For Reactor & Einstein

LOL..... The irony..... Did it ever occur to you that you and I are hopelessly stuck in a closed loop for all time?
Click to expand...

You got it almost right, Einstein.

Yes, you and RMT are going in circles (and it seems that Darby has joined your little futile merry-go-round ride). But no, it isn't "hopeless". Any one of you can choose to break this circle, and stop wasting his precious time. You're both in this mess out of your own free will, so niether of you can really complain.

You know, sometimes the priorities people have can be downright scary...
 
You got it almost right, Einstein.

Yes, you and RMT are going in circles (and it seems that Darby has joined your little futile merry-go-round ride). But no, it isn't "hopeless". Any one of you can choose to break this circle, and stop wasting his precious time. You're both in this mess out of your own free will, so niether of you can really complain.
Click to expand...

Well, I think I should point out that I am not the one complaining, and neither is Darby. On the contrary, I am the one who is having a great time and I see this as valuable.

You see, I just spent a good deal of time laying out a real-world example of just how useful mathmatics is for predicting something (the performance of an airplane control system in how well it holds altitude). And rather than trying to bolster his claim that "math is bunk", Einstein ignores the example and focuses only on my last statement. Clearly this is avoidance of the issue, rather than dealing with it head-on.

Far from complaining, I find these types of interactions actually serve me, and my current and future aerospace students, quite well. If Einstein wants to be a poster child for arrogance and ignorance with respect to the use of mathematics to solve engineering problems, then I am willing to leverage that wish of his. I guess the good part for him is that he is anonymous. However, on more than one occasion in the past few years, I have had students who (much like Einstein) thought they could solve aerospace engineering problems (be they homework or exam problems) with only words and no equations. Of course, they did not do very well on the exams. So when I encounter these types of students who think they can get their degrees and work in this field without being able to do quantitative work, I point them to some of these interactions I have had on this board with Einstein. These discussions work to mirror their own beliefs back to them and show them the futility of said beliefs. On more than one occasion a student came to me after reading Einstein's responses to my clear examples of the usefulness of math and said to me, in so many words, "I see your point. Can you help me understand the math and how to use it?"

You know, sometimes the priorities people have can be downright scary...
Click to expand...

So you see, my priorities in these discussions stretch far beyond this silly (but entertaining) little internet forum. These dicussions can act as exemplary tools in my education of young engineers. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
RMT

You got it almost right, Einstein.

Yes, you and RMT are going in circles (and it seems that Darby has joined your little futile merry-go-round ride). But no, it isn't "hopeless". Any one of you can choose to break this circle, and stop wasting his precious time. You're both in this mess out of your own free will, so niether of you can really complain.



Well, I think I should point out that I am not the one complaining, and neither is Darby. On the contrary, I am the one who is having a great time and I see this as valuable.
Click to expand...

I was just waiting to see if anyone would catch my brand of closed loop. I was referring to a temporal loop. The way I see it is, I will go back in time and become one of your teachers in school. I'll give you a really hard time. So much so that you'll grow up not liking yourself. This drives you into becoming an over achiever. You become the man you are today because of me. Or I build the time machine because of you. It's a closed feedback loop with no end in sight. The irony of it all.... LOL....
 
That isn't actually "irony". Just thought I would point that out. But I imagine mathematical physics is but one branch of actual learning to which your disdain extends.
 
Darby

Gimme a break. He's already built a time machine, a time wave generator and an anti-gravity wave generator in his garage through trial and error, a few Radio Shack parts, a magnet, stick of chewing gum, 3 feet of bailing wire, 110 vac household current and absolutely no math. He's also published a fully developed theory of gravity (condensed explanation: in his theory of gravity space blows rather than matter sucks). Think I'm kidding? Just ask him.

Given that, what the frack is unfair about asking the the galaxy's most brilliant scientist, inventor, as yet undiscovered Nobel Prize recipient and general gad about town to build something as simple as an airplane?
Click to expand...

I always love it when Darby adds his brand of humor to the mix. LOL.... I did not choose to participate in the competition though. It would have been an unfair one if I had. Poor Ray never had a chance, given my godlike abilities. (Arrogance?) LOL....

Darby didn't pose any restrictions on the type of airplane to be built. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere that I'm a seasoned veteran RC aircraft enthusiast. 22 years now. Just to cut the boredom, some of my RC buddies will occasionally strap a motor and a couple of servos to a piece of cardboard and fly that. No math needed. Just take a look at the following video and see how easy it is to get just about anything to fly.



Anti Boredom Device
 
Oooohhh, a RADIO CONTROLLED TOY enthusiast! Well of course. That naturally beats silly people with their "actual degrees" and their "mathematics" and their "normal human judgment and common sense."

I'm outta this thread.
 
Darby didn't pose any restrictions on the type of airplane to be built. I'm sure I mentioned somewhere that I'm a seasoned veteran RC aircraft enthusiast. 22 years now. Just to cut the boredom, some of my RC buddies will occasionally strap a motor and a couple of servos to a piece of cardboard and fly that. No math needed. Just take a look at the following video and see how easy it is to get just about anything to fly.
Click to expand...

Heh...heh...heh...

Very well then. So I should be able to present you with an object that is 10% statically unstable in its pitch control axis, and you and your buddies would be able to "slap a couple servos on it" and fly it in a stable flight path then, yes? Without any math at all, yes?

Or perhaps I could present you with an object that had no vertical surfaces (i.e. tail), thereby causing its spiral dynamic mode and its roll dynamic mode to couple together into an unstable, oscillatory response... and you would also be able to fly that in stable, lateral-directional flight maneuvers without using a stitch of math...right?

Ever wonder why there are no B-2 bomber RC models on the market that do not have vertical fins on them (like the real B-2)? Hint: It has something to do with the math involved in stabilizing it in flight. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
RMT

Very well then. So I should be able to present you with an object that is 10% statically unstable in its pitch control axis, and you and your buddies would be able to "slap a couple servos on it" and fly it in a stable flight path then, yes? Without any math at all, yes?
Click to expand...

It would have to conform to some rules. Balsa and light plywood construction is common. But some of the RC jets use carbon fiber construction. And there would have to be enough control surface available. Most of my buddies usually don't like the initial or maiden flight of a new model because it's not trimmed for straight and level flight. So they let me trim it out for them. The reason being is because I learned to fly RC helicopters. Pitch, yaw, and roll axis are constantly changing in a chopper. It takes a while to learn. I once lost rudder control while in forward flight. Had to cut power and auto rotate down to land it. Otherwise if I had brought it down to hover it would have rotated out of control.

Or perhaps I could present you with an object that had no vertical surfaces (i.e. tail), thereby causing its spiral dynamic mode and its roll dynamic mode to couple together into an unstable, oscillatory response... and you would also be able to fly that in stable, lateral-directional flight maneuvers without using a stitch of math...right?
Click to expand...

I don't know how stable it would be. But most of us don't use rudder anyway. And like I said, my thumbs are always moving on the sticks anyway. So something a little squirrely to fly makes for an interesting challenge. However I did find a flying wing model that doesn't appear to have any vertical control surfaces. Check it out.

Flying Wing
 
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very well then. So I should be able to present you with an object that is 10% statically unstable in its pitch control axis, and you and your buddies would be able to "slap a couple servos on it" and fly it in a stable flight path then, yes? Without any math at all, yes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would have to conform to some rules. Balsa and light plywood construction is common. But some of the RC jets use carbon fiber construction. And there would have to be enough control surface available.
Click to expand...

Let me help you out here, because I can tell you are out of your element. You would not be able to fly a vehicle that is 10% statically unstable without a flight control system that uses a pitch rate feedback device (rate gyro) of high enough bandwidth and a servo actuator with position and/or rate feedback of similar bandwidth. I can prove this to you, but it would require math which I know you are not capable of understanding...hence you would say it is bunk. It would not matter how big the control surfaces are. No feedback, no stable flying. You would lose many airplanes via trial and error, even if you knew what I just told you.

On the other hand, I could design such a system that would fly such an airplane using my math, and I would know it would work. Ain't that just a bitch, Einstein?

I don't know how stable it would be. But most of us don't use rudder anyway.
Click to expand...

You did not understand what I was saying. I did not say anything about rudder. I said no vertical surfaces at all. The stationary, non-moving vertical surfaces (not rudder) on an air vehicle cause the lateral roll response to be separate (and first-order linear) from the directional spin response. When you have no vertical surfaces, these two normally stable modes combine into an oscillatory, unstable dynamic response. Just like the pitch situation, if you do not have a rate gyro sensor on board to measure roll rate and yaw rate, you will not be able to fly it. Again, with math I can prove this is so. With your trial and error, you would just be pouring money into smoking hole after smoking hole...

However I did find a flying wing model that doesn't appear to have any vertical control surfaces. Check it out.
Click to expand...

No, not just rudder (vertical control surfaces). See above. I mean no vertical surfaces whatsoever. You see those engine pods and fairing on the back of the wing you linked to? Those act as vertical stabilizers. They provide directional stability which keeps the spin dynamic response stable and convergent. They also provide both roll and yaw damping to keep the roll dynamic response stable.

Now I want you to look at the B-2, and note that there are no vertical surfaces whatsoever.

http://www.usmachineonline.com/Pictures/b2bomber.jpg

The roll and yaw modes are naturally unstable with this configuration. You cannot and will not fly it unless you have roll rate and yaw rate feedback with closed-loop actuators. And again, even me telling you that you need this would not allow you to design and fly it with just trial and error. You need the math of LaPlace to predict its aerodynamic performance and you need the same math to design compensation algorithms to continuously stablize the vehicle.
 
It seems to me that the airplane design challenge, even involving an RC model, already has had the major engineering completed.

What would really be an interesting little challenge, would be to see who can design a new launching system for the space shuttle.

The design would include the details of getting the space shuttle off the ground, and into orbit.
 
RMT

You did not understand what I was saying. I did not say anything about rudder. I said no vertical surfaces at all.
Click to expand...

Yes I understood. But there are plenty of modelers out there trying everything. So I did find one that does fly a flying wing design with no vertical control surfaces at all. Apparently he is quite successful with it. He did design yaw control into the horizontal wing surfaces to address the stability problem. But he states that he used to fly the design without any yaw control at all. Check it out. It's an interesting read.



Flying Wing Design
 
Yes I understood. But there are plenty of modelers out there trying everything. So I did find one that does fly a flying wing design with no vertical control surfaces at all. Apparently he is quite successful with it. He did design yaw control into the horizontal wing surfaces to address the stability problem. But he states that he used to fly the design without any yaw control at all. Check it out. It's an interesting read.
Click to expand...

As usual, you stepped right in it but did not even realize it. From the page you cited:

<font color="red"> "In addition, a rate gyro is installed in the center of the wing in the yaw axis to help smooth out yaw oscillations. " [/COLOR]

Exactly as I said. So are you now claiming that he did this entire design (and included a yaw rate feedback system) all without any math? Here, let me answer the question for you: No, he did not do this by trial and error... some more quotes that indicate this guy is familiar with the equations of motion and actually used math :eek: (imagine that!):

<font color="red"> "The left image is a cross section of the Eppler 334 airfoil. I chose the Eppler 334 for two main reasons; it was designed specifically for flying wings with no tail surfaces, and it has the highest coefficient of lift at low Reynolds numbers in the Eppler flying wing airfoil series. The right image is the graphical output of my Panels program which uses the source panel method to determine pressure coefficients of any airfoil. " [/COLOR]

In fact, if he is using a panel method for determining pressure coefficients, he knows full well the power of math for predicting physical performance. But wait...there is more:

<font color="red"> The source panels method sets up a system of equations that relates the geometry of each separate section to a pre-determined angle of attack, taking into account the entire airfoil and all the surfaces nearby. Those other surfaces may be another airfoil, such as in abiplane or canard configuration, or a flat surface like the Earth to determine ground effect. Click here to see the system of equations that Panels created and solved for this pressure coefficient distribution around the Eppler 334 airfoil. [/COLOR]

Thank you for assisting in proving your premise wrong, Einstein. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif So let's review, shall we?

1) Einstein claims math is bunk, and that math is not needed to perform complex tasks of engineering.
2) Darby introduces a bit of a challenge to allow Einstein to prove his claim. Einstein declines the challenge, but can't resist trying to "prove me wrong" (even though I am not the one making the claim, he is).
3) Einstein wades into the deep water of trying to show math is not necessary to build a controllable airplane out of configuration that is otherwise unstable.
4) In trying to prove his point (which he did not do), he inadvertently shows us a person who actually needed to use math to make an unstable airframe (at least laterally-directionally) fly.
5) Let us look to Einstein's cited web page to see what happens if you don't do enough math, or the math you do is incorrect:

<font color="red"> "Jun 2002 Upate: Plane go boom! I'm not quite sure what happened, but the plane was flying very nicely until it decided to fly away by itself. It was almost as if the elevon servos center points were slowly moving; the plane started to pitch nose down and I add back stick, it returned to level flight but immediately pitch nose down again, I added more back stick until I was finally at full back stick and full up trim, but the plane descended slowly out of straight and level flight under full power into the top of a tree about 1/3 mile from the field. I was trying for an open field and managed to catch the top of the very last tree before the field. It may have been radio interference, but everyone who crashes an RC plane says that. The airframe does fly very well though." [/COLOR]

6) Finally, let us have a look at who this guy is who developed this flying wing. From his home page we read the following:

<font color="red"> "Chris and Tami Good created all the pages listed here. Chris is a former US Air Force officer and is now the lead avionics engineer for the Shadow 200 UAV with AAI Corporation." [/COLOR]

And from Chris Good's resume, we read:

<font color="red"> "Additional education: Candidate for Master’s of Mechanical Engineering with 2 classes left, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. Master's study track is Dynamic Systems and Controls Options and my master's project is a 16 foot wingspan Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The UAV project consists of airframe and airfoil design and construction, flight computer design and integration, flight sensor hardware design and construction, flight sensor to computer design and interface, and flight and ground software development." [/COLOR]

I suggest others have a look at his resume. He has quite a pedigree. Lots of systems engineering experience, especially in flight control systems. Pretty much like myself. I kinda like the guy. He is a clear example of the kinds of things you can accomplish with a solid background and education in mathematics.

Thanks for that, Einstein. I think we are just about done here, wouldn't you say?
RMT
 
RMT

Thanks for that, Einstein. I think we are just about done here, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I think you've just demonstrated to everyone how stupid and silly you look to everyone. A math grunt trying to take credit for something he isn't due. LOL....
 
Lets see, I got algerbra, pre-algerbra, and basic math downloaded. Moving on to pre-calculas. This might cut into my programing a bit oh well. Might be good for me. Keep going guys. I need something to read while I download.

Oh well I will throw in my comment. There is a old saying that is very true. It goes like this.
"Knowledge is power."
So true...

One more thing. It is better to have knowledge and not need it than to be in my be in my shoes and need it and not have it.
 
I could be wrong here but...I'll go out on a limb.

See if anyone knows whom I'm talking about here....
Let's call it a riddle, or game.

Math is very valuable. However, that being said we can all agree it is a language. Some people's brains work differently. Take english as a language, how many people mess up their "expression" but know exactly what they want to communicate...
Right...learn the system in popular use, I agree...
Though at times...these people can sometimes produce beautiful poetry...which others can read alot into...maybe not understand, but their subconscious connects on some level and they take away something from it - abstract writing, abstract art...call it what we may. Note I mentioned, "some" of it. Let's not get into generalizations...those are just nasty. At times.

Communication is indeed an interesting thing. I think I understand Einstein on here when I say - the only edge some people have over others is that early on the teachers &amp; students, or call them masters and apprentices - were on the same page...they may have gotten the answers that were already there correct...two similar brains passing along information in a mutually shared way.

However, yes that is ignorance of youth and learning about oneself. Or ...exploring the "unknown" - oneself...to some it's much more lonely and much more vast.

Confidence back then went down the shitter for some kids I'd imagine - what else could their overworking minds conclude but to accept their judgement? - makes for a nice personality eh?...appearing pretty selfish, when in reality it's just resentment on a much different level...ah for the judged to be judged and the circle is complete! but to break it and continue on? ...no man/woman is an island.
Some have to be apparently.

Rainman - good analogy ... good for nothing but blackjack lol ^^ (think of the movie reference...not a rip on you RMT
)

A master of english, does not come out of the womb writing sonnets.
The mind has to learn steps in an "order of things" to make sense, but believe me, a pre-speech toddler is not "dumb"...I'm sure you'd agree.

Hell, I remember memories from before six months old. If I told you how far back some memories go, you'd probably laugh your arse off...or call a priest because that's - just not possible...
Well apparently alot of things are not possible...and I'm fine with that...I don't have an agenda...if you could look at my life you'd know that. Some people just wanted to fit in...social circle wise, and I'm sure I could tell you - some people master things others do not notice.

OCD - can that be "mastered" ? has alot to do with numbers.
------------------
Those things are an old bag my friend. Forgotten history to some including myself. No sense in bringing them up I'm sure since ....childhood memories ahh...now, talking about myself? Sometimes I'm aware of too much going on around me when others think I'm not...and that makes a situation...uncomfortable for whom?

Dive in - dive out...swim when you need to. Sleep and wake up when you need to.

All great conversation I'm sure.

----------------------

My favourite color I wore all throughout youth and even until recently...blue...shades of blue...
I detested red clothing....something told me, I didn't appear correct in it when in 'social circles'.
Although I did have to admit, when I wore blue...god my eyes were deep blue...
'But when inadvertantly finding myself trying to figure out something....the steel/green now that was fashionable at times.

I've heard a great theory about Blue/Red...what do the other colors do?

------------------------------------

What am I saying? some people are never aware, some are partially aware, some are aware of what others are not - but sensitive to what they feel eminating as "alien" to them from fear or judgement.
Dive in -dive out.

So what am I saying?

Amazing grace - I got alot of work to do. Are the challenges only for me?

-generalization of life my friend :D

To sum it up.
There was a time when the numbers of others made no sense ...the numbers themselves - perfect sense. The method used even more obscure - when a reverse engineer could tackle it to "make sense" backward figuring - making something understood wholly, not just in stages...offends some egos when it's really frustration the other way around...so you tell me who really gives up?
Any difference now...?
Not always, but alot...I haven't had the time...but those numbers that once wouldn't "move" are fitting into place...under the right conditions...
If I could find the time, not alot, not forever...but "travel back" knowing what I know now...oh boy ! what a difference...hat's off to you Mr. Titor...
spend those 8 fast moving months crammed with 30 others very efficiently in a system designed for the variables "known"....the ones that aren't ...they'll either sink or swim...eventually


See... the reason I think I "know" more now...is because of three things;
a./ Confidence in myself
b./ The ability to focus and absorb for absurd amounts of time (probably only within around
the last five years of self realization - ...gets stronger).
b./ I geniunely know when I make a mistake
(if you see any spelling mistakes here it's because I'm in a hurry - it bothers me to no end).

There is no "bad" experience in life as long as you take a piece of that knowledge with you, tucked away ... for fast recall. That makes the future puzzle elementary.
If I had "time" to go back and fix all issues, surely I would... but the rat race to chase the cheese - "if the bear hadn't of stopped in the woods to take a [censored], it would have caught the rabbit"...so on.

Before an expert analyzes these "free-flowing" lines...maybe a game for a game

After all whom does not like a challenge my friend? :oops:
------------------------------------------------------

I hope everyone found that an insightful read...it was really just philosophical speculation.
Now I have a question for anyone that made it this far...humor me plz.

If you could be any animal what animal would you be? - don't tell me why.

(P.S. Easter eggs anyone?
)
 
I think you've just demonstrated to everyone how stupid and silly you look to everyone. A math grunt trying to take credit for something he isn't due. LOL....
Click to expand...

I believe you are just projecting what you believe might be happening to you, onto Rainman. No amount of someone proving "you" might be mistaken will ever shake you. Regardless of who does so.

Seriously, how can anyone ignore the facts coming off the very website you referred us to for the flying wing RC model??

Without the mathematics, even the RC folks would not have the models to play with...coming up with the very first design is a whole lot different than building off of somebody elses work.

I enjoy reading your posts, Einstein. But am astonished when I read post such as the one I'm replying too.

I think more highly of you than what I have been reading...

There is no escaping the fact, that engineers play a very important role in the design process. Without their expertise and experience, you would NOT be enjoying the lifestyle that you do now, if not for the dedication of people like RainmanTime.

Next time you take a flight on an airliner to anywhere in the world, as the aircraft touches down safely, and as our pilots flying military jets overseas, return home, you might just want to give " the math grunt" his due !

With regards to my little challenge...

I'd be interested in reading your take of a "new" system for launching the space shuttle into an orbiting position.

Without the math, the chances of success are extremely remote. I don't know how you could not acknowledge all the problems that would have to be addressed with launching the current space shuttle into orbit.

The fuels and fuel mixtures, the materials used, trajectories, and proper disposal and/or recovery of whatever system is used for launching the current space shuttle into an orbit are only several of many considerations.

To make the slighest error in any one of these areas, would cause complete failure.

I can't understand how "you" think "he" has just demonstrated to everyone how stupid and silly "he" look's to everyone, when I read it the other way around.
 
KerrTexas

I can't understand how "you" think "he" has just demonstrated to everyone how stupid and silly "he" look's to everyone, when I read it the other way around.
Click to expand...

Then he must be selling the snake oil to you. I'm not buying it anymore. The man literally can not behave in a civilized manner in a simple discussion. Believe me, I've tried numerous times. What's his current dogma? That I think mathematics is bunk? Why not make a list of how many claims he has about me? All he has to sell is snake oil to anyone that will listen. He has earned my disrespect. Which is very difficult to do with me.
 
Well...it seems to me that in a forum that has this on it's first page:

"""Chief of Research at the Time Travel Institute (and fictional character) Dr. Gunthar VonSchnelling presents to you some basic theories and concepts on time travel. Don't go any further until you've read what Dr. VonSchnelling has to say."""

Is an indication that none of us should take anything contained within these hallowed halls too seriously. Even though we do occasionally bicker, none of what is written in these posts should "ever" be taken personally, nor should what is written in these posts be absorbed in a negative manner as we step away from our computer's and carry on with our lives.

Everything written should be kept within the context as to "where" they are being created. This is not Scientific American, nor some forum as sponsered by MIT. This doesn't mean that there isn't anything written of no interest, nor is not fascinating, quite the contrary.

Even though we are sometimes taken to the mat in this gymnasium for a little bit of mental gymnastics, at no time should anyone ever walk away with resentments nor any ill feelings.
 
I personally greatly admire RMT, his balance is interesting.
-Doghead for the same reason. Doghead comes off as more a hard-arse, but you can see the creativity flow through his logic...though it is well guarded.
 
Back
Top