Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: aircraft parts villagers had?  (Read 59346 times)

JNev

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 778
  • It's a GOOD thing to be in the cornfield...
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #15 on: December 27, 2011, 10:46:37 AM »

As I think of what I've been able to observe of the sea and elements in my lifetime, I would not be surprised if an identifiable piece of NR16020 were sitting right on the beach at Niku on the next visit.  I also would be disappointed - but not surprised - if we never found a trace, even if what we believe of the theory really did put the airplane there.  John Joseph Barrett's experience reinforces my own thoughts.

The sea is almost capricious in its nature - it possesses great hydraulic forces that can be stirred by storms, and it can be as calm as a mill pond at other times.  When its mass moves objects against other objects - like man-made against natural reefs, etc. - it can crush and shred in remarkable ways - steel plate may be mangled and aluminum spared, or vice versa - depending on the freak force of the moment and anvil at-hand.

And sometimes objects long lost to the deep emerge on a beach; other times, something long lodged at high-water suddenly is gone after a storm.  Anything between these extremes is certainly possible for any and all of the stuff that once was NR16020, if it was ever caught in that surf.  Personally I remain enchanted by the "found objects"(see 'Tracks September 1996' link on this page by that name, and "What's a dado anyway?" in 'Tracks September 1995'), among others.  Some of these may yet prove linked to NR16020.  The plexiglass (artifact 2-3-V-2) discussed in "found objects" really got my attention as a potential L10E artifact.

We can probably reconstruct with some degree of confidence how the break-up may have occurred over time, given some knowledge of rising elements and the nature of the airplane's construction.  But I'd hate to be held to account too closely on the accuracy of any prediction of those things - so many variables, and many of those variables so very local along that shore.

We can observe when certain things seemed to happen - and when they stopped - like radio messages.  We can also realize that the nature of the forces present would have leaned more toward destructive, and that gravity and a natural ramp of sorts (reef face) can be seen as players.  We can also see plenty of potential arresting features - like gouges in the reef.  So, we can get an idea.  Things may be snagged on the way down... or back up.

It does make for a fascinating study of reconstruction of what may have gone at that place.
- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2011, 11:06:24 AM »

Hi Jeff. Great post. I really think the plexiglas is a smoking gun candidate. More research requires the funding. So too would parking an old aircraft on the reef flat. Like an old Electra for example.  Money and government cooperation would allow a true test of this part of the hypothesis. Put the plane there during a similar period of high and low tides and observe.  For the preservationists out there I think there would need to be a method of cleaning up after the experiment. But this would all cost more than a good ROV search.

Yes it makes a fascinating study. But the answer may only be months away with the next expedition.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2904
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2011, 06:28:33 PM »

Put the plane there during a similar period of high and low tides and observe.

It sounds all scientific to "run an experiment."  But scientists control variables to make sure that their experiments produce repeatable results.

1) How precisely do you know what the high and low tides were in July, 1930?

2) How will you predict a recurrence of exactly those conditions in advance so that your sacrificial airplane goes on the reef at the right time?

3) How long can you spend waiting for the right "weather window?"

4) How much money do you have to bankroll the experiment?

5) Who will sell you an Electra 10-E Special, rebuilt exactly like NR16020, for your destructive testing?

6) What landing craft will you use to install the airplane on the reef?

7) Where will you place it on the reef?  Small differences in initial conditions can make a big difference in the outcome.

Cost: high.

Benefit: low.

Recommendation: don't bother.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2011, 09:32:49 PM »

As I said Marty, this would cost more than a good ROV search. So you're right. Why bother?  I don't believe that even if you had the cash to do a proper experiment that it could be done as you correctly point out the reproduction factors would be darn near impossible. But it's nice to just think these things out.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2011, 11:05:18 PM »


We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the nost well known one is Einsteins "Twin Paradox"
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #20 on: December 28, 2011, 01:23:49 AM »

As I think of what I've been able to observe of the sea and elements in my lifetime, I would not be surprised if an identifiable piece of NR16020 were sitting right on the beach at Niku on the next visit.  I also would be disappointed - but not surprised - if we never found a trace, even if what we believe of the theory really did put the airplane there.  John Joseph Barrett's experience reinforces my own thoughts.

The sea is almost capricious in its nature - it possesses great hydraulic forces that can be stirred by storms, and it can be as calm as a mill pond at other times.  When its mass moves objects against other objects - like man-made against natural reefs, etc. - it can crush and shred in remarkable ways - steel plate may be mangled and aluminum spared, or vice versa - depending on the freak force of the moment and anvil at-hand.

And sometimes objects long lost to the deep emerge on a beach; other times, something long lodged at high-water suddenly is gone after a storm.  Anything between these extremes is certainly possible for any and all of the stuff that once was NR16020, if it was ever caught in that surf.  Personally I remain enchanted by the "found objects"(see 'Tracks September 1996' link on this page by that name, and "What's a dado anyway?" in 'Tracks September 1995'), among others.  Some of these may yet prove linked to NR16020.  The plexiglass (artifact 2-3-V-2) discussed in "found objects" really got my attention as a potential L10E artifact.

We can probably reconstruct with some degree of confidence how the break-up may have occurred over time, given some knowledge of rising elements and the nature of the airplane's construction.  But I'd hate to be held to account too closely on the accuracy of any prediction of those things - so many variables, and many of those variables so very local along that shore.

We can observe when certain things seemed to happen - and when they stopped - like radio messages.  We can also realize that the nature of the forces present would have leaned more toward destructive, and that gravity and a natural ramp of sorts (reef face) can be seen as players.  We can also see plenty of potential arresting features - like gouges in the reef.  So, we can get an idea.  Things may be snagged on the way down... or back up.

It does make for a fascinating study of reconstruction of what may have gone at that place.
I made the following suggestion to Ric back in October, he hasn't gotten back to me on this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment. If they get tossed back on top of the reef then it supports your explanation for the bits found on the island. If they disappear down all the way to very deep water then it also supports your theory since it explains why you haven't been able to find pieces in the shallow water on the side of the reef. I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong. It shouldn't cost very much for the pieces of aluminum so an inexpensive experiment that might help with your theory.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl
Logged

Irvine John Donald

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #21 on: December 28, 2011, 08:19:29 AM »


We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the nost well known one is Einsteins "Twin Paradox"

Thanks Harry.  There seems to be a lot of those experiments on this site. LOL.
Respectfully Submitted;

Irv
 
Logged

Chris Johnson

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1069
  • Trying to give a fig but would settle for $100,000
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #22 on: December 28, 2011, 08:32:57 AM »

I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2904
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #23 on: December 28, 2011, 10:22:39 AM »

We physicists call them  Thought Experiments, the most well known one is Einstein's "Twin Paradox"

Thought experiments, by definition, can be conducted by anybody in the laboratory of their own mind.

They draw out implications of what is known by forcing a reorganization of what is accepted as true.

Einstein published four papers in the Miracle Year of 1905 while working as a clerk in a patent office.  His thought experiments had definite results on the field of physics.  They were not just daydreams.  His thought experiments led to real observations and experiments that have confirmed his insights. 

Even if the proposal to place a Lockheed Electra 10-E Special duplicate on the reef in duplicate weather conditions is a "thought experiment," it isn't in the same ballpark as Einstein's re-thinking of physics.  I ran the experiment in my mind (the only laboratory available for "thought experiments," of course) and concluded that it leads to a dead end.

NASCAR teams claim that there is no such thing as identical chassis, even though all have been produced by the same blueprints by the same workers using the same materials, jigs, blueprints, and templates.  Even if someone invested the millions of dollars necessary to build a duplicate of the Electra using period materials and techniques, we could not be sure that that airframe would have the same elastic characteristics of the original airframe, which had been stressed both by flight and by the crash at Luke field, followed by repairs for which we have no adequate account.  Which pieces of the plane were from the original?  Which from the repairs?  What additional material was used to strengthen stressed parts (if any)?  How many rivets were stressed by the crash but not replaced?  What G-forces acted on the main structural members in the crash?  How much did those forces affect the strength of the materials?

Sometimes small differences make no difference; other times, little things add up and make a big difference. 

Real physicists routinely receive bucketloads of thought experiments from cranks.  It is something they laugh about among themselves over drinks late at night, if they pay any attention to the new Einsteins at all.  The cranks, meanwhile, detail their rough treatment at the hands of professionals and console themselves with the thought that the professional physicists of 1905 also rejected Einstein's theories when they first heard them.

I completed the first full-length biography of a physical chemist whose theory of adsorption of gases was rejected by Einstein but rehabilitated by London.  Polanyi's key insight into adsorption came from mulling over data collected by others.  It was, on a small scale, something like Einstein's meditation on the physics of his day.  Polanyi's third-power law for adsorptive forces could not be explained until until quantum theory developed, which was a few years after Einstein had rejected it on the non-quantum view of electron mobility that prevailed in the early 1920s.

I don't foresee any change in materials science or engineering or weather prediction that would allow this thought about an experiment to bear fruit.  YMMV.
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Martin X. Moleski, SJ

  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2904
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #24 on: December 28, 2011, 10:28:14 AM »

I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment.  ...

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

Salting an archeological site with fresh aluminum debris does not sound like "a good experiment" to me.

You are assuming, without proof, that the pieces would stay together so that the "not from Amelia Earhart's plane" tags would stay intact.

Howard Alldred, may he rest in peace, was an oceanographer who knew something about wave action.  He theorized that most of the aluminum would be turned into grains as small as grains of sand. 

I think it is best not to add anything to the debris field on or near Niku, if it exists. 
LTM,

           Marty
           TIGHAR #2359A
 
Logged

Shaw Durman

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2011, 10:30:19 AM »

A further thought on NR16020 parts, have the pools/holes in the 'boat channel' between the reef flat and beach been thoroughly searched?
Just woundering if a piece or pieces of 16020 are lying in the bottom of these 4-6 foot deep pools, maybe under a few inches of sand or sediment.
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2011, 10:35:43 AM »

I'll predict that they don 't slide very far down the side of the reef before getting caught in pretty shallow water where they will stay forever, but I could be wrong.

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

gl

Gary, what makes you think that the peices would get caught up in shallow water? If this was the case then the action of waves, tides and storms would be more likely to move the peices out of the shallow areas and onto the reef flat as when the waves hit the shallow areas the energy within tem is released.
I've done a lot of diving on reefs and they have an infinite number of nooks, crannies, protuberances, and coral heads to catch stuff. The TIGHAR theory also relies on this to get the aircraft pieces to the natives. If the plane went over the edge and did not get caught in shallow water then it would have sunk to such a depth that none of the pieces would ever have come back up because wave action does not extend very far below the surface and gets attenuated very rapidly. So it TIGHAR is correct I would expect some pieces to still be found at a fairly shallow depth that has already been searched by the ROV with nothing found.

gl
Logged

Shaw Durman

  • T1
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2011, 10:37:22 AM »

could a magnatometre be tuned to ignore steel (what the Norwich City was made of) and only pick up aircraft aluminium?
Logged

Gary LaPook

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 1624
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2011, 10:54:09 AM »

I have a suggestion for you for an experiment to test your theory on your next trip to Niku.  Bring a bunch of pieces of aircraft aluminum, say four feet by four feet. Inscribe each piece "NOT FROM EARHART PLANE." On the first day go to many places along the edge of the reef and chuck them over the edge. Record the locations from your GPS.  Then on the last day see where those pieces ended up. Did they slide all the way down to the abyssal plain? Did they get caught in shallower water by protuberances on the side of the reef? Did they end up on the various shelves on the side of the reef that you showed in your recent movie? Were they cast back up on top of the reef?

Then on the following trip look for them again, see if they have moved from their original resting places.

It's a good experiment.  ...

https://tighar.org/smf/index.php/topic,481.msg6151.html#msg6151

Salting an archeological site with fresh aluminum debris does not sound like "a good experiment" to me.

You are assuming, without proof, that the pieces would stay together so that the "not from Amelia Earhart's plane" tags would stay intact.

Howard Alldred, may he rest in peace, was an oceanographer who knew something about wave action.  He theorized that most of the aluminum would be turned into grains as small as grains of sand. 

I think it is best not to add anything to the debris field on or near Niku, if it exists.
There have been lots of WW2 aircraft discovered in very good condition in both shallower and deeper water than what we are talking about. If you are worried about polluting the area with metal that could be confused with Earhart's plane aluminum then use an alloy with the same specific gravity and other characteristics as her alloy but that has a metallurgy that is easy to distinguish from her alloy.

For identification spell it out with a bunch of small holes through the plates that would last until the plates are completely destroyed.
gl
Logged

Harry Howe, Jr.

  • T5
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Nuclear Physicist(Ret) Pilot(Ret) Scuba(Ret)
Re: aircraft parts villagers had?
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2011, 11:56:23 AM »


Marty
I don't recall saying anything that would warrant equating a "thought experiment" with a DayDream.  Perhaps I should have said "a thoughtful Thought Experiment".  That might have dampened your need to pontificate.

At one time it was thought that the proton and the neutron were "elementary" particles, .i.e they were indivisible.  Now the standard model defines the proton as a combination of two "Up" Quarks and a "Down"  Quark (the Up Quark carries a charge of positive 2/3 of the charge of an electron, and the Down Quark carries a charge of negative 1/3 of the charge of an electron), thus two Ups and one Down, the proton, has a charge of positive 1 electron charge.  The neutron is a combination of two Down Quarks and one Up Quark and has zero charge.

The existence of the 6 Quarks (Top, Bottom, Up, Down, and Charmed, Strange) were first Theoretical, i.e. a Thought, and then Experimental,i.e. a Discovery.  Who knows, maybe even a DayDream or two might have been involved. 
No Worries Mates
LTM   Harry (TIGHAR #3244R)
 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 

Copyright 2018 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.

Contact us at: info@tighar.org • Phone: 610-467-1937 • Membership formwebmaster@tighar.org

Powered by MySQL SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Powered by PHP