[QueenTiye]

Quote

Scientists Vindicated: Bees Can Fly; Here's How
By Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer


Scientists have long been derided because of mathematical calculations made in 1934 by French entomologist August Magnan proving that, despite visible evidence to the contrary, the flight of bees was "impossible."

But now bioengineer Michael H. Dickinson of Caltech and his colleagues have shown conclusively how the hefty insects manage their aeronautical excursions.

Quote

Virtually all insects flap their wings through a wide arc, about 165 degrees. Frequency generally varies with size: The larger the insect, the slower the wings beat. Mosquitoes, for example, beat their wings about 400 times per second, fruit flies about 200. Birds beat their wings much more slowly — about 50 times per second for hummingbirds.

But bees, which are 80 times as large as fruit flies, flap their wings 230 times per second through an arc of about 90 degrees. And although most insects produce the majority of lift about halfway through the stroke, when the wing is moving fastest, bees get an equally large contribution at the beginning and end of the stroke from the rotation of the wing.

http://www.latimes.c...-news-a_section

LOL!

QT

[gsmonks]

Everyone knows that bees can't fly. That's why I haven't been stung many times over the years. Since bees can't fly, they can't pollinate, which is why there are no such thing as flowers.

Since I was never stung, I can't complain about how much it didn't hurt. Moreover, I can't begin to tell you about something that never happened.

Nor can I say that wasp stings are worse than bee stings, since neither insect is capable of flying around and stinging people.

In conclusion, as I drink my tea that can't be sweetened with honey because bees can't fly and pollinate flowers . . . the very notion that bees can fly is silly, because as we all know, things that are heavier than air stay where they're supposed to- on the ground.

This may explain why I can't make a paper airplane that flies . . .

[tennyson]

It was never an issue with wether bees can fly or not. They obviously can it was just that the areodynamic models used with birds and planes didn't fit the actual dynamics that the bees use. It was simply a case of someone coming up with a model that does describe the reality and then testing it to see if it worked. It wasn't a weakness with the method rather it was a weakness with the model being applied to the situation.

[WildChildCait]

obviously, bees have always been able to fly.
It's us silly humans who tried to tell them otherwise.

Well, looks like the models have been refined and improved upon.

[gsmonks]

When I was small, and adults knew everything, there was a theory going around that human beings weren't actually conscious, sentient beings; that we only thought we were.

I still haven't decided what the human brain is good for, other than fascilitating the all-important acquisition of jelly doughnuts. Beyond that, it seems to serve no real purpose.

I think part of the problem is that the working model of the brain is all wrong. The intelligent part is really the size of a pea, whereas there's a thing the size of a watermelon called the rationalizer, and a thing the size of a large beachball call the ego. The problem for scientists is that these enormous things are invisible, and like intelligence are yet to be discovered.

[Orpheus]

Actually, there have been *many* models that show how bees can fly. The first one I recall hearing about was a video study in the early 80s that uncovered the role of wing flexion, rotation (and end vortices? Or did that come later) -- and that paper citied studies by Lighthill that were a good 20 years older.

Only today can we model these features well in a computer, but scientific explanation does not require numerical simulation or modelling!

Having been systematically misled over the years (At Goettingen in 1980, I was taught that there wasn't even a paper at all, but some back of the envelope calculations by the famous local aerodynamicist Ludwig Prandtl during a dinner with an entomologist in 1931, and I've heard many similiar (varying) attributions over the years. In the interest of science, I shall give the citation everyone seems afraid to give!

It was indeed a book by entomologist August Magnan [Le Vol Des Insects (Hermann and Cle, Paris, 1934)], which said on page 8 of its introduction: "Tout d'abord pouss'e par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai applique' aux insectes les lois de la resistance de l'air, et je suis arrive' avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol es impossible." which I crudely translate as "Primarily (First of all?) driven by what is done in aviation, I have applied the laws of air resistance to insects, and I have arrived with Mr. Sante-Lague [his lab assistant] at the conclusion that for them flight is impossible." (Could we please have a better translation by someone less inept at French than I? Heck, translate the relevant explanation from the main text, and you could become the author of the landmark Internet page on this subject: Google loves us, I tell ya!)

It's a 71-year old book, but who cares? Clearly, science hasn't made *any* progress in the lifetime of anyone now living.

(Oh sure, they'll quote a 1934 bee model, but get them to even THINK about the even older sciences of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics or relativity)

[Orpheus]

gsmonks, on Dec 4 2005, 05:28 AM, said:

When I was small, and adults knew everything, there was a theory going around that human beings weren't actually conscious, sentient beings; that we only thought we were.

Let me guess: B.F. Skinner "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" -- right?
(I believe that theory is probably true -- of most people who believe it!)

Quote

I think part of the problem is that the working model of the brain is all wrong. The intelligent part is really the size of a pea, whereas there's a thing the size of a watermelon called the rationalizer, and a thing the size of a large beachball call the ego. The problem for scientists is that these enormous things are invisible, and like intelligence are yet to be discovered.

Well, most of the brain is just insulated wire and sustaining cells (white matter) and most of the grey matter is known to be used for motor, sensory, and control/integration/feedback functions -- but you are actually right on target. The rationalizer, turns out to be a huge part of what we call consciouness.

We've pretty much mapped out that the *experience* of consciousness isn't what we think it is. What we think we remember or experience, is a rationalized story that lags tens or hundreds of millisecond behind the actual experience (like when you think you like or hate a movie, until you discuss it with your friends) i won't bore you with yet another retelling of the split brain studies in the 1980s that really shook my view of reality, but there have been a lot of studies showing that we don't know what think or why we do what we do, but that there is a chunk of our frontal cortex that looks at what we do and makes up a story for us -- and the story is what we know/remember from that instant on.

[D.Rabbit]

Orpheus, on Dec 4 2005, 06:20 AM, said:

It was indeed a book by entomologist August Magnan [Le Vol Des Insects (Hermann and Cle, Paris, 1934)], which said on page 8 of its introduction: "Tout d'abord pouss'e par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai applique' aux insectes les lois de la resistance de l'air, et je suis arrive' avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol es impossible." which I crudely translate as "Primarily (First of all?) driven by what is done in aviation, I have applied the laws of air resistance to insects, and I have arrived with Mr. Sante-Lague [his lab assistant] at the conclusion that for them  flight is impossible."  (Could we please have a better translation  by someone less inept at French than I?

Your translation was right on Orpheus.
This is the translation from Systran where I am enjoying a 30 day free trial in an effort to make my newest web site bilingual.

Quote

initially pouss' E by what makes in aviation, I have applique'
with the insects the laws of the resistance of the air, and I am
arrive' with Mr. SAINTE-LAGUE has this conclusion which them
flight are impossible.

If this is how they translate, I'm glad I asked my friend in France to scan for errors.

[gsmonks]

Orpheus- one of my former colleagues (who quit music to become a psychiatrist for some ungodly reason) was telling us at a writer's group last year that the latest theory of human consciousness (that at the time was rapidly gaining ground and making some significant noise) is that consciousness is actually a state of dreaming.

I confess I don't recall the details, but given the explanation at the time it seemed plausible. But so can the theory of eugenics when put forward by a crack orator, and I am certainly no expert.

[Rhea]

gsmonks, on Dec 4 2005, 01:02 AM, said:

Nor can I say that wasp stings are worse than bee stings, since neither insect is capable of flying around and stinging people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ain't it the truth!

This certainly illustrates the silly side of science (as does the thread about the million-year-old human footprints).

Because they couldn't work out the calculations, bees just didn't fly! You've got to love it. Wish I could read French better, so that I could read the whole thing and gain some understanding on how it's possible to deny the evidence of one's own eyes in the service of science.

This post has been edited by Rhea: 05 December 2005 - 03:32 PM

[Christopher]

Rhea, on Dec 5 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

This certainly illustrates the silly side of science (as does the thread about the million-year-old human footprints).

More like the silly side of science reporting -- the way non-scientists trying to report, interpret and explain what scientists do and what they find almost invariably get it horribly wrong.

Quote

Because they couldn't work out the calculations, bees just didn't fly! You've got to love it.  Wish I could read French better, so that I could read the whole thing and gain some understanding on how it's possible to deny the evidence of one's own eyes in the service of science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's complete and absolute bull. No scientist would've EVER claimed that bumblebees can't actually fly when they obviously can, because that is diametrically opposed to how science actually works. All they ever said was that the existing models didn't explain how they flew, meaning that the models were incomplete. But, as always, the idiot reporters misunderstood what was being said and created this nonsensical myth that "scientists don't believe bumblebees can fly."

[Rhea]

Christopher, on Dec 5 2005, 12:52 PM, said:

Rhea, on Dec 5 2005, 03:20 PM, said:

This certainly illustrates the silly side of science (as does the thread about the million-year-old human footprints).

More like the silly side of science reporting -- the way non-scientists trying to report, interpret and explain what scientists do and what they find almost invariably get it horribly wrong.

Quote

Because they couldn't work out the calculations, bees just didn't fly! You've got to love it.  Wish I could read French better, so that I could read the whole thing and gain some understanding on how it's possible to deny the evidence of one's own eyes in the service of science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's complete and absolute bull. No scientist would've EVER claimed that bumblebees can't actually fly when they obviously can, because that is diametrically opposed to how science actually works. All they ever said was that the existing models didn't explain how they flew, meaning that the models were incomplete. But, as always, the idiot reporters misunderstood what was being said and created this nonsensical myth that "scientists don't believe bumblebees can fly."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, actually Magnan *did* say that after applying the laws of air resistance to bees, he concluded that flight was impossible for them. That was his statement, taken directly from his book. It may have been said tongue in cheek, who knows? But he did actually say that, in his own words.

[Christopher]

Rhea, on Dec 5 2005, 06:29 PM, said:

No, actually Magnan *did* say that after applying the laws of air resistance to bees, he concluded that flight was impossible for them. That was his statement, taken directly from his book. It may have been said tongue in cheek, who knows? But he did actually say that, in his own words.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the very least, it's out of context, so it's hard to judge whether it was facetious or just misinterpreted. But there's no way it could've been meant literally, not by anyone with a scientific mind. Because science always goes by the evidence. You start with the observational data and draw your conclusions from it. If a theory doesn't fit the evidence, then the theory's incomplete or wrong. That's how it works. So if, somehow, the guy meant literally that he didn't believe bumblebees actually did fly at all, then he certainly didn't embody scientific thinking, and it's totally unfair of you to impugn all scientists because you don't like what this one guy said.

[TravelerOfTheWays]

And you'll notice, this guy did not say "I don't think bees can fly," or even "bees can't fly". He said (and my French says that Orpheus gave us a pretty fair translation) that according to his calculations involving the law of air resistance, bees can't fly. This fellow had certainly seen bees and knew that they flew but could not explain how. I really don't see what's so outrageous about that.

[Orpheus]

And indeed, if they only utilized the principles of a fixed wing craft (ir indeed any rigid-winged craft built to date), they couldn't. But they don't; they use a completely different mode.

It's hard to believe, but Magnan, as an entomologist, may have known that bees *flap* their wings, as no aircraft does Might as well say: having applied the best current models and simulations of rigid bodies, a bee with the shape and properties of brick couldn't fly.

Keep in mind that in that era, a lot of people still believe (like caped children around the world today) what Wilbur Wright told the US Military "Give me a powerful enough engine, and I can make a kitchen table fly" (Soon thereafter Lt. Selfridge became the first aviation fatality in a wright-built plane. It's not enough to get in the air; you have to be stable)

The Wright planes were so seriously unstable that it was 100 years before anyone else could successfully build and fly a Wrigh Flyer. This is why most ofthe world outside the US considers Dumont -- whose rear-tailed, front-prop plane is *exactly* what you think of when you think "Twentieth century airplane" to be the inventor of the airplane. He was doing airshows and shipping kits/parts to enthusuasts all over the world, within two years of the Wright's first flight at Kitty Hawk--years before the Wrights public demonstation. It was years more before the Wrights would let even the military have one of their planes for testing. Basically, if it weren't for that one photograph, of a short flight (a plane that crashed on a repeat trial later that day, and never flew again) the Wrights would be forgotten.

[G-man]

Quote

It was indeed a book by entomologist August Magnan [Le Vol Des Insects (Hermann and Cle, Paris, 1934)], which said on page 8 of its introduction: "Tout d'abord pouss'e par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai applique' aux insectes les lois de la resistance de l'air, et je suis arrive' avec M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol es impossible." which I crudely translate as "Primarily (First of all?) driven by what is done in aviation, I have applied the laws of air resistance to insects, and I have arrived with Mr. Sante-Lague [his lab assistant] at the conclusion that for them flight is impossible."

Or, IOW, I have determined by using this method (applied the laws of air resistance to insects, based on what was done in aviation c.1933) that insects cannot fly. Suggesting that the flaw lies in the methods applied as opposed to the reality.

However, I suspect that the headline, "Scientists discover that current laws of aerodynamics is fundamentally flawed," wouldn't be nearly as diverting as "Scientists conclude that insects can't fly."

BTW, With the exhibition of the Wright Flyer in Paris, from the account I saw, the Wright Flyer so out-performed its contemporaries in that not only was it staying aloft for longer than a couple of minutes, it was actually making turns and circling, as opposed to flying in a straight line.

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

[Christopher]

G-man, on Dec 6 2005, 09:49 AM, said:

BTW, With the exhibition of the Wright Flyer in Paris, from the account I saw, the Wright Flyer so out-performed its contemporaries in that not only was it staying aloft for longer than a couple of minutes, it was actually making turns and circling, as opposed to flying in a straight line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've heard, though, that it didn't get far enough into the air to qualify as an actual aircraft, rather than a ground-effect vehicle.

[G-man]

^^^ No. At the exhibition, the Wright Flyer was a true airplane, it exceeded the altitude, speed, duration and maneuverability standards that were being used to declare something an airplane.

At Kitty Hawk it was a low altitude flight. But they had continued to work on it since Kitty Hawk to turn it into a proper airplane, and didn't exhibit it internationally until they were satisfied with the design. And as I said, it had so completely out-performed the competition that there really was no contest.

As for preventing the Army from testing it, as I understand it, what the Wrights wanted was a firm contract from the Army and the Army didn't want to give it to them (I believe they weren't a favored supply source, nevermind that at the time they were the only ones who had a working airplane).

/s/

Gloriosus
the G-man Himself

[Orpheus]

By 1906, the Wrights were reporting flights of up to 24 miles, but they were private unwitnessed flights (except for the beachcomber who was drafted to hold the camera at the first flight), and they declined to even respond to demands for public demonstrated flights. Though the Wright's flight seems to be validated by historical evidence today, there were countless known frauds and unverifiable claims back then.

By the time they did their exhibition in Paris (1909, IIRC) their plane did not inspire great awe among Parisians, who had seen Albert Santos Dumont circling Paris for years.

The canard-nosed Wright flyers did not have movable control surfaces, but had to literally bend the wings to turn. (They called this "wing-warping") Later Wright flyers were capable craft, but weren't scaleable to useful capacities with the materials of the time, and were still unstable. The Wrights knew this, and allowed almost no one else to fly even the refined versions they developed years later, while Dumont, as I noted, had been selling parts and kits worldwide by the time the Wrights flew in Paris.

I don't mean to detract from the Wrights' accomplishments. They were clearly the "first to fly" (though there are other, ill-documented contenders) Whatever one might say about the first Kitty Hawk flight, they had the field to themselves for three years, and accomplished a great deal. Their 24 mile flight (before Dumont's first flight) brooks no criticism whatsoever -- except for being unwitnessed (more significant at that time than now)

The less formal "Father(s) of Aviation" title, however remains contentious, and even the "first flight" was debated for decades. The Smithsonian, for example, didn't accept the Wright's claim for many years, and sponsored its own candidates.

[benesound]

What I got from August Magnan's statement, is that according to scientific knowledge of his day, it was impossible for bees to fly.

He clearly knew that bee's could fly, but could not explain how scientifically.

Perhaps what he was trying to say, was that, just because science can't explain something, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

Many things that are common today, would have been considered impossible one hundred years ago.

Perhaps there are things that today's scientists believe are impossible, because their current theories and models cannot explain how it could be, but sometime in our future they may become quite real. Like bees flying.

Just my thoughts on the subject.