Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moonstone Spider" data-source="post: 3078250" data-attributes="member: 40079">I know of three other bot-fly speed experiments although I can't seem to Google-Fu up any references, two wind-tunnel tests provided results of 450 and 650MPH, and a doppler radar test gave a speed of 90mph.I did hem and haw and provide a bunch of disclaimers on that figure (I consider Townsend's result highly unlikely, but a speed of 200-300mph wouldn't surprise me), but to my mind Langmuir's results are much more suspect than Townsend, his methods and conclusions have more results than swiss cheese.  Langmuir's casual dismissal to me represents the worst sort of dismissive science, where anything observed that doesn't fit the scientist's worldview is simply dismissed as wrong, particularly since Townsend was an extremely respected entomolygist who is responsible for the discovery and analysis of dozens of species over many decades.Of Note:His conclusions on food intake rely on huge assumptions about the Bot Fly's biochemistry and aerodynamics.  Remember that this is the same era that produced "Proof" that it is impossible to throw a curve ball (Scientists claimed it was an optical illusion and many bitterly clung to that view even when baseball players were observe to be able to throw around a board as much as 18 inches wide) and "proof" that a bumblebee cannot actually fly, all based on faulty knowledge of aerodynamics.  The same objection applies to his claim that the bot fly would squish from air pressure.His sonic boom claim depends on the insect generating a reasonable amount of noise, flying in a straight line, and travelling at close to the speed of sound for a lengthy period of time.  Obviously that's a heck of a lot of assumptions for a physicist to be making since anybody who's seen insects in flight realizes they rarely do any one of those, much less all three for a long period.  His assumptions about flies running into people assumes that these flies apparently cant' see where they're going, and routinely interact with people (In fact the observed speed was very high up on a mountain peak where humans wouldn't rarely be found, and where air pressure was much lower).Worst of all, his "Lead Weight" experiment is pure idiocy.  He assumes first that Townsend observed the botfly at exactly the same distance away as the length of his string.  The odds of this are probably less than the odds that Townsend developed psychic powers to observe the botfly.  At merely twice as far away (Say, four feet instead of two) the fly would have to be moving four times faster for the same blur effect.Worst of all, Langmuir's lead weight experiment assumes that his eyesight and Townsend's are exactly equal.  Townsend's profession is built around observing tiny fast moving insects.  Langmuir's is built around looking at a chalkboard and doing math.  The notion that Langmuir could confidently claim that his "Spot Check" is the same as Townsend's is laughable.In conclusion while I think Townsend's observations were probably in error, I find his results more trustworthy than Langmuir's and certainly wouldn't suggest that Townsend was simply being foolish or failing to take basic precautions of his observation.</blockquote>

Verification