Funny how people keep dragging out the false claim that bumble bees cannot fly, usually in an attempt to prove that scientists don't know what they are talking about. Not clear why Nigel mentioned it.
The Wikipedia article on bumble bees addresses this issue at the end, and seems to conclude that the false claim may indeed have been made - but by an entomologist not an aeronautical engineer. It actually shows that oversimplistic models can lead people astray, especially those who are not properly trained or experienced in applying the appropriate model with valid approximations. Possible conclusions to be drawn might include:
don't trust a biologist when he is talking about physics (including insect flight)
don't trust an audio designer when he is talking about mathematics (including Fourier theory)
don't trust a journalist when he is talking about anything (including everything)
I'm not saying that these people will always be wrong, just that you can't assume they will be right so you need to check for yourself.
The Wikipedia article on bumble bees addresses this issue at the end, and seems to conclude that the false claim may indeed have been made - but by an entomologist not an aeronautical engineer. It actually shows that oversimplistic models can lead people astray, especially those who are not properly trained or experienced in applying the appropriate model with valid approximations. Possible conclusions to be drawn might include:
don't trust a biologist when he is talking about physics (including insect flight)
don't trust an audio designer when he is talking about mathematics (including Fourier theory)
don't trust a journalist when he is talking about anything (including everything)
I'm not saying that these people will always be wrong, just that you can't assume they will be right so you need to check for yourself.
Bumble bees is not about criticizing scientists . It is a delightful example of slightly wrong observation or paradox . I am told the maths are not as wrong as thought . The efficiency of the motor is very good .
One thing I am interested in is how these creatures are nourished especially humming birds who feed in a similar way . The bees might eat pollen also . Obviously vitamins etc are being harvested .
I think people have bias that's for sure , my thoughts seldom get to the end user .
The day Fourier came alive for me was when the Open University did a visual demonstration of building a sqaure-wave using signal generators ( black and white TV and me very young ) . A 1 kHz sine-wave generator and harmonics to 19 kHz to construct the square-wave ( very slight ripple ) . I have always since then taken 1/19 F19 as important . Joy of joys when I discovered a triangle wave as the square of the same numbers ( 1/361 F19 if going that far ) . Both having all odd harmonics . Thus a CD player will produce a reasonable square wave of < 1.16 kHz ( or 1/38 the sample rate ) . My little SE KT88 amp is great at 3 kHz , at 5 kHz it's loosing the battle .
Sawtooth a very interesting wave .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave
One thing I am interested in is how these creatures are nourished especially humming birds who feed in a similar way . The bees might eat pollen also . Obviously vitamins etc are being harvested .
I think people have bias that's for sure , my thoughts seldom get to the end user .
The day Fourier came alive for me was when the Open University did a visual demonstration of building a sqaure-wave using signal generators ( black and white TV and me very young ) . A 1 kHz sine-wave generator and harmonics to 19 kHz to construct the square-wave ( very slight ripple ) . I have always since then taken 1/19 F19 as important . Joy of joys when I discovered a triangle wave as the square of the same numbers ( 1/361 F19 if going that far ) . Both having all odd harmonics . Thus a CD player will produce a reasonable square wave of < 1.16 kHz ( or 1/38 the sample rate ) . My little SE KT88 amp is great at 3 kHz , at 5 kHz it's loosing the battle .
Sawtooth a very interesting wave .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth_wave
I would add to that list:
Do not trust a physicist when they claim they can use an exacto blade without cutting themself.
and..
Do not trust anybody who would give an electrical engineer a sharp object. (nothing good can possibly come of that). 😱
A corollary to the second statement..you can tell an experienced electrical engineer, they carry a paper towel and black pvc electrical tape with them...the towel to absorb the blood, the tape to apply pressure to the wound..more pressure, more turns..
jn
It is very true John. I once used very sharp knife to cut an isolation from the tip of a wire... 😀
I hope the blood did not spurt too far! I have known theoretical physicists who were only safe with simple things like pencils and cups of tea.jneutron said:
Pencils and cups of tea are not safe on this side of the pond, either with experimental or theoretical physicists.
Even Nerf balls are on the limited access (with training) list.
jn
You'll recall the quip about Yang (the Nobel theorist): "Where there's a Yang, there's a bang."
Not heard that one. As a student many years ago I was never certain whether Yang-Mills was one person or two.
In Barclay's Bank in Little Clarendon St Oxford what was obviously a Don came into the bank oblivious to us all and demanded to be told why money had arrived in his account . " Oh I must have retired " he shouted and beamed . I suspect his state pension had come through . Now they definitely should not use sharp objects . The engineers despair of them . The Garrard 501 prototype was made in the University dept of engineering ( my version ) .
Time fuzz
I often wonder if exact moments in time exists, thats to say, if I were to pause the universe and freeze time at any one moment, say 12:00pm for example, that in fact, instead of being exactly 12:00pm it would be mostly 12:00pm and to a certain extent it would also be before 12:00pm and after 12:00pm at the same moment following some kind standard deviation curve
I often wonder if exact moments in time exists, thats to say, if I were to pause the universe and freeze time at any one moment, say 12:00pm for example, that in fact, instead of being exactly 12:00pm it would be mostly 12:00pm and to a certain extent it would also be before 12:00pm and after 12:00pm at the same moment following some kind standard deviation curve
The current theories all say that time is a constant thing, however the smallest unit of time measurable would be 1 unit of Planck time, which is the amount of time light needs to travel one Planck length.
The Planck length is the shortest possible length and is basically what got the whole quantum theory ball rolling back in the early 1900's.
The Planck length is the shortest possible length and is basically what got the whole quantum theory ball rolling back in the early 1900's.
I do not think we really understand anything apart from what we "think" we understand to be true, and lets be honest, everything we know as a human kind is just what we have invented, weather it be a theory or whatever, we invented it, and since the higgs was discovered recently well, thats proven my point, we do not realy understand ourselves or indeed the universe around us, only what we have invented in our tiny little brains.
No. We really do have (limited, but real) understanding of the universe. The recent discovery of the Higgs undermines your point, as it was predicted several decades ago. If our theories are merely our own imaginings then there is no reason to suppose that they have any predictive ability for as yet unobserved phenomena.
Read the book by David Deutsch "The beginning of infinity".
Read the book by David Deutsch "The beginning of infinity".
I agree with DF96
Ever since the discoveries of quantum mechanics and relativity science has made some extraordinary predictions, witch means we really know how stuff works. The predictions of both theories have 14 significant numbers, witch is just mind boggling.
And we also have a very good understanding up to where these theories work. We life in a very exiting period in the whole of human kind.
Ever since the discoveries of quantum mechanics and relativity science has made some extraordinary predictions, witch means we really know how stuff works. The predictions of both theories have 14 significant numbers, witch is just mind boggling.
And we also have a very good understanding up to where these theories work. We life in a very exiting period in the whole of human kind.
We may be 'exiting' soon if some nutter gets his hands on nuclear material, but I think you meant 'exciting'?
I'm not too worried.
It's very easy to make a Hiroshima-type bomb, but it's very hard to get the U-235 needed.
It's relatively easy to get PU-239, but very very hard to make a bomb out of that. (Nagasaki-type bomb)
The only "real" risk is the dirty bomb, which will be very limited in area of effect.
e: and to make an effective one the perpetrators will be severely irradiated, or the shielding would have to be so large that it would be impractical to transport and detonate.
Last edited:
If you look at history,
It seems that things that are used for Armageddon tend to then scare us so we move on..eg First World war (Gas) second World war nuclear, I think if it ever happens biological is on the cards and probably a bigger threat than nuclear.. How hard is that to transport?
Then again what about Nano technology.. 😕
Regards
M. Gregg
It seems that things that are used for Armageddon tend to then scare us so we move on..eg First World war (Gas) second World war nuclear, I think if it ever happens biological is on the cards and probably a bigger threat than nuclear.. How hard is that to transport?
Then again what about Nano technology.. 😕
Regards
M. Gregg
Nano tech isn't really anything yet. All we can do right now is create very tiny carbon structures like nanotubes and buckyballs and whatnot. No nano robots or anything like that. Granted, there has been talk about health risk from carbon nano stuff, but that's maybe comparable to asbestos so not really usable as a terror weapon, I think.
As for bioweapons, I'm sot sure. Anthrax seems easy enough to transport, but how many cases did we even get from those anthrax letters?
The real killer would be weaponized smallpox, or some kind of super flu. But you'd need a LOT of specialized knowledge, and there is no terror group with the means to do anything scary.
As for bioweapons, I'm sot sure. Anthrax seems easy enough to transport, but how many cases did we even get from those anthrax letters?
The real killer would be weaponized smallpox, or some kind of super flu. But you'd need a LOT of specialized knowledge, and there is no terror group with the means to do anything scary.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.