I Can a microscopic insect fly by flapping rigid wings?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dishsoap
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Insect Wings
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of microscopic insects, specifically those around 10 microns in size, flying by flapping rigid wings. It highlights the challenges posed by low Reynolds numbers and Purcell's scallop theorem, which suggests that non-reciprocal motion is necessary for forward movement. The conversation also questions whether this theorem applies to vertical lift, implying that microscale flying robots might need to adopt helicopter-like mechanics. Additionally, the mention of a recent Nature paper indicates that flapping in the XY plane may contribute to successful untethered flight. Overall, the complexities of aerodynamics at such small scales raise significant questions about the design and functionality of tiny flying robots.
Dishsoap
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
308
TL;DR Summary
Are insects at low Reynolds number capable of flying by flapping rigid wings?
While in quarantine, I've been reading a lot about some millimeter-scale flying robots, like DARPA's Nano Hummingbird and others. I'm noticing that a lot of millimeter-scale flying robots flap their wings like a fly, and I'm wondering if it's even possible to use this motion to move if the fly were much smaller (say, 10 microns in size) with rigid wings. In that case, the Reynolds number is much lower, and Purcell's scallop theorem dictates that non-reciprocal motion must be used to have a net motion forward (up, in this case).

That being said, I know virtually nothing about aerodynamics/flight, so I'm curious if there's a reason why the scallop theorem wouldn't apply to upwards motion (lift). Or, if it does, does this mean that flying microscale robots would have to essentially be a helicopter? I notice that this recent Nature paper on untethered flight has the wings flapping in the XY plane (where Z is up), I wonder if this is the reason.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dishsoap said:
I'm wondering if it's even possible to use this motion to move if the fly were much smaller (say, 10 microns in size) with rigid wings. In that case, the Reynolds number is much lower, and Purcell's scallop theorem dictates that non-reciprocal motion must be used to have a net motion forward (up, in this case).
Rigid wings don't imply reciprocal motion. It depends on how many degrees of freedom they have.
 
I had to look up the smallest flying insect, Kikiki, 0.15 mm, fuzzy wings.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top