12 Jan 2006
Scientists at the California Institute of Technology have finally solved the riddle of how honey bees manage to fly.
French etymologist August Magnan wrote in the introduction of his book Le Vol Des Insects published in 1934 that it was aerodynamically impossible for a honey bee to fly.
Further reading
The incident passed into urban legend and is commonly used by creationists to point out the deficiencies of science in explaining the natural world.
The researchers used robotic simulators with sensors built in to mimic the movement of a bee's wings in flight.
They also filmed bees flying in a mix of helium and oxygen that is less dense than air in order to make the insects work harder and thus amplify their actions.
The team found that bees flap their wings much faster than similarly sized insects and use short, choppy wing strokes to generate the required power.
When loaded down with pollen, bees increase the arc of their wing strokes rather than speeding up the number of beats.
"Bees have evolved flight muscles that are physiologically very different from those of other insects," said Michael H. Dickinson, the Esther M. and Abe M. Zarem Professor of Bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology.
"One consequence is that the wings have to operate fast and at a constant frequency or the muscle does not generate enough power.
"This is one of those cases where you can make a mistake by looking at an animal and assuming that it is perfectly adapted. An alternative hypothesis is that bee ancestors inherited this kind of muscle and present-day bees must live with its peculiarities."
The team is now working on practical applications of the bee's wing stroke, which could have a significant impact on the way hovering aircraft are designed.
Latest stories from Software
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Hands on with the highly anticipated Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich hybrid tablet
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Project Manager (BI) 6 Months Contract – to...
Desktop Support Manager 3 month contract - to start...
/ Programme Manager / 45k / Significant benefits / London...
Automation Test Manager Selenium London 75k Automation...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
Creation + Evolution
I would argue that there is a third option, a combination of both, depending in what you beleive to be God. If God created life on Earth, (the seed so to speak)evolution of the seed, warmed by the glowing sun carries on the creation, just as we and all life start from seed. The initial creation is in the genetic material. Just as we evolve into adults. So does Gods seed evolve into whatever niche it can find in the world. So providing for all animalistic need, from worm to Elephant.
Posted by: Crombie 29 Mar 2007
Theory of Evolution is not "poor science"
This is in response to the "poor science" reply. The theory of evolution is not "poor science". Its effects have been studied over and over and over again and the results have led us to our current theory. The link to your response presents a biased view of current science as we try to understand the world. Scientists (educated scholars) have adopted this theory because they believe it to be the best. If they found the theories shown in the link to be the best, I would think they would have thrown the theory of evolution out the door and adopted those instead. So when you claim the reference to an evolutionary adaption to be "poor science", realize that most educated people accept it. (And education is a GOOD thing!)
Posted by: Greg 04 Nov 2006
May God protect us from poor science
How disappointing to read "Bees have evolved flight muscles that are physiologically very different..." and "you can make a mistake by looking at an animal and assuming that it is perfectly adapted." Who says that they are "evolved" and not "perfectly adapted". Given that we barely know how the creatures fly it seems rather presumptuous to declare that they are evolved and badly so. For a more stimulating investigation of bee sight and flight read http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bees.asp
Posted by: Jeffrey Ross 18 Jan 2006
I thought it was figured out long ago
I remember reading somewhere,god only knows where, that this problem had been figured out years ago. August Magnan forgot to include the so-called Reynolds number in his calculations. This is a dimesionless number, whose formula includes the viscosity of air. Turns out when you're the size of a honeybee, you're essentially flying through syrup, which makes it much easier to stay up.
Posted by: Porfirio Czardasz 12 Jan 2006