![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Graeme Cant wrote:
Robert Ehrlich wrote: Mike Lindsay wrote: ... Presumably by integrating all the information it's getting from muscle tension in wing muscles, airspeed from pressure on feathers, and sense organs in the lining of bone cavities? No, integration can't work in the long term because of the accumulation of errors along time. No Robert. I didn't mean 'integration' and I don't think Mike meant 'integration'. We meant integration. ![]() Our integration is not the mathematical opposite of differentiation. We're simply saying it takes data from all its information sources to decide what's happening. It doesn't look at each one separately like we shift from ASI to horizon to vario to altimeter to compass picking up separate bits of information. With a bird it's all one. It's integrated. This is how inertial navigation systems work, but the integration process is carried with a precision that no brain can meet, and they need absolute attitude information from gyros, and nevertheless need recalibration after some time. I think without the gyros, i.e. obtaining attitude also by integration of rotational accelerations, the precision would be lost after a few minutes. Bird fight is not like our flight where what we're doing is totally alien and has to be (mostly) a conscious process. Birds fly quite UNconsciously. What they see is "integrated" with what they feel in their muscles. There is no separate process for "I am entering a thermal" which is different from "I am in a steady climb". It's all one. They measure altitude with their eyes as Bill Daniels said. They 'recalibrate' their gyros continuously by looking around. They're not much better at raw data IMC than we are and lose their 'calibration' quite quickly in cloud. Many of the ideas are interesting but I'm with Occam's Razor. Birds fly like we walk - by looking around to 'calibrate' the inner ear balance mechanism and feedback from muscles. I can't see a real need for any other unique mechanism. ... until we get to intercontinental migration. GC OK, you may call as you like the process of determining climb rate from acceleration or muscle tension or any other differential information, it will nevertheless be a mathematical integration, or an equivalent process, but as the result is unique starting from a known state, any equivalent process is the same process. None of the mechanism mentionned in the previous post (acceleration, muscle tension, ground watching), except the use of a pressure sensor, can explain how birds feel they are climbing, and as a matter of fact someone said in a previous post that the evidence of such a sensor in the birds has been proved and also that loosing this specific information makes them unable to climb. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 71 | June 10th 04 08:02 PM |
Kerry begins circling the drain: | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 0 | February 12th 04 06:04 PM |
What determines LNAV "circling mode"? | Jack | Soaring | 11 | November 20th 03 05:15 AM |
Circling To Land On NDB-B and NDB-C | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | July 13th 03 03:46 PM |