*According to you, pigeon would need wings as big as planet in order to fly, lol.* *Sparrow is example of working Ornithopter, short wings, higher RPM.*

I think the idea of "SSD"s as data storing crystals come from scifi too,to the later nobel prise winner scientosts.

You used the Bernoulli method to explain how helicopters fly then the Newtonian method to explain how birds fly. Both are acceptable, and both can be applied to each. Let me assure you that helicopter is throwing down quite a bit of air. The shape of the airfoil on a blade is not the primary reason helicopters fly.

​@@Only_God_Is_Allah_SWTno! She is putting weight to wing size in ratio. You put size to wing size in ratio. But your assumption is wrong. Hers is not.

This was triggering me a lot! 😅

Exactly, the ornothopter would be impractical because the wings would always be changing direction, using more power, and causing WAY too much stress on the wing. Helicopters don’t have this problem because their rotor blades are only kept at one speed, with the pitch of each blade being changed; it doesn’t have to overcome its own momentum with each cycle.

@@liammcguire4046 Dune takes place 20,000 years in the future. let's give our fictional descendants a little credit for massive advances in materials science. Hell, the description Herbert gives of Ornithopters isn't so detailed as to rule out theoretical things like manipulation of strong/weak forces in the wings, gravity, etc... there could be a lot going on to make an Ornithopter realistic in it's time period.

@@RamPuppy I suppose you’re right

The stress the people inside experience because of the incredibly loud buzzing and humming from the wings, on top of that the insane vibration that not even Mercedes Benz could invent anything that would make it a smooth ride. AND, considering the Dune universe is at war and it is supposed to be a war vehicle; it would be super impractical because it is fragile and reliant on all wings, whereas a helicopter with multiple rotors could savely crash or a plane could glide to safety when parts are failing because they got damaged.

@@Matt..S ya do realize that there was peace right up to when the baloney attacked right? And again, 20k years of scientific advancement. We wouldn't even recognize science from 20k years in the future.

I was about to comment that too. The french Riout 102T Alérion in 1937. It did snaped it's wings but to be fair it lasted for about 3 hours in the wind tunnel.

@@SaltyMartian But scale model worked fine if I remember correctly?

So.. technically if the ornithopter is built the size of current drones it can work?

​@@MollyHJohnsand such things already exist

@@ibraheemshuaib8954 that's cool!

That's true, but the shape of the blade helps produce more lift with smaller angles of attack. The important bit, is that people understand that helicopters are not flying by pushing air down hard like a fan... which some people believe because of rotor wash. The produce lift because of air pressure differences related to the shape of the blade and angle of attack (collective). Some smaller helicopters have symmetrical rotors, but the vast majority of "rotor WING aircraft" have asymmetrical rotors. The aircraft flies by lift pressure on the rotors NOT thrust downwards from the rotors which would flatten buildings. Which is why a heavy helicopter can hover over someone's house but a harrier would cave the building down.

They had the advantage of a atmosphere with much more Oxygen than now... maybe more air pressure as well.

no they didn’t.

​​​@@Sam_T2000you're partly correct, and partly incorrect. There were giant insects of similar shape to dragonflies (being an evolutionary ancestor), but they aren't 'dragonflies' as we know them, seeing as they were different species on the great tree of life. Also, the wingspans weren't 8 ft, at least not from what I've seen (albeit my research has been quite cursory) but they did get to almost 2.5 ft.

Also to the comments adding corrections above, I'm pretty sure they did not weigh as much relative to their wing size, as these ornithopters would weigh with people and flight tech, and weapons in relation to the size shown in the movies.

@@maxwellrobertson4831when you say “partly correct” does it not imply that they are “partly incorrect” as well?

I second that. That lie for wings/blades shape has been going for too long.

​@@gergisterit doesn't even work for airplanes, which actually do have asymmetrical wings

Yeah, helicopters have a wash of air coming downwards off the rotors, not pushing up on them.

@@stardragon8585it definitely does work for airplanes

Helicopters fly by the principal of push air down = lift. It’s a big fan

Lmao, yep. 2D animation of the airfoil relative wind direction was correct, but then suddenly the rotor spins the wrong way when it transitions to 3D hahaha :D

To be fair a counter clockwise spin is the direction most helicopter blades spin the blades were just put on backwards lol

​@hummingbird9149 It was kinda backwards, the airfoil was pointed in the wrong direction for the rotor, which does actually spin that direction on a real huey.

@@Larcona_ Yeah, but the blades were put on backwards xD

I was thinking this. Propellers are a type of reaction engine, and it follows that wings must be as well, for they are of similar geometry and function.

thats why developing super-light materials that are strong enough is and should be the goal. one theory I had is if yu found a way to make a material like Aerogel in large quantities and make it slightly more resilient, put it in the space between a carbon fiber rod frame and sandwhich the whole thing in an inner and outer layer of some kind of vinyl skin, youd in theory have a super lightweight air frame that can be used for things like ornithopter flight research.

@@MrSnowFoxy I had an idea What if rubber was used to be in the shape of the wing and since rubber is made to bend and can have it flex be controlled through the stiffness of the rubber they can make a wing that can withstand the stress and for added strength, use strings to keep the shape of the wings, as strings are made to bend and can be bent extremely fast with minimal wear, just an idea I had

@@moneydoodle8660 I was envisioning the wings to be like those ornithopter flying RC toys from when I was a kid, itd be like carbon fiber rods for the main support with smaller stabilizer rods mid wing to mimic the design of actual dragon fly wings, with a film like material that's lightweight but extremely durable. Not sure if that kinda material exists yet

​@@moneydoodle8660how would you incorporate ailerons and flaps? Also, rubber does not do well in cold and it gets very cold at altitude.

​@moneydoodle8660 temperature tho?

Helicopters do the same ! The blades angle of attack oscillate very quickly up and down at each turn as soon as you input some left/right or forward/aft command.

Check out a slow mo of an insect flying. The wing tilts mostly on the up stroke. The morion creates a figure eigth.

if the atmosphere is very thick it could work

@@Chwibon the difference beening that Ornithopters need to do it all the time while Hleicopters only need them while stearing.

Birds do the same. They don't just flap up and down. They stroke through the air, like a swimmer doing the breast stroke

Exactly, if this is hard for us imagine time travel

We have planes with wings that can move to create more lift, though calling that flapping is a huge exaggeration

Or air density is much higher.

My thoughts exactly. We don't know what fictional technologies exist to make the 'thopters work.

​@@treyreppe4348Which in turn would make them break more easily and thus require bigger wings.

well, difference is moving wings on IRL aircraft are meant to reduce drag at higher speeds where smaller wings are needed to generate the same lift(hence why the aircraft you can find them are things like the tornado, f14, B1 etc) , which arguably has 0 relationship to flapping

Let's say our wing works like this: when it flaps forward, it leans forward, blowing air down and making lift; when it flaps backward, it leans backward, making lift yet again. This means, the servos should first accelerate wing forward, then decelerate it, wasting energy on reciprocating motion, getting at best 0.707 (RMS of a sine wave) of the thrust the rotating propeller would provide. It would also be a nightmare to maintain and repair, considering how complicated the mechanism should be and the fact it's controlled by analog computers, since you can't have calculators in Dune universe.

Basically needs to mimic a dragon fly

Just a little dash of magic you say? 😁

As far as I've heard this approach fails quickly with size. Hence why birds also don't fly like insects.

No reason to do that

Biomimicry is such an amazing science

Still dumb. If they have interstellar travel they must also have some crazy energy storage and also lots of super powerful engine designs. I dont think the ornithopter can go faster than the speed of sound. But if you use thrusters instead, you could make the thing go so fast it would look like a shooting star.

​@@froschreiniger2639 It's called sci-fi and I'm talking about how many people mistake the wings as the propeller of the ornithopter in this rendition of Dune when the creators have said that it is not. I couldn't care less if it's dumb or something, it's sci-fi, it doesn't intervene with the plot of the story and it looks cool.

​@@froschreiniger2639They use spice for interstellar travel and can only get it on Arakis out of every planet in the galaxy. They're not going to waste it on one scifi helicopter. Plus it looks cool.

It's more stupid than that apparently they're clam powered

how would subatomic particle repelling create lift?

A quick google search shows birds flapping produces lift and thrust. Source first page of Google with sources from NASA & MIT.

A combination of induced flow through the disc and plane of rotation gives relative airflow. Drag acts inline with the relative airflow and lift acts at 90 degrees to drag. The combination of these gives the total reaction. From total reaction you derive the rotor thrust to rotor drag ratio(different from aerodynamic lift to aerodynamic drag ratio.) From here we also derive our thrust which opposes weight and rotor drag which opposes our driving force - torque or horsepower. Birds absolutely do produce lift. Even if their wings don’t rotate. You cannot produce thrust without lift. Even in a rocket where thrust directly opposes weight, lift is still there, it just happens to operate in the same plane plane with the same amount until the body of the rocket tilts slightly of centre in which case uneven lift starts to occur.

Then the bird wouldn't really be able to fly...

@@jessemorgan3589 fundamentally speaking, there is no clear distinction between lift and thrust.

@@sudazima yes there is.. for example if a helicopter used thrust rather than lift... A loaded chinook would carve a path of destruction when flying low to the ground. It doesn't because the rotor blades mostly lift rather than thrust. There's a difference and it's important.

But it didn't fly.

the earliest attempts at flight by man has pretty much always started by mimicking nature. because if it works in nature, its just a matter of figuring out how to scale it up.

There have been many small scale ornithopter development attempts.. can't remember if any were successful. @TomScott comes to mind

I meant @TomStantonEngineering - but it appears he hasn't tried his hand at an ornithopter yet.

@@antcommander1367 yeah and anyone going too close to those wings accidentally, gets sliced into pieces 😂

They don't exist in real life because we don't have the materials or technology to make them without insane R&D.

@@Trucks_n_stuff I think in terms of electronics and control technologies we're there. Most space crafts have extremely tight reaction times and you could imagine a camshaft and spring system or whatnot to do the back and forth movement.. But you are very right in terms of materials. No steel and no carbon is capable of sustaining those stress cycles.

you should remember an ornithopter seems very very basic technology for something 25000 years in the future. They are only used because they are efficient for the need

I mean technically as we make more advanced carbon compounds we can in theory make pretty tough materials that can stand that level of wear and tear. The issue always comes down to energy efficeincy. Railguns as an example have been proven mathmatically to be possible since the 1800's, the reason we don't have them is lack of good enough materials and energy efficiency. As most railguns require battery packs the size of vans to fire multiple shots. Hence why Fusion energy research is at the forefront of most development sciences. Because it would solve all energy issues.

They may not be strictly flapping straight up and down but more of a slight rotation which is actually how birds actually flap their wings - it's not just up and down it's more of an up and forward and then rotates back and down so it's a kind of rotation.

Also we are talking about a universe with legit anti grav technology, so could be anti grav engines providing lift with the wings just providing the plane with directionality.

This one makes a lot of sense

Wouldn't low gravvity and a denser atmosphere have made the Fermin giants?

​@Guo1234bob Those books are as much fantasy as they are scifi, Herbert never attempted to try to explain how most of the stuff worked. He just thought dragonfly wings were supercool and futuristic, almost everything else in his stories are equally problematic (if not more) when trying to come up with real explanations for how they might work.

@@TheNagroth yes he stuck with the idea or main story and wasn’t too concerned about explaining the physics or anything like that.

Exactly. I was just going to say the same thing. I was a little disappointed that the vid didn't mention it at all and the comments has an utter lack of people that noticed.

The vast majority of the lift is generated by the pressure differential, the air being pushed down is more a side effect than a substantial lift generation effect.

​@@nicolasd2953depends on the angle of attack and speed the air is moving. For example during vertical (0 horisontal speed) maneuvers since rotor rpm(speed) stays constant increasing AoA will move more air downward.

@@a.anonymous1318 what you said doesn't answer at all to what I wrote. Of course increasing the angle of attack will increase the effect of the blades on the air. But once again, air being pushed down isn't what causes lift, it is the pressure differential around the profile of the blade. And this is the case independently of speed, rpm and AOA.

@@nicolasd2953 air being pushed down does cause lift, its newtons 3rd law I probably should have expanded a bit more on what I said Long story short, at lower AoA, higher speed Coanda effect generates lift. As AoA increases until flow seperation newtons 3rd law starts to take over left generation, depending on wing design it happens sooner or later (symmetric wings having 0 Coanda lift) AoA above flow seperation we get Vortex lift but that generates a lift vector that causes too much drag to be useful

She also doesn't mention material science advancements that keep occurring in our realm of reality advancing us ever closer to those science fiction stories. Nor does she touch on the idea that they use a different source of energy and motor technology theoretically

​@@DurzoBlunts yes but with that argumentation, you can literally call anything "possible in reality", just make up that they found an advanced technology that makes it possible, no matter how unlikely. Not the point of the video

​@hidden9549 That's not how things works, the underlying physics is still the same. Rotary wing will still be much more efficient than dragon fly wings with different gravitational and atmospheric condition. Those argument often assume advancement will only be used for [insert stupid scifi thing] when in reality they will be equally (often disproportionately) be beneficial for [insert stuff we made and use now].

@@jintsuubest9331 youre forgetting that they have anti gravity technology in dune, so it's likely that the wings are not the only thing holding up the aircraft. As to why they use ornithopters instead of planes or helicopters, it's probably because of versatility and wear and tear. Also, it's because it's a book and ornithopters are cool

It also doesn't make sense how in the books Ornithopters can achieve short space flight

I thought they didn't because of Sandworms or something? Anyway, Dune has so much ridiculous stuff in it, you just have to kinda give it all a pass. It's Space Fantasy.

Wowwee toys has an rc dragonfly

That's because fluid dynamics (yes, air is a fluid too) at small scales work entirely different than they do at small scales. Without going into some really tricky physics, air is much sticker/more viscous at small scales and thus much less turbulent. At those small scales, lift can be generated by vortices, which aren't disrupted by turbulent flow. At larger scales though, that viscosity becomes less relevant and turbulent flow more prominent, which means flapping your wings like that is horribly inefficient and the wing area needed increases exponentially.

@@joelmulder But there still was that prehistoric dragonfly Meganeuropsis permiana with a wingspan of 75cm.

@@Suthriel Studies suggest it had a wingbeat of around 3 to 8HZ, which is significantly slower than even the largest modern day dragonfly (around 30Hz. A humming bird is around 60Hz). In fact, it’s in the same range as most modern birds. Truth is we don’t know exactly how it flew, but we don’t have to know how exactly they flew to know they didn’t fly like modern dragonflies do. Physics hasn’t changed since then. Since we know they didn’t fly like dragonflies, we can very safely assume they flew more or less like birds.

@@joelmulder Or, its just, that larger wings don´t need to have such high wingbeats to deliver the same amount of lift. Large birds like eagles or condors don´t need to beat as fast as little birds to stay airborne (in their active flight phase, not during gliding ^.^ ), mainly because large wings are overall more efficient than smaller wings, and a wingbeat reaches way higher speeds exactly because of their large size. So to get the same airspeeds that small wings do to create lift, a large wing does not need high wingbeat rates.

@@SuthrielYes but the physics of how said wing beats doesn't change. Large birds beat their wings vastly differently than dragonflies do, not only slower. Thats the logic. The approach that modern dragonflies use works only on small scales, at bigger scales its simply super inefficient to flap your wings like that.

That was screwed right from the beginning!

I made sketches of interstellar spaceships when I was 9. Yet I'm still me and Leonardo has an Oscar and dates women under 25.

@@Brainstorm4300the other Leonardo

@natmarelnam4871 The first working model was created in 1930 so no. Verne had great creativity, but if you look at his sketches you'd know it was complete fiction ignoring the most basic rules of aerodynamics.

JV didn't 'invent' the helicopter, submarines or space travel as some people often mention, but brought to the public concepts the engineers of his time already understood and considered feasible once they master the required technology

The wings probably twist like bird wings. The lead edge points up on the upswing and slightly down on the downstroke

Figure 8 rotation.

I think it’s actually completely wrong personally. The shape of a wing is to reduce drag, not to generate lift. It’s the angle of attack that generates the lift.

Actually, what generates lift is the pressure differential. But you can generate this pressure differential with a symmetrical profile by angling it down.

​@@squareheadjack1918the shape and the AOA both are parameters of lift and drag generation, which are both intertwined. Saying one parameter is for lift and the other is for drag is completely wrong.

@@nicolasd2953any plane could fly with an absolutely flat wing. It would just take more engine thrust. Thus, the purposes of the shape is to prevent a relative vacuum behind (relative to motion thru the air) the wing. It’s the deflection on the air off the bottom of the wing that generates the vast majority of the lift, and lift from wing shape is incidental.

⁠@@squareheadjack1918 no that’s not true wings are shaped like that because the shape produces Lift by itself. Symmetrical wings only produce lift with an angel of attack it has nothing to do with thrust. I hate the discourse about air being deflected producing Lift. That’s not how you calculate lift in engineering you either use the circulation around the wing or the pressure differential.

Most rotor blades are not symmetrical... where did you even get that idea? Bernoulli's principle is absolutely how rotors blades produce lift. Don't ask me though, I was only airframe for 12 years working on that stuff.

Nice work

@@Thickcurves I am guessing "was" was not "yesterday." I don't know "airframe," I study aeronautical engineering. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news and reality, airframe that has to jump all over KZfaq with his 1950's technology.

Bernoulli's theorem doesn't even apply in this circumstance. Most explanations of aircraft lift use it and they are all nonsense. You can easily tell the whole thing is completely misunderstood by how the illustration shows the air before and after wing flowing the same direction. For lift to happen, air must change direction. It's just conservation of momentum.

@@ZrJiri Hello what? Start your own comment thread? Or do you enjoy disproving a negative at my expense.

also Arrakis could have much lower gravity

​@@andreww2098 if it was much lower it would be noticeable to the viewer

Dune is set super far into the future and I trust that by then, after settling the galaxy and existing for so goddamn long we would have developed stuff to make a onrothropter work.

Every aircraft is just a big fan.

​@@Systox25Gliders aren't

@@iRossco 🤔 They don’t have an active energy source but potential energy. Gravity and updrafts/wind. But the principe of flying is the same. Pushing air down

Reads like the air on top pushes under the wing to make lift. Also therefore the AOA can just be increased to produce more lift.

No, what produces lift isn't the air being pushed down, it's the pressure differential created by the shape of the flow around the profile

Yeah, the comments are filled with people who don't know shit about aerodynamics and are explaining confidently that they know better. That's quite unsettling 😅

@@nicolasd2953I mean the theory she used to explain lift is labeled as incorrect by many including NASA

@@srthebox4946no pressure differential creating lift is correct(although it’s not solely responsible). What is incorrect is something known as equal transit theory. The idea that air travels faster over the top of the wing to meet up with the air that moved slower under the wing. Now air does move faster over the top but it’s not because it needs to catch up to another particle

@@ModernGameArmy yes you are correct, but the way she explains it in the video sounds like shes talking about the equal transit theory which would be wrong, but besides that, the redirection of airflow is still the main component of lift and she didnt mention it at all

@@srthebox4946 I’ve done a significant amount of research as to which is responsible for more but the most I could find was that it’s dependent on the airfoil. Do you have any data of the topic showing newton is more responsible?

Then what's the point of the wings then?

Some other commenters (probably book readers or at least watched the movies) mentioned the anti-gravity device - the same one Baron Harkonnen used. Probably have those installed too?

Its boosters for forward thrust

@@06.arkan2a2 probably for steering. Also it looked like the jets aren't the main source of trust. Towards the end of the first movie, the wings on the one that Paul is on break, but he still uses what little power the jets have to gain as much distance as possible

What's your source on that?

Dude it's everywhere. It's pretty well known common knowledge. Go look it up on Wikipedia if you need to. It's so old it's even in the paper encyclopedias. But I can personally vouch that he's correct. I can also tell you that the wings wouldn't have to be the size of football fields. 😂 That's the same silly logic that says a bee wing can't lift a bee. Flapping insect wings like the dragonfly don't use laminar air flow. They generate vortices over the leading edge and the pressure differential from that is what causes the lift. Oh, there is one mistake though. That pressure differential? That pressure differential does result in a momentum exchange with the air where the air travels downwards. This is a fact with all forms of lift. The aircraft is exchanging momentum with the air, thus the air gets pushed down while the aircraft gets pushed up.

Yes and no. All heavier-than-air flying objects (bugs, birds, bats, helicopters, and planes, but not blimps) fly by deflecting air downward. Birds, bats, helicopters, and planes do so by using airfoils, so they fundamentally fly the same way. Butterflies, in contrast, just yeet themselves off the air molecules.

@@Unmannedair You vouch that he is correct but you then contradict his main argument lol

​@@madisonlink7141 butterflies just YEET around I see 😂😂😂

Dragonflies are incredible!!! But yeah the point still stands that that kind of locomotion only works on a small scale.

@@plasmophage Yep! The amount of lift generated depends on the relative surface area between the wing in horizontal and vertical position. You need wings that are big and skinny enough to generate sufficient lift without breaking and we don't have materials that can do that at larger scales. In the far future, we could assume that the materials are available but even then, it's ultimately just not an efficient way to fly. Mechanical vehicles have one huge advantage over life: bearings! Spinning a propeller will always be better than flapping a wing... but that's not as fun as space dragonflies!

@@dacjames We have all the tech and materials, we know how to make it, the price tag is in scientific notation though

@@plasmophage dragonflies were like 8ft in the past tho

@@dacjames Exactly! Thanks for expanding on this. Yeah I totally agree with both your points - A) propellers will always be more efficient and B) its sufficiently cool enough that I can suspend disbelief for my scifi.

That is how all drawings look like if they try to explain it but the angle of attack is way higher than you think not 0°. Every aircraft needs to push air down with the force of the weight of the aircraft. Flying upside down is the best proof that the shape is just an efficiency thing.

No wind does move faster on the top creating a pressure differential. I think you’re confusing this with equal transit theory which is indeed false

They're clearly flapping like wings rather than spinning

​@@ObsessiveGeekOrnithopters also have jets and probably have anti gravity technology too

The wings seem to be for straight speed and whatever anti gravity device they have is for at least partial lift (in the movies it seems the wings are at the very least responsible for getting the thopter off the ground)

Of course, they commit heresy of course the earth rejects them!!

Unnatural flight!!

im a private pilot and she isn't exactly wrong, we describe the surface of propellers as wings because they have similar properties when it comes to how air flows over it surfaces when creating lifting

Helicopters and similar aircraft are categorized as "rotary wing" so she's not wrong. She is incorrect on the specific lifting properties of helicopter blades though.

Fundamentally speaking, they are. Rotary-winged aircraft is another term for helicopters.

Anything that is an aerofoil is also technically a wing

What do you have against rotary winged aircraft?

Materials doesn't change how much air you need to move

But they are still physically impossible, as shown. Herbert put Ornithopters in the book as they don't need rotating parts, and hence are easier to protect from sand, but I feel it's more likely that future society has solved the sand problem. :-) Or just invented a way to move air that has no moving parts.

You don't get it. It will forever remain unpractical. IN ESSENCE, birds aren't helicopters only because biological life can't do limbs that spin >360°. If birds could do that, wings would be dumb.

@@Scarletraven87 we will see about 8000 years in future😂

​@@crystalclear7799Eh 8000 years? Pretty sure we will have better things than this in next century

Dune is a VERY far future universe, what we have works fine so it isent likely to change any time soon

@@wombatuser ANYTHING that doesn't make extensive use of AI is fantasy sci-fi. And no: the threat of an uprising is not a valid excuse for AI to not emerge a second time: it would be like renouncing to electricity because an entire town died of electrocution.

This lady Blows i agree, Actually, the wing speed act as drones, having 4 equilibrium points, and the ornithpers also incline to gain speed. a = (W - D) / m . The drag force depends on the square of the velocity. So as the body accelerates its velocity (and the drag) will increase. It will reach a point where the drag is exactly equal to the weight. This prototype would work at 200 cycles in earth conditions. It is just that it will take more energy than a regular plane..

Exactly ! some phycisist will corroborate @@hefferan