On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 13:50, Roman V. Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:35 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The most efficient is to have tools that match the way our brains work >> (or not...). I'm not convinced our brains are "parallel" (at least mines >> are not). > > I disagree on philosophical grounds ;-) It's been one of the major > engineering follies to always approach design from a "just follow > the nature" standpoint. No wonder that before the Wright brothers > everybody thought the best way to fly is to flap some kind of wings.
I'd disagree with this example, as it is certainly not a viable one. First, the main thing that Wright brothers have created were control surfaces and a lighweight plane - people had been flying for few years before them, but nobody could get a light enough engine :) And flapping wings wasn't an error - the error was how it was implemented. And if you take a good look at bigger birds, you'll see that in their case, flapping is a reuse of equipment - the principles of flight are the same. Oh, and BTW, there's a lot of development for ornitopters. Da Vinci simply didn't have the tools (of which one of the most important is computer. With _lots_ of computing power...) > P.S. I guess, we are getting way off topic here. > Sorry for continuing with OT. -- Paweł Lasek
