't swat. Clobber them and their eyes glow red and
> they come after you again...
Folks, this is all just a great misunderstanding. I specifically asked them
to work on FLYING ROBOTS!!!
Blinky the Shark
> Doom2 Archvile wrote:
>> In article <3F71CC51...@groo.org>, groo <gr...@groo.org> writes:
>> >UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
>> It's a good thing too, since I'm currently working on a swatter for robot
>> flies.
> I'm not too worried about the robot flies. The robot bees that shoot
> missiles out their asses give me more reason for concern. And the flying
> robot cows really worry me.
If you could domesticate[1] a barrage or two of porcupines, they could
defend against such threats by shooting their quills.
[1]Or just collar some undomesticated ones, and stake them out at strategic
locations. Alternately, you might be able to mail-order some from ACME.
--
Blinky Linux RU 297263
NEW 9/25/03:
MS Class Action Award Vouchers for California Residents
Detail --> http://snurl.com/settlement
Brett Bayne
> to help build robot flies.
Coming soon to a supermarket near you: Robot Raid.
Kills robot flies dead.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <slrnbn588v....@thurston.blinkynet.net>):
> StarChaser Tyger wrote:
>
>> groo <gr...@groo.org> wrote:
>
>>> UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
>
>> Great, things you can't swat. Clobber them and their eyes glow red and
>> they come after you again...
>
> StarChaser slowly raises the swatter. The fly doesn't move. This is
> gonna work...
>
> ...and then he hears, in a voice somehow extra menacing for its calm and
> deliberate delivery, "I wouldn't try that, Dave."
>
>
"Dave's not here."
John Hatpin
>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
Wow. Automated trousers? Cool.
--
John Hatpin
chris greville
News(flash) from England
Entrepreneur arrested for causing indecency crimes in Humberside
___________________________________________________
Police today raided the premises of the ever popular, highly respected
entrepreneur John Hatpin, and arrested him on a warrant alleging that he
promoted "Gross acts of indecency against the Police, Ambulance Services and
Fire Brigade".
It is rumoured that a faulty batch of sensors in his companies latest
product, The Automated Fly (zipper to our American friends) was fitted to
the trousers of the men of Humberside.
This sensor was triggered by the sounds emanating from the sirens used by
the emergency vehicles, with very unfortunate side effects.
An ambulance spokesperson was quoted as saying " Not only did the zip go
down quickly as the ambulance went by, it also went up quickly. This caused
an extra work load for our crews, and we had to advise our crews *not* to
use the sirens when approaching the emergency scene. The men were doubled up
with pain, and a lot were crying, or at least they had tears in their eyes".
In one foul move, this is expected to decrease substantially the birth rate
in Humberside. So much so that the Vatican rushed out an edict.
In a crowded news conference, an anonymous spokesman said " The Catholic
Church is well known for being against contraception, this move is totally
opposed by us." In the question and answer session afterwards, he also
denied that any trouser seized by the police were to be donated to the
American clergy. "We have enough trouble with Priest's over there already"
he said fiercely.
Both the Police and Fire Brigade declined to comment, but an anonymous
Fireman was overheard to say that "The Police act like big dick's anyway, so
it is only proper that the public show them the respect they deserve". A
policeman standing beside him retaliated by saying that the only safe way to
put a wire out, was for people to pee on the flames.
Both were treated by an already over-stretched hospital emergency room after
the ensuing fight.
Mr. Hatpin was unavailable for interview, but a spokesman said that all he
(Mr. Hatpin) had done was to follow up on some interesting research work by
the UC Berkeley in the UP.SO.
" Mr Hatpin is always looking for ways to put new practices into action,
that way he has been one of the success stories of the last two decades. He
has become one of Humberside's largest employers, but in this case, it has
gone wrong due to the burks at Berkeley forgetting about frequencies".
Chris Greville
groo
> It is rumoured that a faulty batch of sensors in his companies latest
> product, The Automated Fly (zipper to our American friends) was fitted to
> the trousers of the men of Humberside.
Do y'all usually call the zipper/button opening in a single pair of
trousers the "fly" or the "flies"? I've seen the latter, and it seemed
odd. BTW, calling it a "fly" is also common usage in the USofA.
> " Mr Hatpin is always looking for ways to put new practices into action,
> that way he has been one of the success stories of the last two decades. He
> has become one of Humberside's largest employers, but in this case, it has
> gone wrong due to the burks at Berkeley forgetting about frequencies".
"burks"? Are these like boffins?
--
"It makes real cupcakes with a 40-watt bulb. And it has icing packets.
But the secret ingredient is love, dammit!" - Captain Hank Murphy,
Sealab 2021
artyw
>
> >UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
>
> Wow. Automated trousers? Cool.
The robot's programmers probably use zip files.
chris greville
"groo" <gr...@groo.org> wrote in message news:3F7464C2...@groo.org...
> chris greville wrote:
>
>
> > It is rumoured that a faulty batch of sensors in his companies latest
> > product, The Automated Fly (zipper to our American friends) was fitted
to
> > the trousers of the men of Humberside.
>
> Do y'all usually call the zipper/button opening in a single pair of
> trousers the "fly" or the "flies"? I've seen the latter, and it seemed
> odd. BTW, calling it a "fly" is also common usage in the USofA.
We have always used flies in our family as in "Your'e flies are open".
I used Fly in this context to bring it in line with the OP message
>
> > " Mr Hatpin is always looking for ways to put new practices into action,
> > that way he has been one of the success stories of the last two decades.
He
> > has become one of Humberside's largest employers, but in this case, it
has
> > gone wrong due to the burks at Berkeley forgetting about frequencies".
>
> "burks"? Are these like boffins?
>
I can't find an online cite for this, but (again in my family) it is used as
a very mild insult, something a little less insulting than calling someone
an idiot.
Spelling can be either burk or berk, the latter is a more common spelling.
ISTR that a berk relates to somone living in Berkshire, but what the
insulting about that, I do not remember.
Chris Greville
Rick B.
>
> "groo" <gr...@groo.org> wrote in message
> news:3F7464C2...@groo.org...
>> chris greville wrote:
>>
>>
>> > It is rumoured that a faulty batch of sensors in his
>> > companies latest product, The Automated Fly (zipper to our
>> > American friends) was fitted
> to
>> > the trousers of the men of Humberside.
>>
>> Do y'all usually call the zipper/button opening in a single
>> pair of trousers the "fly" or the "flies"? I've seen the
>> latter, and it seemed odd. BTW, calling it a "fly" is also
>> common usage in the USofA.
Some insist that "fly" properly refers to the flap of cloth that
covers the zipper and not the closure itself. Merriam-Webster's
definition is "something attached by one edge: as a garment closing
concealed by a fold of cloth extending over the fastener," which
makes no sense; the fold is much more likely to be attached by one
edge than the closure is. I think they were (or should have been)
trying to say that the name for the flap has migrated a short
distance to the closure.
> Spelling can be either burk or berk, the latter is a more common
> spelling. ISTR that a berk relates to somone living in
> Berkshire, but what the insulting about that, I do not remember.
Rhyming slang--"Berkshire hunt." Use only on short people, as it must
mean "runt."
Rick "Stunt? Bunt? Punt?" B.
--
I am not in Antarctica
chris greville
"Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote in message
news:Xns94035351D...@207.69.154.203...
> "chris greville" <chrisg...@Nooo-Spamhotmail.com> wrote in
> news:bl3mk5$klf$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>
> Some insist that "fly" properly refers to the flap of cloth that
> covers the zipper and not the closure itself. Merriam-Webster's
> definition is "something attached by one edge: as a garment closing
> concealed by a fold of cloth extending over the fastener," which
> makes no sense; the fold is much more likely to be attached by one
> edge than the closure is. I think they were (or should have been)
> trying to say that the name for the flap has migrated a short
> distance to the closure.
Thanks, my access to Google and such is severely hampered at the moment.
> > Spelling can be either burk or berk, the latter is a more common
> > spelling. ISTR that a berk relates to somone living in
> > Berkshire, but what the insulting about that, I do not remember.
>
> Rhyming slang--"Berkshire hunt." Use only on short people, as it must
> mean "runt."
>
> Rick "Stunt? Bunt? Punt?" B.
> --
That's it, thanks.
I gather a large part off Google may have been taken down last night, as I
said before, I am lucky if I can get the home page to half load.
Chris Greville
Doom2 Archvile
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> writes:
>groo wrote:
>>UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
>Wow. Automated trousers? Cool.
- "Hey, man, your zipper's down."
- "Yeah, I forgot to recharge the battery this morning."
Greg Goss
>I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a bee
>should NOT be able to fly.
A fixed wing airplane pulled (or pushed) by one or more propellors has
a particular formula for the engine size required. If a honeybee is
considered to be a propellor monoplane, then it does not have enough
power to get off the ground. If a honeybee is dissimilar to a
propellor monoplane, then the formula might not apply.
The vortex created when the opposing wings interact with each other at
the top of each stroke creates a huge increase in lift. Monoplanes do
not get this extra lift. Physics was not wrong. The engineers who
applied a formula outside of its defined domain were wrong. A bee's
wings move. It took them thirty years to find out where the extra
lift came from, but the formula was never intended to apply to moving
wing "airplanes".
Incredible Rhyme Animal
Apparently there's some flaw in the vortex explanation:
"Login or register | Free email services
Search For in Search options The news site The web
Sunday 28 September 2003
Telegraph Network Network home Arts Books City news Crossword Society Dating
Education Expat Telegraph Fantasy football Fashion Gardening Horoscopes Health
Jobs Law reports Letters & Feedback Mobile Services Money Motoring News
Obituaries Opinion Personal finance Promotions Property Reader offers Science
Sport Technology Travel Weather Wine Business file Connected Internet for
schools Juiced Press Office Advertising Matt cartoon Alex cartoon
telegraph.co.uk
News home
City news
Crossword Society
Factfile index
Feedback
Law reports
Matt cartoon
Obituaries
Opinion
Weather
Week at a glance
About us
Contact us
Bumblebee grounded again by science
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 16/08/2001)
THE mystery of how the bumblebee flies has created a flap again among
scientists.
American studies published today cast doubt on a five-year-old theory that had
all but ended decades of consternation and speculation about how the creatures
fly.
The issue perplexed scientists and engineers after the first calculation of
bumblebee flight was done in the 1930s at Gottingen University, in Sweden. This
concluded, much to their embarrassment, that the insect should not be able to
get off the ground.
The "bumblebee paradox" persisted until 1996 when a Cambridge University team,
with the help of a robot insect, highlighted the bee's secret. Charles
Ellington's team found that extra lift is generated during a downstroke through
a vortex that travels along the leading edge of the insect's wings.
Like a small balloon tied to each wing, this rapidly moving, low-pressure air
keeps the bee up, a similar mechanism to that on the leading edge of Concorde's
wings.
In Nature today, Michael Dickinson and James Birch, of the University of
California, Berkeley, say the bumble-bee's flight is not that simple, after
creating the most detailed picture ever of air flow over an insect wing.
They studied a scaled-up robotic fruitfly, flapping in a tank of mineral oil to
simulate the viscosity of the air as a tiny fly would experience, to test the
"Concorde Hypothesis". "Based on these experiments we concluded that the
hypothesis cannot explain the attachment of the vortex throughout the stroke,"
said Prof Dickinson.
So how does a bumblebee fly? "Downwash" might be responsible for the vortex
remaining attached to the wing to maintain lift. "We still don't know for
sure," said Prof Dickinson.
"We must seek other mechanisms of vortex stabilisation for such insects," said
George Lauder, of Harvard University. "The problem of studying how air moves
around flying animals has attracted attention from zoologists, aeronautical
engineers and computational fluid dynamicists, but has remained generally
unresolved."
External links
Nature
University of Cambridge
Berkeley University of California
Harvard University
Flight of the Bumblebee - Michigan Entimological Society
The Bumblebee body - Bumblebee Pages
Bumblebee, bees and pollination links - R J Mitchell
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003. Terms & Conditions of reading.
Commercial information. Privacy Policy."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/16/wbuz16.xml
According to Cecil, it's rather like a helicopter
Brett Bayne
> "No, man, I'M Dave!"
Wow! You guys do that so well, I almost believe you're in prison!
s...@pffcu.com
> Rhyming slang--"Berkshire hunt." Use only on short people, as it must
> mean "runt."
>
> Rick "Stunt? Bunt? Punt?" B.
That would be "Aunt," Your Holiness.
--
The hearing ear is always found close to the speaking tongue, a custom
whereof the memory of man runneth not howsomever to the contrary,
nohow.
Brett Bayne
> on short people, as it must mean "runt."
Has Todd Rundgren heard about this?
Sean Houtman
>"groo" <gr...@groo.org> wrote
>> "burks"? Are these like boffins?
>>
>
>I can't find an online cite for this, but (again in my family) it is used as
>a very mild insult, something a little less insulting than calling someone
>an idiot.
>
>Spelling can be either burk or berk, the latter is a more common spelling.
>ISTR that a berk relates to somone living in Berkshire, but what the
>insulting about that, I do not remember.
It is Burke, from the Supreme Court nominee who was somewhat hounded during his
confirmation hearings. As a verb, burke means to blame your troubles on the
activities of other people. As a noun, a burke is someone who thinks they are
more qualified than they really are.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
spock
> From: george...@aol.comWerewikf (Incredible Rhyme Animal)
>
> >Greg Goss go...@gossg.org Date: 9/23/03 10:22 AM Eastern writes:
> >
> >>>I'd sweard I heard somewhere that according to the laws of physics a bee
> >>>should NOT be able to fly.
> >>
> >>A fixed wing airplane pulled (or pushed) by one or more propellors has
> >>a particular formula for the engine size required. If a honeybee is
> >>considered to be a propellor monoplane, then it does not have enough
> >>power to get off the ground. If a honeybee is dissimilar to a
> >>propellor monoplane, then the formula might not apply.
> >>
> >>The vortex created when the opposing wings interact with each other at
> >>the top of each stroke creates a huge increase in lift. Monoplanes do
> >>not get this extra lift. Physics was not wrong. The engineers who
> >>applied a formula outside of its defined domain were wrong. A bee's
> >>wings move. It took them thirty years to find out where the extra
> >>lift came from, but the formula was never intended to apply to moving
> >>wing "airplanes".
> >
> > Apparently there's some flaw in the vortex explanation:
> >
>
>
> >So how does a bumblebee fly? "Downwash" might be responsible for the vortex
> >remaining attached to the wing to maintain lift. "We still don't know for
> >sure," said Prof Dickinson.
> >
> >"We must seek other mechanisms of vortex stabilisation for such insects,"
> >said
> >George Lauder, of Harvard University. "The problem of studying how air moves
> >around flying animals has attracted attention from zoologists, aeronautical
> >engineers and computational fluid dynamicists, but has remained generally
> >unresolved."
>
>
> Bumblebee wings are not rigid, on the upstroke, they bend, and are pushed up
> with a minimum of drag because they are vertical. On the downstroke, they
> flatten out, and catch more air to provide lift.
>
> Sean
You almost got it. You are so right that in flapping flight drag is
minimized on the down stroke this is because this drag is in the
downward direction. On the down stroke they do flatten out to catch
more air to provide lift. But the wing is also flattened out to
provide an upward aerodynamic force that can help support its weight
or even accelerate its body upward.
When a bee or bird moves its wings up and down it creates a downward
and upward relative airflow. The bee or bird not only propels itself
forward as a result of the upward airflow it propels itself upward
also. The upward force is drag and the forward force is lift. These
aerodynamic forces also fit the criteria for thrust because they are
also the movement of an object as a result of an onboard power source.
If the up and down flapping were to have an forward to back component
it would be using drag as a means of forward movement just like a
paddled boat.
Humming birds support their weight by forward to back wing motion So
in some particular circumstances lift can even be an upward force as
well as a force that opposes forward flight as it is when the humming
bird wants to slow down by tilting its wing lift rearward.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>chris greville wrote:
>>
>> > Being a country lad, and knowing this lore (added to which I have a
>> > lot of Welsh blood in me), I donned my shining armour and went to
>> > help. This entailed climbing up an 8' tall fence, getting down the
>> > other side without breaking anything, then a 50 yard or so stroll
>> > over to where the sheep was. I got within a couple of yards of it
>> > and the damn thing rolled over, slowly got up and then took off
>> > like a bat out of hell. Man, oh man, that thing flew.
>>
>> Speaking of which, I hear they've found a new use for sheep in
>> Scotland.
>
> <Waiting patiently for punch line>
Wool!
Opus the Penguin
> UC Berkely is working to use this knowledge to help build robot flies.
Dang it! I said flying robots! I want my money back.