Nevertheless, despite their brilliant successes, the Wrights never completely understood quantitatively the problem of stability of rotational motions. They shared that deficiency with all their contemporary inventors, for the same reason: they never wrote or considered equations for rotational motions.Without the benefit of that formalism, they could not understand the true essence of stability of rotations. As a practical matter, they could not identify the physical contributions to stability, a failure that had significant consequences for their work:
But the argument that the Wright brothers knew enough aerodynamic equations so that the plane was just an engineering problem misses the point. I don't agree with the statement but it is not relevant to what you were originally saying. The fact is that they did a lot of experiments, changed their designs and did a lot more experiments. Right now there are enough mathematical and pseudo-code theories about AI to begin experimenting with actual AGI functions even though it does seem obvious that there are crucial theories that are still missing. So ignoring the fact that there have been great advances in AI it is -as if- we are analogously at the point the Wrights were. So the next step is to create more insight about the problem as you begin some kind of actual experimentation. These experiments would probably be basic feasibility and design studies but waiting for the mathematics to catch up would not be smart unless you didn't want to get involved in the effort until it became a single semester course. Jim Bromer On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > So the Wright Brothers flew ~1900.. but "Working from at least as early as > 1796, when he constructed a model helicopter,[18] until his death in 1857, > Sir George Cayley is credited as the first person to identify the four > aerodynamic forces of flight—weight, lift, drag, and thrust—and the > relationships between them" > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aerodynamics].. "Cayley is also > credited as the first person to develop the modern fixed-wing aircraft > concept" As such the fundamental principles of aerodynamics where known > more than a hundred years earlier.. > > "In 1889, Charles Renard, a French aeronautical engineer, became the first > person to reasonably predict the power needed for sustained flight." So the > math had already been worked out for sustained flight, before the Wright > Brothers flew.. > > Otto Lilienthal, following the work of Sir George Cayley, was the first > person to become highly successful with glider flights. Lilienthal believed > that thin, curved airfoils would produce high lift and low drag. So the > understanding that one could produce lift from curved airfoils was known > prior to the Wright brothers.. > > Octave Chanute's 1893 book, Progress in Flying Machines, outlined all of the > known research conducted around the world up to that point.[24] Chanute's > book provided a great service to those interested in aerodynamics and flying > machines. > > "With the information contained in Chanute's book, the personal assistance > of Chanute himself, and research carried out in their own wind tunnel, the > Wright brothers gained enough knowledge of aerodynamics to fly the first > powered aircraft on December 17, 1903"... So basically we already had the > fundamentals of aerodynamics, and we knew how to create lift and what was > needed for sustained flight. What was left for the Wright brothers to > discover? It seems to me that given what the Wright brothers knew human > flight was more of an engineering problem rather than a research problem. > Does this make sense? > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here is an interesting article about the Wrights that sounds similar to >> what I have read before. >> >> http://wrightflyer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-First-Aeronautical-Engineers-and-Test-Pilots.pdf >> >> The belief that the Wrights, who invented the wind tunnel, "just saw an >> algorithm and then all they needed to do was to plug the right variables >> into the mathematical equation" in order to create the first successful >> powered airplane capable of carrying a person is an not an acceptable >> hypothesis to explain how they went about creating the airplane. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Piaget Modeler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The only way to test your hypothesis, like the Wright brothers did, is to >>> build working prototypes and then refine them. >>> >>> No way 'round it. >>> >>> Just Do it. >>> >>> (Oh, that's Nike's slogan). >>> >>> ~PM >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 10:59:23 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [agi] Re: Starting to Define Algorithms that are More >>> Powerfulthan Narrow AI >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> I think that the Wright Brothers approach is appropriate for AI / >>> Stronger AI / AGI as well. However, I also think it is obvious that there is >>> ample evidence that digital programming has made numerous advances in AGI >>> even though the successes seem to lack many human-like methods of thought. >>> >>> I have often wondered why the Wrights got so involved in control surfaces >>> before they had a successful powered flight. Was it just common sense to >>> realize that you needed to 'steer' the plane once it got off the ground, or >>> was it just ego - since they 'knew' they would succeed they designed it for >>> their flights of imagination. Or was it a common meme amongst aeronautical >>> enthusiasts at the time? Or, did they realize, based on their experiments >>> with gliders, that they would be able to extend their flights with >>> mechanisms to control the attack of the plane in the air even though the >>> plane would be heavier. (They decided to use wing warping to control the >>> turns. NASA just tested a jet that is capable of changing the shape of its >>> wings by the way.) Because this last possible reason might be related to the >>> design-experiment-modify the design experiment method as it can be applied >>> to AI / Stronger AI research. >>> >>> I want to find some evidence that my design principles would work to >>> produce Stronger AI. So, by including some control mechanisms in my designs >>> I might be able to stretch the distance it can get with the designs I have >>> in mind. But, if I design for the some-day-in-the-future my control >>> mechanisms would get so heavy that they could become a hindrance to any >>> feasible programs that I might try now. But, by designing for a test I could >>> run in the near future I might find some essential control features that >>> could be lightweight and effective to stretch the capabilities of the >>> program. >>> >>> But you have to have some feasible plan in mind to do that. If you want >>> to try to do something with AGI right now your program (or device) has to be >>> simple but effective - in some way. Even though you might not be able to >>> convince other people based on primitive experiments, you have to be able to >>> find some evidence that your ideas are going to do something different than >>> most contemporary AI programs. >>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >>> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription >> >> >> AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription > > > AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
