A dumb doubt on stalls

Skywise wrote:

Bob Moore wrote in
. 122:


Dylan Smith wrote

Snipola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stall

This Wikipedia article leaves a lot to be desired.

Snipola

The beauty of Wikipedia is that YOU can change it.

Brian

Which is why it leaves a lot to be desired.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:Sf_lg.9891$lb.874408
@news1.epix.net:

Skywise wrote:

Bob Moore wrote in
. 122:


Dylan Smith wrote

Snipola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stall

This Wikipedia article leaves a lot to be desired.

Snipola

The beauty of Wikipedia is that YOU can change it.

Brian

Which is why it leaves a lot to be desired.

Matt

I have heard more than once that a collection of average
people is smarter than a few experts. If no one corrects
the data then it will continue to be wrong. I've been
seriously thinking of getting an account so I can make
changes as I see the need. Mostly minuscule stuff, but
every bit would help. The only concern I have is time.

I find it fascinating, the human capacity to bitch about
something, yet not have the willingness to actually DO
soemthing to fix the problem. I'll admit up front I've
done that myself, and it's something I should change.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
The beauty of Wikipedia is that YOU can change it.


Which is why it leaves a lot to be desired.

I have heard more than once that a collection of average
people is smarter than a few experts.

Nice saying, but I'm not willing to believe it. I've seen plenty of
evidence that a handful of experts can have very good, detailed, accurate
information even as the general population fails to have even a marginal
understanding of the same issue. This happens even in run-of-the-mill
educational situations, but is even worse when dealing with an issue that
has a political side, and thus numerous people who wish the science wasn't
correct making false statements about the science. It is *much* easier to
fool a collection of average people than a few experts.

There are probably situations in which the collective arrives at better
conclusions than a few experts, but I would be surprised if that's the usual
outcome.

That said, most articles in Wikipedia are not authored by a collection of
average people. The information within is generally being provided by a
small number of experts in each narrow field to which the article applies.

Nature did a comparison between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, and
the two came about basically the same. Out of 50 randomly selected science
articles, each had only 4 serious errors, but both also had over a hundred
"minor" errors (with Wikipedia having slightly more than Britannica):
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/0512...l/438900a.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Britannica, of course, questions the validity of the comparison:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm

There is every reason to trust Wikipedia as a reasonable resource, at least
as reasonable as any other single repository of information. Beyond that,
anyone who trusts only a single source of information to answer a question
deserves whatever faulty information they get. No single source of
information, not even the Encyclopedia Britannica or similar
well-established reference, can be considered reliable enough to stake any
serious debate on it.

The real problem comes when a person blindly trusts any source of
information, as if they can just throw out their own responsibility to know
and understand the basis for that source of information and the
characteristics that affect its reliability.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in news:129hnvrn4upe5e8
@corp.supernews.com:

Snipola
The real problem comes when a person blindly trusts any source of
information, as if they can just throw out their own responsibility to know
and understand the basis for that source of information and the
characteristics that affect its reliability.

Absolutely. No one source is error free. I have found wikipedia to
be a good "reference" to remind me of something I already know but
jsut can't remember. When accuracy of details are important, I cross
reference multiple sources, both online and written.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Any treatise on aircraft stalls is going to be complicated if it gets
into detail. I just teach that the wind stops generating lift and
therefore the aircraft descends. Complicating it with (possible)
simultaneous tail stalls unecessarily confuses things. A stall is all
about angle of attack to the relative wind. When an airfoil reaches the
critical angle of attack to the relative wind, the airfoil stalls.

Now as to why the nose drops, that IS complicated. But the student
should know that a forward center of gravity is a good thing to have in
stall recovery. It is rear cg that invites the plane to be difficult to
recover from a stall.

Also, a stall is not necessarily followed by a nose drop. Take for
instance an aerobatic plane recovering from a steep dive with excessive
pull back on the stick. It stalls, but does not have a nose drop. The
plane just mushes down in a stall (or near stall). It is not nose high
to the horizon either.

Skywise wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in news:Sf_lg.9891$lb.874408
@news1.epix.net:


Skywise wrote:


Bob Moore wrote in
.5.122:



Dylan Smith wrote

Snipola

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_stall

This Wikipedia article leaves a lot to be desired.

Snipola

The beauty of Wikipedia is that YOU can change it.

Brian

Which is why it leaves a lot to be desired.

Matt


I have heard more than once that a collection of average
people is smarter than a few experts. If no one corrects
the data then it will continue to be wrong. I've been
seriously thinking of getting an account so I can make
changes as I see the need. Mostly minuscule stuff, but
every bit would help. The only concern I have is time.

If I was average, I'd say this also.

Matt

Skywise wrote:

I've been seriously thinking of getting an account [on Wikipedia] so I
can make changes as I see the need.

In about the same amount of time it took you to write that sentence, you
could have made your account. Just got to http://tinyurl.com/6fvtg, type
in a user name and a password, and you're done.

Wikipedia and usenet are similar in many ways. On both, there are experts
and idiots and everything in between. The difference is that on Wikipedia,
articles have a decent chance of evolving towards containing better and
more correct information. On usenet, the same crap just gets recycled.

Roy Smith wrote in news:roy-650C74.07172621062006
@reader2.panix.com:

Skywise wrote:

I've been seriously thinking of getting an account [on Wikipedia] so I
can make changes as I see the need.

In about the same amount of time it took you to write that sentence, you
could have made your account. Just got to http://tinyurl.com/6fvtg, type
in a user name and a password, and you're done.

Making the account may not take much time, but editing articles
does take time and that time adds up, over time. As it is, I'm
having difficulty keeping up with what I do now. To put it
another way, my plate is full, and I'm concerned about piling
on another helping of potatoes.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Roy Smith wrote:

Skywise wrote:


I've been seriously thinking of getting an account [on Wikipedia] so I
can make changes as I see the need.


In about the same amount of time it took you to write that sentence, you
could have made your account. Just got to http://tinyurl.com/6fvtg, type
in a user name and a password, and you're done.

Wikipedia and usenet are similar in many ways. On both, there are experts
and idiots and everything in between. The difference is that on Wikipedia,
articles have a decent chance of evolving towards containing better and
more correct information. On usenet, the same crap just gets recycled.

What causes it to evolve towards more accuracy? I haven't used it, but
I thought most anyone could add to or change the definitions contained
therein. Is this not how it works? Is there some sort of review and
approval process?


Matt