asking questions

 (lifted from the high speed wobble thread, didn't want to hijack it
completely...)



Yes. Earlier this week I had one of those moments, about asking
questions, or maybe more like just being curious about why things are
the way they are, and how much I like the attempt to figure stuff out.

I had some quiet time at work (feh), and wound up watching a web video
of a twenty-year-old documentary on Richard Feynman, loosely framed
around his attempt to go to Tannu Tuva, a remote almost unknown
onetime independent country in Mongolia. The more he tried to find out
the more he discovered it was like a black hole, and the harder he
tried to find a way to go there. Not because of some deep
philosophical reason, but simply because it was satisfying to figure
out the puzzle of Tannu Tuva.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid164300309410618119&ei=FmtySrHN
K4myqAPNve3QBg&q=feynman+tannu+tuva&hl=en

Of course, along the way he talks with such apparent joy about how he
had over the course of his life always been compelled to ask
questions, to figure out the puzzle. It is an enviable joy to observe.
Feynman wasn't perfect, by any means, but it was clear he loved life.




Earlier in the week I had come across a web site which contains a book
titled "See How it Flies," written as a primer for someone who wants
to learn how to fly airplanes.

(I know there are pilots here; what follows is embarrassing)

http://www.av8n.com/how/

It has an interesting-to-me style which is more-or-less an
evidence-based book on flying. In this book the author very quickly
smashes one of the earliest scientific "facts" that I remember
learning--what allows an airplane to fly. I think I can remember the
very first time coming across that proto-typical diagram of the
airfoil cross-sectioned wing, references to the Bernoulli principle,
the arrows pointing upward, perpendicular to the top of the wing
signifying lift, and thus flight. Cool, I thought; I get it, I now
know how airplanes fly...amazing stuff.

http://www.yesmag.ca/focus/flight/bernoulli.gif

Very quickly, while browsing "See How it Flies" I learned that what
I'd accepted virtually my entire life about airplane flight was pure
bullshit. The author, John Denker, points out that if that little
diagram was what allowed an airplane to fly, an airplane could never
fly upside down.

For those who, like me, are ready to be disillusioned, here's the much
simpler as it turns out explanation of airplane flight:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-inverted-camber

A simpler concept, with much more complex applications; generally a
good indicator that you're on the right path.

When I read that and realized it was a much better set of data for
what I could see with my eyes I was first amazed, and then angry with
myself. How could I have ignored my own observations and the little
nagging questions that I know I've felt, and just blindly accept the
crap presented my by people who clearly had no clue about what they
were talking about? Why am I willing to let someone else tell me what
to think, instead of figuring it out, following the loose ends that
don't quite make sense, paying extra attention to the things that
don't quite add up...

--
Charles
'99 YZ250

 
I can't tell you how much the bernoulli thing pissed me off, even more
so because it always nagged at me that it just wasn't that large an
effect.

I always knew there were other effects at work (was raised on those
little flat-wing balsa gliders, no bershitnoulli going on there) but I
just never looked at it that closely.

I've since learned to listen to my internal bullshit detector a bit
better, with useful results.


The truly fascinating thing to me is the role played by vortices
created by wings, especially insect wings.

The old saw about physics showing a bumblebee could not fly was true
enough- the physics they used just didn't account for the vortices
that make it possible.


My general attitude has become-

1) If you can put energy into a system in just the right way, you can
do almost anything
2) Expect to encounter anything not prohibited by physics or
thermodynamics (long timeframe may be required).

Something cool: they are looking at making electricity from mixing
fresh water with salt water, such as at a river mouth where it meets
the ocean.

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=8192106608311312=
838

Now, the salt and fresh water are going to mix anyway, so how are the
enviro's going to shoot this one down?

Dang, I've wandered a bit.

Dave

 In article


How about they start putting sodium silicate in the river mouths, so
no one can ever use the water again? And then create a tax, and a tax
credit, for not using river mouths to generate electricity?

That sounds perfect...

--
Charles
'99 YZ250

 
I think the axiom is more like, "if you can put ENOUGH energy into a
system..."

Lends itself to the infamous 'Horsepower's theorem':

"Too much is just enough"

JayC

 XR650L_Dave wrote:


"If God had wanted the waters to mix he would have... uhhhhh... Never mind."


Not really.

--
Cheers, Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
                    --Revolution Books, New York, New York