Wouldnt we already see this in planes and stuff if its so great? I don't see it and i'm sure that millions of dollars of investments find better results than a single THEORETICAL idea. I doubt this works, unless it is already being used.
@AForkSpoon I'm glad that you think it seems that it would be great. Note that airplanes require changing the shape of the wing several times from take-off to landing, so this idea does not apply, unless we come up with a way to change its shape on the fly. This idea is for a fixed pitch and rpm, to optimize the shape at a specific angle of attack, and prevent air curling back behind it. Aside from that, are you suggesting we stop having ideas?! Sorry, at least for me, no can do.
@adanieltorres i said it probably wouldnt, unless it is an existing design in use right now. Airlines pay big bucks for reasearch and your idea has probably already been tested by someone working for boeing. Ideas are great, but theres this other idea that it probably does not work or is is not a new idea.
@AForkSpoon Your implicit message is regarding the futility of my attempts at coming up with an optimal design, given my competition (i.e., countless researchers and dollars). Let's suppose one of those researchers thought of this. The idea would be put forth before the others and it would get tested if they thought it had any merit. The researcher would not simply say, "if this worked, someone else would already have done it." I, unlike you, have seen this idea implemented.
Stealth fighters and bombers seem to have profile similarities with this idea. But aside from whether someone else has thought of it or not before me, why would you wish to deter anyone from trying to come up with new ideas? Instead, discuss the concepts on which the idea is based. Do you see a flaw? After all it's a Thought Experiments channel. Or perhaps I should stop thinking, altogether, because someone else probably already had the same thoughts... :P
@adanieltorres i'm not saying its a bad thought at all, i'm not saying that coming up with ideas is bad in any way. ALL i am saying is that "unless it is already in use" then it probably does not work. If it is in use then it works and is not a new idea. i never said that only good thoughts are new. the only thing i am trying to say is that IT PROBABLY DOES NOT WORK "unless it is already in use".
@AForkSpoon The question to you is, how do you know when you're talking to the first one who came up with a new idea, you know, before it was successfully brought to fruition? How do you decide on whether this idea is about something worth calling a buddy at Boeing? Don't you even look into whether the science on which it is based is sound? How do *you* decide the probability, without relinquishing your thinking to the market? Yours seems like a very superficial probability assessment.
@AForkSpoon Perhaps the key is in the difference between theoretical and statistical probability. Statistically, the house wins at blackjack, though, theoretically, the player can win. A gang from MIT, based on theory, against all statistical probability, made loads of money off of the casinos. Similarly, you are basing yourself on the statistical probability of this idea beating those in use, whereas alI the ideas in this channel of Thought Experiments are all about brainstorming theory.
@JesusAlbertoPinto In fact, the Brachistochrone is only for a single particle free falling from standstill. I'm aware of all three points. I wrote "Cycloid-like shape" and in the video I pointed out that a cycloid would no longer be optimal for sideways plowing. What I allude to is the possible existence of an analogous profile for fixed speed, of fixed pitch, moving through a specific air medium that someone already deeper into fluid mechanics principles would help discover. hint, hint. :)
@JesusAlbertoPinto My next video in the series of this wing profile, is Rotor Blade Shape idea. Since the idea is for a fixed speed rotation, each blade would be shaped like a pizza slice to take into account that the outer portions travel faster. The profile, then, would have to be optimized for each curved crossection over which the air would travel. More detail in the upcoming video...
If you don't have the money to test this efficiently... you could always buy a wind turbine simulation program, it's not 100% accurate... but 90% accurate is not bad.
@rewii93 Thanks. I'd be happy with 90%. I haven't come across a simulator that could make it easy to test, tweak, and retest shapes that are so far off from the standard wing profile. If you know of any, please point me to it.
@adanieltorres Industrial design softwares like solidworks, rhino, and sasha could be a good solutions. They are costly but I know many person who got a special "student" price. And they are far more than just wind simulators, believe me ;).
@rewii93 Just took a look at solidworks. Nice. Thanks. From its learning curve, it may be easier to find someone to help me in this venture than to try to do it myself. Also, perhaps a physicist that would care to come up with the theoretically ideal shape for this, before even starting the simulations.
Wouldnt we already see this in planes and stuff if its so great? I don't see it and i'm sure that millions of dollars of investments find better results than a single THEORETICAL idea. I doubt this works, unless it is already being used.
AForkSpoon 4 months ago
@AForkSpoon I'm glad that you think it seems that it would be great. Note that airplanes require changing the shape of the wing several times from take-off to landing, so this idea does not apply, unless we come up with a way to change its shape on the fly. This idea is for a fixed pitch and rpm, to optimize the shape at a specific angle of attack, and prevent air curling back behind it. Aside from that, are you suggesting we stop having ideas?! Sorry, at least for me, no can do.
adanieltorres 4 months ago
@adanieltorres i said it probably wouldnt, unless it is an existing design in use right now. Airlines pay big bucks for reasearch and your idea has probably already been tested by someone working for boeing. Ideas are great, but theres this other idea that it probably does not work or is is not a new idea.
AForkSpoon 4 months ago
@AForkSpoon Your implicit message is regarding the futility of my attempts at coming up with an optimal design, given my competition (i.e., countless researchers and dollars). Let's suppose one of those researchers thought of this. The idea would be put forth before the others and it would get tested if they thought it had any merit. The researcher would not simply say, "if this worked, someone else would already have done it." I, unlike you, have seen this idea implemented.
...
adanieltorres 4 months ago
@AForkSpoon ...
Stealth fighters and bombers seem to have profile similarities with this idea. But aside from whether someone else has thought of it or not before me, why would you wish to deter anyone from trying to come up with new ideas? Instead, discuss the concepts on which the idea is based. Do you see a flaw? After all it's a Thought Experiments channel. Or perhaps I should stop thinking, altogether, because someone else probably already had the same thoughts... :P
adanieltorres 4 months ago
@adanieltorres i'm not saying its a bad thought at all, i'm not saying that coming up with ideas is bad in any way. ALL i am saying is that "unless it is already in use" then it probably does not work. If it is in use then it works and is not a new idea. i never said that only good thoughts are new. the only thing i am trying to say is that IT PROBABLY DOES NOT WORK "unless it is already in use".
AForkSpoon 4 months ago
@AForkSpoon The question to you is, how do you know when you're talking to the first one who came up with a new idea, you know, before it was successfully brought to fruition? How do you decide on whether this idea is about something worth calling a buddy at Boeing? Don't you even look into whether the science on which it is based is sound? How do *you* decide the probability, without relinquishing your thinking to the market? Yours seems like a very superficial probability assessment.
adanieltorres 4 months ago
@AForkSpoon Perhaps the key is in the difference between theoretical and statistical probability. Statistically, the house wins at blackjack, though, theoretically, the player can win. A gang from MIT, based on theory, against all statistical probability, made loads of money off of the casinos. Similarly, you are basing yourself on the statistical probability of this idea beating those in use, whereas alI the ideas in this channel of Thought Experiments are all about brainstorming theory.
adanieltorres 4 months ago
The idea has some spirit, but there many considerations to be made.
1. Brachistochrone is a solution for a particle, not a particle system (fluid).
2. When friction is involved, the solution is no longer a cycloid (but fortunately is an analytic expression)
3. Dynamic conditions such as viscosity, smoothness of the surface and even the compressible or not compressible fluid will deviate the solution.
I suggest you to go deeper into fluid mechanics principles and then remake this proposal.
JesusAlbertoPinto 11 months ago
@JesusAlbertoPinto In fact, the Brachistochrone is only for a single particle free falling from standstill. I'm aware of all three points. I wrote "Cycloid-like shape" and in the video I pointed out that a cycloid would no longer be optimal for sideways plowing. What I allude to is the possible existence of an analogous profile for fixed speed, of fixed pitch, moving through a specific air medium that someone already deeper into fluid mechanics principles would help discover. hint, hint. :)
adanieltorres 11 months ago
@JesusAlbertoPinto My next video in the series of this wing profile, is Rotor Blade Shape idea. Since the idea is for a fixed speed rotation, each blade would be shaped like a pizza slice to take into account that the outer portions travel faster. The profile, then, would have to be optimized for each curved crossection over which the air would travel. More detail in the upcoming video...
adanieltorres 11 months ago
If you don't have the money to test this efficiently... you could always buy a wind turbine simulation program, it's not 100% accurate... but 90% accurate is not bad.
rewii93 1 year ago
@rewii93 Thanks. I'd be happy with 90%. I haven't come across a simulator that could make it easy to test, tweak, and retest shapes that are so far off from the standard wing profile. If you know of any, please point me to it.
adanieltorres 1 year ago
@adanieltorres Industrial design softwares like solidworks, rhino, and sasha could be a good solutions. They are costly but I know many person who got a special "student" price. And they are far more than just wind simulators, believe me ;).
Also, you could try the free trial versions.
rewii93 1 year ago
@rewii93 Just took a look at solidworks. Nice. Thanks. From its learning curve, it may be easier to find someone to help me in this venture than to try to do it myself. Also, perhaps a physicist that would care to come up with the theoretically ideal shape for this, before even starting the simulations.
adanieltorres 1 year ago