Backwash Causes Lift?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The point is that any theory that says an aircraft flys by forcing
> air downward fails to explain how gyrocopters and gyroplanes fly.

No, it doesn't. The rotor of the gyrocopter is essentially a large airfoil
(in addition to being a set of small rotating airfoils).

> Airplanes, helicopters, gyrocopters, and gyroplanes all fly in
> level flight due to the lift produced by the wings and/or rotor blades.

And that lift is produced by accelerating a mass of air downwards. There
isn't any other way to fly (except via direct thrust from an engine pointing
downwards, as in a rocket).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> When in straight and level flight, the air flow through the rotor blades
> of a gyrocopter is upward.

But the net movement of air is downward for the entire aircraft, which is why
it flies. The rotor acts as a large airfoil.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 7, 10:07 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
> > If that is the case, what is pushing the air?
>
> You may be able to get past this by considering that the airfoil actually
> turns the flow, rather than push or pull it. It turns the flow downwards, and
> this acceleration of the air mass engenders an upward force that is lift.

The airfoil turns the flow downward....

What air gets turn downward....the air on top of the wing or the air
on the bottom of wing?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > When in straight and level flight, the air flow through the rotor blades
> > of a gyrocopter is upward.

> But the net movement of air is downward for the entire aircraft, which is why
> it flies. The rotor acts as a large airfoil.

The disk defined by the rotor blades of a gyrocopter or gyroplane is
tilted slighty back.

The air always enters from the bottom of that disk and exits from the
top.

If it doesn't, the aircraft stops flying.

There is nothing after leaving the rotor disk to change the direction
of air flow.

The airplane, helicopter, gyrocopter, and gyroplane all fly straight
and level for the same reason and it isn't air being deflected
downward.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 7, 11:02 pm, flightoffancy > wrote:
> Did you mess with NASA's online simulations of airfoils?

Yes, 15 minutes ago, in fact after taking a break from my very tedious
work.

> Those suggest that the air both "on top" and "on the bottom" of an
> airfoil get turned as the airfoil's AoA changes. Those have to be put in
> quotes since an aircraft (with the proper engine) can be flown upside
> down and in other orientations.

I did notice the turning. The article is claiming that the upper
surface of the wing "turns" the upper flow.

Link: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html

I must admit that I am having problems with this explanation. It is
extremely vague? What is the turning? How, exactly, does the wing
"turn" the flow. The air is made up of molecules. If it is upper
surface of the wing that is turning does air molecules so that they
have a velocity component that is downward, how is this happening?
Since when, could one body, A, of any kind, that does not involve
gravitational or electrostatic fields, induce another body B, to move
in a direction that has a component vector that is aimed directly at
B?

> Also NASA does not just explain why the longer length theory, the
> Newtonian theory, and Bernoulli theories are incorrect, they also
> elaborate what the correct equations to properly calculate observed lift
> are, though I didn't see an example calculation. So they do say what is
> correct, as well as what is not.- Hide quoted text -

True.

This "turning" theory of NASA makes me suspicious. If anyone else has
any qualtitative explanation of what they mean by the upper surface of
the wing foil turning the air so that it has a downward component in
its velocity, I would like to see it.

Finally, I do agree that the geometry, AoA, etc...interacts with the
atmospher in such a way that the net result of the flow on the top
surface of the wing is back and downward. What I don't see is the how
the wing itself is "turning" that flow.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> The airfoil turns the flow downward....
>
> What air gets turn downward....the air on top of the wing or the air
> on the bottom of wing?

Both, but mostly air from above the wing (a great deal of air, in fact).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> There is nothing after leaving the rotor disk to change the direction
> of air flow.
>
> The airplane, helicopter, gyrocopter, and gyroplane all fly straight
> and level for the same reason and it isn't air being deflected
> downward.

No heavier-than-air aircraft flies without deflecting air downward, unless it
is supported directly by the thrust from its engines.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 7, 11:58 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:02 pm, flightoffancy > wrote:
> I did notice the turning. The article is claiming that the upper
> surface of the wing "turns" the upper flow.
>
> Link:http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html
>
> I must admit that I am having problems with this explanation. It is
> extremely vague? What is the turning? How, exactly, does the wing
> "turn" the flow. The air is made up of molecules. If it is upper
> surface of the wing that is turning does air molecules so that they
> have a velocity component that is downward, how is this happening?
> Since when, could one body, A, of any kind, that does not involve
> gravitational or electrostatic fields, induce another body B, to move
> in a direction that has a component vector that is aimed directly at
> B?

I just re-read the link above very carefully, and unless I am
mistaken, there is a *huge* amount of hand-waving going on here too.
Sigh.

"Turning" a flow? What would Newton say. It's magic.

Yes, we all know that F=ma, and "a" is the time derivative of
velocity, a = dv/dt, and that v has a magnitude and a direction, and
that if you change either magnitude or direction, you have a
force...that's all fine...

They do not specify how the wing turns the air. They show a picture
of air flowing backward on top of a sligtly-angled wing. Then they
write:

"For a body immersed in a moving fluid, the fluid remains in contact
with the surface of the body. If the body is shaped, moved, or
inclined in such a way as to produce a net deflection or turning of
the flow, the local velocity is changed in magnitude, direction, or
both. Changing the velocity creates a net force on the body. It is
very important to note that the turning of the fluid occurs because
the molecules of the fluid stay in contact with the solid body since
the molecules are free to move."

"the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????

Why?

What incentive do the molecules have to stay in contact with the solid
body? Is there a sign on top of the wing that reads:

**** NOTE: ALL MOLECULES, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO STAY AS CLOSE TO
ME AS POSSIBLE. ****

Are there little molecule-sized pina coladas on top of the wing
waiting for the molecules to drink?

Even if there is a thin layer of air remaining in contact with the
wing for mysterious, magical reasons, what about the layers above it?
What incentive do those layers have "try and stay in contact with the
wing"?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> When in straight and level flight, the air flow through the rotor
>> blades of a gyrocopter is upward.
>
> But the net movement of air is downward for the entire aircraft, which
> is why it flies.


Nope.


Wrong again, dip****.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> There is nothing after leaving the rotor disk to change the direction
>> of air flow.
>>
>> The airplane, helicopter, gyrocopter, and gyroplane all fly straight
>> and level for the same reason and it isn't air being deflected
>> downward.
>
> No heavier-than-air aircraft flies without deflecting air downward,


Yes, they can, and do.

Dynamic lift is usually at play but is by no means required.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

flightoffancy > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> The downwash thing is wrong. Yes, there is some dispacemtn of air that
>> causes lift, but it' only a minor contribution in the bigger scheme of
>> things.
>>
>>
>
> I admit to being a relative retard on this issue (not as retarded as a
> non-pilot probably is, but not as educated as an aeronautical engineer).
>
> I thought I had read in numerous books during training that the primary
> component of lift is the air that gets knocked downward by the wing. I
> was calling that "downwash". Maybe my concept of downwash is wrong,
> maybe it's a separate consideration from the air that gets knocked
> downward by the airfoil. Hell I might not be remembering any of that
> correctly.
>
> Anyway you say downwash is minor.
>
> Well okay. But then what are the major contributions that cause lift in
> the bigger scheme of things?
>

Bernoulli, Period, Full stop, end of story, finito, spaghettio, Finis
sayonara, Good lucko,



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Actually, yes it is.
>
> Show me an aircraft that does this.
>

Does what?
Makes a period?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> If that is the case, what is pushing the air?
>
> You may be able to get past this by considering that the airfoil
> actually turns the flow, rather than push or pull it. It turns the
> flow downwards, and this acceleration of the air mass engenders an
> upward force that is lift.
>

Mmm, nope.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> The airfoil turns the flow downward....
>>
>> What air gets turn downward....the air on top of the wing or the air
>> on the bottom of wing?
>
> Both, but mostly air from above the wing (a great deal of air, in fact).
>

Nope


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>
> Why?

It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from each
other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should almost be
intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight piston and pull
back on the piston and double the size of the volume do you seriously think
the gas will not expand into the other half as fast as it can to try and
stay in contact with the piston?

If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then I see
no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with your
questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup anyway.

Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

flightoffancy > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> flightoffancy > wrote:
>>
>> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/lift1.html
>>
>> And if you click on "turning" you can see this explanation of the
>> term (and hopefully why "turning" was chosen):
>>
>> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html
>>
>> And this is what aerodynamicists call "downwash" :
>>
>> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
>>
>
> Thanks James!
>
> As LCL does I appreciate these links. If even NASA has it wrong, then
> I'd say the chance that anybody on this thread having it right is
> close to nil.


Nasa on't have it wrong, but that site is far from complete.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:lRdOi.234$2n4.16576
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> flightoffancy > wrote in
news:MPG.2172e043702d7a5d989681
>> @news-server.hot.rr.com:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>> "Nope, wrong" to which claims I made?
>>>
>>> I freely admit that my knowledge of aerodynamics is lacking. But I'm
>>> absolutely correct about Lapin's training (or utter lack thereof, in
>>> this case).
>>>
>>> It's completely absurd for someone who has not studied aeronautical
>>> engineering to stand up on a soap box and announce that the work of
>>> several generations of aeronautical engineers is WRONG -- and that
>> he's
>>> leading the charge to finding out what the facts of aerodynamics
>> really
>>> are.
>>>
>>> Lapin does this kind of thing on countless other news groups,
>> especially
>>> computer science groups. He denounces decades worth of work as
>>> inadequate or completely wrong, claims he has the right answer or
>> merely
>>> wishes to find the right answer, with the result that nearly
everyone
>> on
>>> the group calls him a crank. Anyone who is really an expert in the
>> area
>>> he's challenging quickly figures out his meager explorations of the
>>> subject are not worth spending any time participating in.
>>>
>>> Lapin believes that he is here to TEACH us.
>>>
>>> If you can find hundreds of threads started by LCL on Google groups.
>>> He's an incorrigible usenet troll.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The downwash thing is wrong. Yes, there is some dispacemtn of air
that
>> causes lift, but it' only a minor contribution in the bigger scheme
of
>> things.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And what about a hovering helicopter? What is holding it up?

Air?

Bertie
>
> Matt
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is going up.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is
> going up.
>
>
>

They're gliders. The same rules apply.


Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 7, 7:10 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:54 pm, flightoffancy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> > > The downwash thing is wrong. Yes, there is some dispacemtn of air that
> > > causes lift, but it' only a minor contribution in the bigger scheme of
> > > things.
>
> > I admit to being a relative retard on this issue (not as retarded as a
> > non-pilot probably is, but not as educated as an aeronautical engineer).
>
> > I thought I had read in numerous books during training that the primary
> > component of lift is the air that gets knocked downward by the wing. I
> > was calling that "downwash". Maybe my concept of downwash is wrong,
> > maybe it's a separate consideration from the air that gets knocked
> > downward by the airfoil. Hell I might not be remembering any of that
> > correctly.
>
> Just wanted to reiterate what I said in my OP and each subsequent post
> for you benefit since you just joined the discussion.
>
> If you have an aifoil, and you move it forward, there will be
> compression beneath the wing. Newton's law will be at play here, and
> there will be downwash. This downwash results from the induced
> pressure gradient.
>
> That is not what I was talking about. The books that I have been
> reading are talking about downwash that is _on top of_ the wing. The
> pictures show air moving at an angle, backward and downward near the
> trailing edge of the wing.
>
> Note that these are two "downwashes".
>
> I am saying that downwash on top of the wing does not generate a force
> on the wing that causes the wing to move upward.
>
> > Anyway you say downwash is minor.
>
> > Well okay. But then what are the major contributions that cause lift in
> > the bigger scheme of things?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If the airflow on top of the wing doesn't contribute to lift, then how
can we explain the phenomenon of the wing stalling? When the wing
stalls, it is the airflow over the top of the wing that detaches from
the curve of the wing and becomes turbulent. This causes a radical
loss of lift. To me, this indicates that the airflow over the top of
the wing plays an essential role in providing lift.

I know the Bernoulli effect has been invoked historically to (at least
partially) explain the lift produced by the top surface of a wing. I
think another way to look at it is the Coanda effect (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect ). The airflow tends
to follow the curve of the top of the wing, and is displaced
downward. As long as the air flow follows the curve faithfully, you
have good lift. When the airflow detaches in a stall, you lose most
of your lift. This top surface lift is combined with the downward
displacement of air by the bottom of the wing. The wing is
essentially throwing air downward using both the top and bottom
surfaces. This is why a curved wing is a better lift producer than a
simple flat wing. The top surface curve helps contribute to the lift.

Now, how does the wing feel the lift? It feels high pressure on its
bottom surface, and it feels low pressure on its upper surface. It is
pushed up from below, and sucked up from above. That is how the
airplane experiences the effects of the downward displacement of air.

Phil

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>
> Why?

Supposedly this is the Coanda effect at work, but there remains considerable
debate about this.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yes, they can, and do.

Which ones? How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating anything
downward?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote

> Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
> from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.

No, you need to stay away from discussions with MX, or Le chad, or
flightoffancy, who are all one and the same.

ANY discussion with them is an exercise in futility.

Just say no.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>>
>> Why?
>
> Supposedly this is the Coanda effect at work, but there remains
> considerable debate about this.
>


Only amongst k00ks.


bertie

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :

> > How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is
> > going up.
> >
> >
> >

> They're gliders. The same rules apply.


> Bertie

I agree the same rules apply, but they aren't gliders unless the
engine craps out.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Which ones? How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating
> anything downward?
>

Send me 1,000 bucks and I'll tell you. Otherwise go find out yourself
fruitcake.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is
>> > going up.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>> They're gliders. The same rules apply.
>
>
>> Bertie
>
> I agree the same rules apply, but they aren't gliders unless the
> engine craps out.
>

Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.

Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 8, 11:46 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
> > "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>
> > Why?
>
> Supposedly this is the Coanda effect at work, but there remains considerable
> debate about this.

There isn't any debate about what a wing stall is, and what causes
it. It has been well-explored in wind tunnel testing. The phenomenon
of wing stall is real-world evidence that the top surface of the wing
is a large contributor to lift. The Bernoulli effect and the
associated Coanda effect are well-understood scientific phenomena.
They explain how the curved top surface of the wing displaces air
downward. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation for
the fact that wing stall destroys lift, I think the only debate is by
people who are determined to ignore the scientific evidence.

Phil

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> > Yes, they can, and do.

> Which ones? How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating anything
> downward?

Acceleration is the second derivative of position.

If the vertical postion of an aircraft is constant, i.e. straight and
level flight, the first derivative of the vertical position is zero and
hence the second derivative is also zero.

Acceleration is the first derivative of velocity.

If the horizontal velocity of an aircraft is constant, i.e. straight and
level flight, the deriviative of the velocity is zero.

An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating
>> anything downward?
[ ... ]
> An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.

Cute - classic Usenet response. Simultaneously correct, but not really
addressing the original issue.

[[email protected]]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is
> >> > going up.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >> They're gliders. The same rules apply.
> >
> >
> >> Bertie
> >
> > I agree the same rules apply, but they aren't gliders unless the
> > engine craps out.
> >

> Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.

> Bertie

Of course.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating
> >> anything downward?
> [ ... ]
> > An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.

> Cute - classic Usenet response. Simultaneously correct, but not really
> addressing the original issue.

The point is that talking about aircraft acceleration in straight and
level flight when discussing lift is irrelevant as the aircraft is
not accelerating.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 1:37 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from each
> other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should almost be
> intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight piston and pull
> back on the piston and double the size of the volume do you seriously think
> the gas will not expand into the other half as fast as it can to try and
> stay in contact with the piston?

The gas will stay in contact with the piston. But the gas will not
stay in contact because of the piston head. It will stay in contact
because of the fixed cylinder wall and the molecules of the gas
itself.

To take your example further, let us suppose that you pop the top of
the cylinder so that the fixed head is no longer present. Let
pressure on inside equalize to pressure on outside. Now pull the
piston head again to increase the volume. The gas will follow the
piston head, but not because of the piston head. It will follow
because of the pressure of the molecules in the air bombarding each
other, causes some of the molecules to race toward the moving piston
head.

In other words, the piston head is not capable of exerting a force on
the air molecules that is in the direction that you just moved the
piston head. In order for it to be able to do that, there would have
to be an attractive force between the piston head and the molecules
that follow it. But there is no attractive force. The gas expands
because of intermolecular bombardment, and because of richochet from
the cylinder walls.

So one can say that, if you increased the volume in the chamber by
moving the piston head downward, the piston head does not exert a
downward force on any molecule that hits it.

> If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then I see
> no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with your
> questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup anyway.
>
> Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
> from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.

No trouble at all.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

flightoffancy wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Bernoulli, Period, Full stop, end of story, finito, spaghettio, Finis
>> sayonara, Good lucko,
>>
> NASA doesn't agree with you.
>
> Not knowing what your qualifications are I'll favor NASA's explanation
> of a combination of Newtonian / Bernoulli as described in part by
> Euler's equations, the idea being that the airfoil turns the airflow to
> generate lift. NASA's done a lot of experiments & measurements and have
> a long publication history dating back to the NACA days let alone an
> astonishing track record in flying high and low performance aircraft.
>
> I don't think there's any single person out there that can beat the
> combined knowledge of NASA's decades of experience.

NASA doesn't say or even imply that Bernoulli and Newton COMBINE to
create lift because they don't combine to create a total. Each is a
complete explanation and can stand alone one without the other, which
BTW is exactly what NASA says.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

flightoffancy > wrote in news:MPG.217387a97cce62d3989691
@news-server.hot.rr.com:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> Bernoulli, Period, Full stop, end of story, finito, spaghettio, Finis
>> sayonara, Good lucko,
>>
> NASA doesn't agree with you.
>

They do, actually.


> Not knowing what your qualifications are I'll favor NASA's explanation
> of a combination of Newtonian / Bernoulli as described in part by
> Euler's equations, the idea being that the airfoil turns the airflow to
> generate lift. NASA's done a lot of experiments & measurements and have
> a long publication history dating back to the NACA days let alone an
> astonishing track record in flying high and low performance aircraft.
>
> I don't think there's any single person out there that can beat the
> combined knowledge of NASA's decades of experience.
>



I don't think so either.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> flightoffancy wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Bernoulli, Period, Full stop, end of story, finito, spaghettio, Finis
>>> sayonara, Good lucko,
>>>
>> NASA doesn't agree with you.
>>
>> Not knowing what your qualifications are I'll favor NASA's explanation
>> of a combination of Newtonian / Bernoulli as described in part by
>> Euler's equations, the idea being that the airfoil turns the airflow to
>> generate lift. NASA's done a lot of experiments & measurements and have
>> a long publication history dating back to the NACA days let alone an
>> astonishing track record in flying high and low performance aircraft.
>>
>> I don't think there's any single person out there that can beat the
>> combined knowledge of NASA's decades of experience.
>
> NASA doesn't say or even imply that Bernoulli and Newton COMBINE to
> create lift because they don't combine to create a total. Each is a
> complete explanation and can stand alone one without the other, which
> BTW is exactly what NASA says.


Yep


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 8, 1:37 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>> It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from
>> each other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should
>> almost be intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight
>> piston and pull back on the piston and double the size of the volume
>> do you seriously think the gas will not expand into the other half as
>> fast as it can to try and stay in contact with the piston?
>
> The gas will stay in contact with the piston. But the gas will not
> stay in contact because of the piston head. It will stay in contact
> because of the fixed cylinder wall and the molecules of the gas
> itself.
>
> To take your example further, let us suppose that you pop the top of
> the cylinder so that the fixed head is no longer present. Let
> pressure on inside equalize to pressure on outside. Now pull the
> piston head again to increase the volume. The gas will follow the
> piston head, but not because of the piston head. It will follow
> because of the pressure of the molecules in the air bombarding each
> other, causes some of the molecules to race toward the moving piston
> head.
>
> In other words, the piston head is not capable of exerting a force on
> the air molecules that is in the direction that you just moved the
> piston head. In order for it to be able to do that, there would have
> to be an attractive force between the piston head and the molecules
> that follow it. But there is no attractive force. The gas expands
> because of intermolecular bombardment, and because of richochet from
> the cylinder walls.
>
> So one can say that, if you increased the volume in the chamber by
> moving the piston head downward, the piston head does not exert a
> downward force on any molecule that hits it.
>
>> If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then
>> I see no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with
>> your questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup
>> anyway.
>>
>> Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay
>> away from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility
>> avoidance.
>
> No trouble at all.
>

"My point is that you should strive to keep your instructions simple and
to the point. The people that come to an instructor for training are not
in the least bit interested in leaning th emathemaical equation that
keeps the airplane in an inverted turn. there only concern should be in
how to use the controls to get it there"


Bertie
>
>

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 11:38 am, Phil > wrote:

First, I would like to point out that your post is interesting because
it implies at first something which I disagree with, but then at the
very end of the post, what you say is exactly true.

Let me try to explain:

> If the airflow on top of the wing doesn't contribute to lift, then how
> can we explain the phenomenon of the wing stalling? When the wing
> stalls, it is the airflow over the top of the wing that detaches from
> the curve of the wing and becomes turbulent. This causes a radical
> loss of lift. To me, this indicates that the airflow over the top of
> the wing plays an essential role in providing lift.

What I am saying is that Newton's law is not at play with downwash,
not in the "uppper surface of wing pull down on molecules" sense. Yes,
there is downwash. Yes, the camber of the wing will influence the net
force exerted on the wing. Yes, there will be stalling, turbulence,
etc. all these things will happen.

The key here is that the air molecules that are above the wing cannot
be pulled down by the wing more can they pull up on the wing. Those
air molecules can only causes the lateral forces of friction (laminar
drag), and a perpendicular downward force on the wing which aircraft
designers obviously want to keep from happening.

> I know the Bernoulli effect has been invoked historically to (at least
> partially) explain the lift produced by the top surface of a wing. I
> think another way to look at it is the Coanda effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect). The airflow tends
> to follow the curve of the top of the wing, and is displaced
> downward. As long as the air flow follows the curve faithfully, you
> have good lift. When the airflow detaches in a stall, you lose most
> of your lift. This top surface lift is combined with the downward
> displacement of air by the bottom of the wing. The wing is
> essentially throwing air downward using both the top and bottom
> surfaces. This is why a curved wing is a better lift producer than a
> simple flat wing. The top surface curve helps contribute to the lift.

I agree that air is being thrown downward by the bottom surface. I do
not think a top surfaces throws air downward. Even this Coanda effect
says that contact, at least initially, is caused by a pressure
differential. From your link above:

"As a gas flows over an airfoil, the gas is drawn down to adhere to
the airfoil by a combination of the greater pressure above the gas
flow and the lower pressure below the flow caused by an evacuating
effect of the flow itself, which as a result of shear, entrains the
slow-moving fluid trapped between the flow and the down-stream end of
the upper surface of the airfoil. The effect of a spoon apparently
attracting a flow of water is caused by this effect as well, since the
flow of water entrains gases to flow down along the stream, and these
gases are then pulled, along with the flow of water, in towards the
spoon, as a result of the pressure differential. Supersonic flows have
a different response."

"greater pressure above the gas flow and the lower pressure below the
flow caused by an evacuating effect..."

This is what I keep saying. I have been using the words "rarefication
and rarefaction" and instead of "evacuating effect", but this is
essentially what I mean.

> Now, how does the wing feel the lift? It feels high pressure on its
> bottom surface, and it feels low pressure on its upper surface. It is
> pushed up from below, and sucked up from above. That is how the
> airplane experiences the effects of the downward displacement of air.

I agree with the downward force. I do not agree that there is a
sucking force above, any more than I agree that there is a sucking
force when a purpose sucks on a straw.

Given that the bottom surfaces of the wing is already 14.7lbs/in^2,
one simply needs to reduce the pressure above the wing to cause lift.
This is what I tried to illustrate with my two-pieces-of-paper-
superposed demonstration.

But in many cases the bottom surface has even more than 14.7lbs/^2.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, Phil > wrote:
> There isn't any debate about what a wing stall is, and what causes
> it. It has been well-explored in wind tunnel testing. The phenomenon
> of wing stall is real-world evidence that the top surface of the wing
> is a large contributor to lift. The Bernoulli effect and the
> associated Coanda effect are well-understood scientific phenomena.
> They explain how the curved top surface of the wing displaces air
> downward. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation for
> the fact that wing stall destroys lift, I think the only debate is by
> people who are determined to ignore the scientific evidence.
On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, Phil > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:46 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> There isn't any debate about what a wing stall is, and what causes
> it. It has been well-explored in wind tunnel testing. The phenomenon
> of wing stall is real-world evidence that the top surface of the wing
> is a large contributor to lift. The Bernoulli effect and the
> associated Coanda effect are well-understood scientific phenomena.
> They explain how the curved top surface of the wing displaces air
> downward. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation for
> the fact that wing stall destroys lift, I think the only debate is by
> people who are determined to ignore the scientific evidence.

What's wrong with the supposition that, all other things being equal,
the configuration of the fluid in a smooth stream results in less
pressure on the upper surface than the configuration of the fluid in
turbulence?

In other words, one could argue that the fluid above the wing, during
streaming (sorry for terminology), no longer exerts its full 14.7lbs/
in^2, but during a stall, even though there is still is some reduction
from the full 14.7lbs/in^2, the reduction is not as complete as it
would have been had there been a nice stream...

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 8, 11:38 am, Phil > wrote:
>
> First, I would like to point out that your post is interesting because
> it implies at first something which I disagree with, but then at the
> very end of the post, what you say is exactly true.
>
> Let me try to explain:
>
>> If the airflow on top of the wing doesn't contribute to lift, then
>> how can we explain the phenomenon of the wing stalling? When the
>> wing stalls, it is the airflow over the top of the wing that detaches
>> from the curve of the wing and becomes turbulent. This causes a
>> radical loss of lift. To me, this indicates that the airflow over
>> the top of the wing plays an essential role in providing lift.
>
> What I am saying is that Newton's law is not at play with downwash,
> not in the "uppper surface of wing pull down on molecules" sense. Yes,
> there is downwash. Yes, the camber of the wing will influence the net
> force exerted on the wing. Yes, there will be stalling, turbulence,
> etc. all these things will happen.
>
> The key here is that the air molecules that are above the wing cannot
> be pulled down by the wing more can they pull up on the wing. Those
> air molecules can only causes the lateral forces of friction (laminar
> drag), and a perpendicular downward force on the wing which aircraft
> designers obviously want to keep from happening.
>
>> I know the Bernoulli effect has been invoked historically to (at
>> least partially) explain the lift produced by the top surface of a
>> wing. I think another way to look at it is the Coanda effect
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect). The airflow tends
>> to follow the curve of the top of the wing, and is displaced
>> downward. As long as the air flow follows the curve faithfully, you
>> have good lift. When the airflow detaches in a stall, you lose most
>> of your lift. This top surface lift is combined with the downward
>> displacement of air by the bottom of the wing. The wing is
>> essentially throwing air downward using both the top and bottom
>> surfaces. This is why a curved wing is a better lift producer than a
>> simple flat wing. The top surface curve helps contribute to the
>> lift.
>
> I agree that air is being thrown downward by the bottom surface. I do
> not think a top surfaces throws air downward. Even this Coanda effect
> says that contact, at least initially, is caused by a pressure
> differential. From your link above:
>
> "As a gas flows over an airfoil, the gas is drawn down to adhere to
> the airfoil by a combination of the greater pressure above the gas
> flow and the lower pressure below the flow caused by an evacuating
> effect of the flow itself, which as a result of shear, entrains the
> slow-moving fluid trapped between the flow and the down-stream end of
> the upper surface of the airfoil. The effect of a spoon apparently
> attracting a flow of water is caused by this effect as well, since the
> flow of water entrains gases to flow down along the stream, and these
> gases are then pulled, along with the flow of water, in towards the
> spoon, as a result of the pressure differential. Supersonic flows have
> a different response."
>
> "greater pressure above the gas flow and the lower pressure below the
> flow caused by an evacuating effect..."
>
> This is what I keep saying. I have been using the words "rarefication
> and rarefaction" and instead of "evacuating effect", but this is
> essentially what I mean.
>
>> Now, how does the wing feel the lift? It feels high pressure on its
>> bottom surface, and it feels low pressure on its upper surface. It
>> is pushed up from below, and sucked up from above. That is how the
>> airplane experiences the effects of the downward displacement of air.
>
> I agree with the downward force. I do not agree that there is a
> sucking force above, any more than I agree that there is a sucking
> force when a purpose sucks on a straw.
>
> Given that the bottom surfaces of the wing is already 14.7lbs/in^2,
> one simply needs to reduce the pressure above the wing to cause lift.
> This is what I tried to illustrate with my two-pieces-of-paper-
> superposed demonstration.
>
> But in many cases the bottom surface has even more than 14.7lbs/^2.



Meanwhile your airplane is tearing along and you don't have a notion
what to do with it.



Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 8, 2:34 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:38 am, Phil > wrote:
>
> First, I would like to point out that your post is interesting because
> it implies at first something which I disagree with, but then at the
> very end of the post, what you say is exactly true.
>
> Let me try to explain:
>
> > If the airflow on top of the wing doesn't contribute to lift, then how
> > can we explain the phenomenon of the wing stalling? When the wing
> > stalls, it is the airflow over the top of the wing that detaches from
> > the curve of the wing and becomes turbulent. This causes a radical
> > loss of lift. To me, this indicates that the airflow over the top of
> > the wing plays an essential role in providing lift.
>
> What I am saying is that Newton's law is not at play with downwash,
> not in the "uppper surface of wing pull down on molecules" sense. Yes,
> there is downwash. Yes, the camber of the wing will influence the net
> force exerted on the wing. Yes, there will be stalling, turbulence,
> etc. all these things will happen.
>
> The key here is that the air molecules that are above the wing cannot
> be pulled down by the wing more can they pull up on the wing. Those
> air molecules can only causes the lateral forces of friction (laminar
> drag), and a perpendicular downward force on the wing which aircraft
> designers obviously want to keep from happening.
>
> > I know the Bernoulli effect has been invoked historically to (at least
> > partially) explain the lift produced by the top surface of a wing. I
> > think another way to look at it is the Coanda effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect). The airflow tends
> > to follow the curve of the top of the wing, and is displaced
> > downward. As long as the air flow follows the curve faithfully, you
> > have good lift. When the airflow detaches in a stall, you lose most
> > of your lift. This top surface lift is combined with the downward
> > displacement of air by the bottom of the wing. The wing is
> > essentially throwing air downward using both the top and bottom
> > surfaces. This is why a curved wing is a better lift producer than a
> > simple flat wing. The top surface curve helps contribute to the lift.
>
> I agree that air is being thrown downward by the bottom surface. I do
> not think a top surfaces throws air downward. Even this Coanda effect
> says that contact, at least initially, is caused by a pressure
> differential. From your link above:
>
> "As a gas flows over an airfoil, the gas is drawn down to adhere to
> the airfoil by a combination of the greater pressure above the gas
> flow and the lower pressure below the flow caused by an evacuating
> effect of the flow itself, which as a result of shear, entrains the
> slow-moving fluid trapped between the flow and the down-stream end of
> the upper surface of the airfoil. The effect of a spoon apparently
> attracting a flow of water is caused by this effect as well, since the
> flow of water entrains gases to flow down along the stream, and these
> gases are then pulled, along with the flow of water, in towards the
> spoon, as a result of the pressure differential. Supersonic flows have
> a different response."
>
> "greater pressure above the gas flow and the lower pressure below the
> flow caused by an evacuating effect..."
>
> This is what I keep saying. I have been using the words "rarefication
> and rarefaction" and instead of "evacuating effect", but this is
> essentially what I mean.
>
> > Now, how does the wing feel the lift? It feels high pressure on its
> > bottom surface, and it feels low pressure on its upper surface. It is
> > pushed up from below, and sucked up from above. That is how the
> > airplane experiences the effects of the downward displacement of air.
>
> I agree with the downward force. I do not agree that there is a
> sucking force above, any more than I agree that there is a sucking
> force when a purpose sucks on a straw.
>
> Given that the bottom surfaces of the wing is already 14.7lbs/in^2,
> one simply needs to reduce the pressure above the wing to cause lift.
> This is what I tried to illustrate with my two-pieces-of-paper-
> superposed demonstration.
>
> But in many cases the bottom surface has even more than 14.7lbs/^2.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
detaches?

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> There isn't any debate about what a wing stall is, and what causes
>> it. It has been well-explored in wind tunnel testing. The
phenomenon
>> of wing stall is real-world evidence that the top surface of the wing
>> is a large contributor to lift. The Bernoulli effect and the
>> associated Coanda effect are well-understood scientific phenomena.
>> They explain how the curved top surface of the wing displaces air
>> downward. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation for
>> the fact that wing stall destroys lift, I think the only debate is by
>> people who are determined to ignore the scientific evidence.
> On Oct 8, 12:32 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 11:46 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> There isn't any debate about what a wing stall is, and what causes
>> it. It has been well-explored in wind tunnel testing. The
phenomenon
>> of wing stall is real-world evidence that the top surface of the wing
>> is a large contributor to lift. The Bernoulli effect and the
>> associated Coanda effect are well-understood scientific phenomena.
>> They explain how the curved top surface of the wing displaces air
>> downward. Unless someone can come up with a better explanation for
>> the fact that wing stall destroys lift, I think the only debate is by
>> people who are determined to ignore the scientific evidence.
>
> What's wrong with the supposition that, all other things being equal,
> the configuration of the fluid in a smooth stream results in less
> pressure on the upper surface than the configuration of the fluid in
> turbulence?
>
> In other words, one could argue that the fluid above the wing, during
> streaming (sorry for terminology), no longer exerts its full 14.7lbs/
> in^2, but during a stall, even though there is still is some reduction
> from the full 14.7lbs/in^2, the reduction is not as complete as it
> would have been had there been a nice stream...
>

God you're even dummer as a sockpuppet


bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
> Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
> reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
> still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
> the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
> is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
> generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
> detaches?

Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:1191876409.965861.63860
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
>> reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
>> still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
>> the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
>> is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
>> generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
>> detaches?
>
> Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>


Wow, easy to see your=re conversant with physics.


Bertie
>
>

[Phil]

On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> > Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
> > reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
> > still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
> > the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
> > is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
> > generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
> > detaches?
>
> Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Do you know of any research that supports that theory?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>

You really need to look at some video of Tuft testing.

Here's one to start with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrwlpHE7P8Q

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.

The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they are gliders
or powered.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 4:14 pm, Phil > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> > > Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
> > > reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
> > > still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
> > > the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
> > > is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
> > > generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
> > > detaches?
>
> > Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> > on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Do you know of any research that supports that theory?

Well, no, it's only speculation.

You might be asking how one could speculate on something so complex,
and the only answer i can give is that everything that I have
speculated about does not seem complex at all. I have only used high
school physics so far. It could be that I am wrong of course, but I
do understand Newton's theory of reciprocity of force.

There is another way to look at the air-over-the-wing-does-not-pull-up
on the wing point of view:

Take a wing, and one single diatomic molecule, say nitrogen, N2.

Put your N2 on top of the wing. Someone will offer to pay you
$1,000,000US, if you can use that N2 molecule to impart a force on the
wing to get the wing to move upward. You can throw the molecule at
the wing as hard as you want. You can drag it side ways. The only
requirement is that you have to keep the molecule in the region above
the wing. You will probably not get the prize.

But, if someone ask you to cause the net lift on the wing to increase
by manipulating the molecule, you might ask:

You: "Must I still impart a force upon the top surface of the wing?"
Challenger: "No, that stipulation has been removed."
You: "Is there already air pressure beneath the wing?"
Challenger: "Yes"
You: "Well, this is easily. I take my N2 molecule and put it in my
pocket. Done."

The net change in lift would be so small, it would be immeasurable by
any equipment we have, but the net lift would increase.

This is the process that is happening with a wing in flight. The air
molecules above the wing, by virtue virtue of a process that is
heavily influence by both the aerodynamics of the leading eade and the
camber of the wing going backwards, has a reduced rate-of-impartation
of their momentum against the top of the wing.

Naturally, the impartations are completely removed, then, assuming
quasi-static conditions under the wing, standard atomosphere would
generate 14.7lbs/in ^ 2. The net lift on the wing would be found by:

(14.7 lbs/in^2 * area-under-the-wing) - (average-pressure-above-wing *
area-above-wing)

In still air, the average-pressure above the wing is the same as the
average-pressure below the wing. That's why a wing that is in still
air, perhaps supspended off the ground by thin steel wires for
dramatic effect, will be neither inclined to move upward nor downward,
because the force on both top and bottom are equal.

In steady-state, pure-stream flow, the pressure above the wing will be
reduced. Ane experimentalist might have unrealistic expectations that
they are going to eliminate the entire 14.7 lbs/in on top of the wing,
so that they get a glorious net pressure of 14.7lbs from the bottom of
the wing, when this is obviously not the case. You can see this by
doing some simple cacluations with a Cessna Centurion 210.

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=148

>From the link above, this aircraft has a wing area of 175.5 square
feet. We know that at STP, the pressure is 14.7 lbs/in^2. Since
there are 144 square inches in a square foot, the pressure on 175.5 sq
ft sheet of whatever is...

175.5 sq-ft * 144 sq-inches/sq-ft * 14.7lbs/sq-inch = 371,498 lbs.

But the max takeoff weight of this aircraft is only 3800 lbs.

With so much potential for lift, why such a measly 3800lbs (assuming
structural capacity not breached)?


It's that, during flight, at no time will all the pressure on top of
the wing be removed. One can only hope, in the best of situations, to
remove some of it. The pressure goes from two extremes:

1. One the ground, no pressure is removed, wing has no reason to go up
or down, because it is same on top and bottom.
2. Optimum lift situation, maximum pressure is removed. [You can
almost calculate this pressure, in ounces / in^2, based on weight in
flight]

In between 1 and 2 is the situation of turbulence. This situation is
not "as bad" as no-movement-on-the-ground (no pressure removed), and
it is not as good as optimum-flight-maximum-depletion-above-wing-in-
effect. It is somewhere in between.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> There is nothing after leaving the rotor disk to change the direction
>>> of air flow.
>>>
>>> The airplane, helicopter, gyrocopter, and gyroplane all fly straight
>>> and level for the same reason and it isn't air being deflected
>>> downward.
>> No heavier-than-air aircraft flies without deflecting air downward,
>
>
> Yes, they can, and do.
>
> Dynamic lift is usually at play but is by no means required.

Examples where it isn't required???

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.
>
> The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they are
> gliders or powered.
>



And you can't even read,

Fjukkwit.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:5VxOi.240$2n4.17124
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> There is nothing after leaving the rotor disk to change the direction
>>>> of air flow.
>>>>
>>>> The airplane, helicopter, gyrocopter, and gyroplane all fly straight
>>>> and level for the same reason and it isn't air being deflected
>>>> downward.
>>> No heavier-than-air aircraft flies without deflecting air downward,
>>
>>
>> Yes, they can, and do.
>>
>> Dynamic lift is usually at play but is by no means required.
>
> Examples where it isn't required???
>

When t's enough.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ps.com:

> On Oct 8, 4:14 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
>>
>> > > Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a
>> > > wing reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom
>> > > surface is still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow
>> > > over the top of the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of
>> > > the lift of the wing is destroyed. If the attached airflow over
>> > > the top of the wing is not generating lift, then why does the
>> > > lift disappear when that airflow detaches?
>>
>> > Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes
>> > down on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>> Do you know of any research that supports that theory?
>
> Well, no, it's only speculation.
>
> You might be asking how one could speculate on something so complex,
> and the only answer i can give is that everything that I have
> speculated about does not seem complex at all. I have only used high
> school physics so far. It could be that I am wrong of course, but I
> do understand Newton's theory of reciprocity of force.
>
> There is another way to look at the air-over-the-wing-does-not-pull-up
> on the wing point of view:
>
> Take a wing, and one single diatomic molecule, say nitrogen, N2.
>
> Put your N2 on top of the wing. Someone will offer to pay you
> $1,000,000US, if you can use that N2 molecule to impart a force on the
> wing to get the wing to move upward. You can throw the molecule at
> the wing as hard as you want. You can drag it side ways. The only
> requirement is that you have to keep the molecule in the region above
> the wing. You will probably not get the prize.
>
> But, if someone ask you to cause the net lift on the wing to increase
> by manipulating the molecule, you might ask:
>
> You: "Must I still impart a force upon the top surface of the wing?"
> Challenger: "No, that stipulation has been removed."
> You: "Is there already air pressure beneath the wing?"
> Challenger: "Yes"
> You: "Well, this is easily. I take my N2 molecule and put it in my
> pocket. Done."
>
> The net change in lift would be so small, it would be immeasurable by
> any equipment we have, but the net lift would increase.
>
> This is the process that is happening with a wing in flight. The air
> molecules above the wing, by virtue virtue of a process that is
> heavily influence by both the aerodynamics of the leading eade and the
> camber of the wing going backwards, has a reduced rate-of-impartation
> of their momentum against the top of the wing.
>
> Naturally, the impartations are completely removed, then, assuming
> quasi-static conditions under the wing, standard atomosphere would
> generate 14.7lbs/in ^ 2. The net lift on the wing would be found by:
>
> (14.7 lbs/in^2 * area-under-the-wing) - (average-pressure-above-wing *
> area-above-wing)
>
> In still air, the average-pressure above the wing is the same as the
> average-pressure below the wing. That's why a wing that is in still
> air, perhaps supspended off the ground by thin steel wires for
> dramatic effect, will be neither inclined to move upward nor downward,
> because the force on both top and bottom are equal.
>
> In steady-state, pure-stream flow, the pressure above the wing will be
> reduced. Ane experimentalist might have unrealistic expectations that
> they are going to eliminate the entire 14.7 lbs/in on top of the wing,
> so that they get a glorious net pressure of 14.7lbs from the bottom of
> the wing, when this is obviously not the case. You can see this by
> doing some simple cacluations with a Cessna Centurion 210.
>
> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=148
>
>>From the link above, this aircraft has a wing area of 175.5 square
> feet. We know that at STP, the pressure is 14.7 lbs/in^2. Since
> there are 144 square inches in a square foot, the pressure on 175.5 sq
> ft sheet of whatever is...
>
> 175.5 sq-ft * 144 sq-inches/sq-ft * 14.7lbs/sq-inch = 371,498 lbs.
>
> But the max takeoff weight of this aircraft is only 3800 lbs.
>
> With so much potential for lift, why such a measly 3800lbs (assuming
> structural capacity not breached)?
>
>
> It's that, during flight, at no time will all the pressure on top of
> the wing be removed. One can only hope, in the best of situations, to
> remove some of it. The pressure goes from two extremes:
>
> 1. One the ground, no pressure is removed, wing has no reason to go up
> or down, because it is same on top and bottom.
> 2. Optimum lift situation, maximum pressure is removed. [You can
> almost calculate this pressure, in ounces / in^2, based on weight in
> flight]
>
> In between 1 and 2 is the situation of turbulence. This situation is
> not "as bad" as no-movement-on-the-ground (no pressure removed), and
> it is not as good as optimum-flight-maximum-depletion-above-wing-in-
> effect. It is somewhere in between.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
>


Well, thank god you'll never fly.


Ever


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If the vertical postion of an aircraft is constant, i.e. straight and
> level flight, the first derivative of the vertical position is zero and
> hence the second derivative is also zero.

Gravity is constantly trying to accelerate an aircraft downwards; something
else has to compensate for this, or it will descend.

> An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.

Because a force is being applied to it that exactly counters gravity. Whence
comes this force?

[Phil]

On Oct 8, 5:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 4:14 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 8, 2:45 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> > > > Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
> > > > reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
> > > > still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
> > > > the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
> > > > is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
> > > > generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
> > > > detaches?
>
> > > Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> > > on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > Do you know of any research that supports that theory?
>
> Well, no, it's only speculation.
>
> You might be asking how one could speculate on something so complex,
> and the only answer i can give is that everything that I have
> speculated about does not seem complex at all. I have only used high
> school physics so far. It could be that I am wrong of course, but I
> do understand Newton's theory of reciprocity of force.
>
> There is another way to look at the air-over-the-wing-does-not-pull-up
> on the wing point of view:
>
> Take a wing, and one single diatomic molecule, say nitrogen, N2.
>
> Put your N2 on top of the wing. Someone will offer to pay you
> $1,000,000US, if you can use that N2 molecule to impart a force on the
> wing to get the wing to move upward. You can throw the molecule at
> the wing as hard as you want. You can drag it side ways. The only
> requirement is that you have to keep the molecule in the region above
> the wing. You will probably not get the prize.
>
> But, if someone ask you to cause the net lift on the wing to increase
> by manipulating the molecule, you might ask:
>
> You: "Must I still impart a force upon the top surface of the wing?"
> Challenger: "No, that stipulation has been removed."
> You: "Is there already air pressure beneath the wing?"
> Challenger: "Yes"
> You: "Well, this is easily. I take my N2 molecule and put it in my
> pocket. Done."
>
> The net change in lift would be so small, it would be immeasurable by
> any equipment we have, but the net lift would increase.
>
> This is the process that is happening with a wing in flight. The air
> molecules above the wing, by virtue virtue of a process that is
> heavily influence by both the aerodynamics of the leading eade and the
> camber of the wing going backwards, has a reduced rate-of-impartation
> of their momentum against the top of the wing.
>
> Naturally, the impartations are completely removed, then, assuming
> quasi-static conditions under the wing, standard atomosphere would
> generate 14.7lbs/in ^ 2. The net lift on the wing would be found by:
>
> (14.7 lbs/in^2 * area-under-the-wing) - (average-pressure-above-wing *
> area-above-wing)
>
> In still air, the average-pressure above the wing is the same as the
> average-pressure below the wing. That's why a wing that is in still
> air, perhaps supspended off the ground by thin steel wires for
> dramatic effect, will be neither inclined to move upward nor downward,
> because the force on both top and bottom are equal.
>
> In steady-state, pure-stream flow, the pressure above the wing will be
> reduced. Ane experimentalist might have unrealistic expectations that
> they are going to eliminate the entire 14.7 lbs/in on top of the wing,
> so that they get a glorious net pressure of 14.7lbs from the bottom of
> the wing, when this is obviously not the case. You can see this by
> doing some simple cacluations with a Cessna Centurion 210.
>
> http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=148
>
> >From the link above, this aircraft has a wing area of 175.5 square
>
> feet. We know that at STP, the pressure is 14.7 lbs/in^2. Since
> there are 144 square inches in a square foot, the pressure on 175.5 sq
> ft sheet of whatever is...
>
> 175.5 sq-ft * 144 sq-inches/sq-ft * 14.7lbs/sq-inch = 371,498 lbs.
>
> But the max takeoff weight of this aircraft is only 3800 lbs.
>
> With so much potential for lift, why such a measly 3800lbs (assuming
> structural capacity not breached)?
>
> It's that, during flight, at no time will all the pressure on top of
> the wing be removed. One can only hope, in the best of situations, to
> remove some of it. The pressure goes from two extremes:
>
> 1. One the ground, no pressure is removed, wing has no reason to go up
> or down, because it is same on top and bottom.
> 2. Optimum lift situation, maximum pressure is removed. [You can
> almost calculate this pressure, in ounces / in^2, based on weight in
> flight]
>
> In between 1 and 2 is the situation of turbulence. This situation is
> not "as bad" as no-movement-on-the-ground (no pressure removed), and
> it is not as good as optimum-flight-maximum-depletion-above-wing-in-
> effect. It is somewhere in between.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you are really describing Bernoulli. If you agree that the
pressure on the top of the wing is lowered by the wing's progress
through the air, then that is just what Bernoulli suggests. If you
don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
by that lower pressure, then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
(inside the wing) has normal pressure. So the air below the line is
pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
pressing down. This is lift, and since the upper surface of the wing
is attached to the ribs and spars, this lift is imparted to the
airplane.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If the vertical postion of an aircraft is constant, i.e. straight and
>> level flight, the first derivative of the vertical position is zero
>> and hence the second derivative is also zero.
>
> Gravity is constantly trying to accelerate an aircraft downwards;
> something else has to compensate for this, or it will descend.
>
>> An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.
>
> Because a force is being applied to it that exactly counters gravity.
> Whence comes this force?
>



From somewhere that's waaaaay beyond you , obviously.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> Examples where it isn't required???

On the ground? Or immediately following any flight into terrain?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If the vertical postion of an aircraft is constant, i.e. straight and
> > level flight, the first derivative of the vertical position is zero and
> > hence the second derivative is also zero.

> Gravity is constantly trying to accelerate an aircraft downwards; something
> else has to compensate for this, or it will descend.

Your original statement:

"How do you accelerate an aircraft without accelerating anything downward?"

Go get a high school physics text and look up the difference between force
and acceleration.

> > An aircraft in straight and level flight is not accelerated.

> Because a force is being applied to it that exactly counters gravity. Whence
> comes this force?

Lift, obviously.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> Examples where it isn't required???
>
> On the ground? Or immediately following any flight into terrain?
>

Way beyond you but if you send me $400 I'll tell you how.

You won't understand it of course.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Well, thank god you'll never fly.

Can you make him go fast, yet? Please, pretty please? I want you to put
the pedal to the metal, now. I really want to see him going fast! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 5:18 pm, Phil > wrote:
> I think you are really describing Bernoulli. If you agree that the
> pressure on the top of the wing is lowered by the wing's progress
> through the air, then that is just what Bernoulli suggests.

This is true...but even if you do, there seems to be a lot of people
who do not realize the implications of what you just wrote. Yes it's
Bernoulli, but the Bernoulli that is taking place has nothing to do
with the Bernoulli that is being described in flight education texts.
And no it is not a matter of style, or equivalent models that are
interchangeable, or anything like that. There is a fundamental
difference in perception going on.

> If you
> don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
> by that lower pressure

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.

> then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
> section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
> air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
> (inside the wing) has normal pressure.

> So the air below the line is
> pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
> pressing down.

Right...I have been saying this all along. Then the net force on the
wing is upward.

> This is lift, and since the upper surface of the wing
> is attached to the ribs and spars, this lift is imparted to the
> airplane.

Yes, and the all the upward force that is being imparted comes from
the bottom surface of the wing.

The upper surface of the wing can only help by *not* imparting a
downward force.

The upper surface of the wing does not impart and upward force on the
wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Well, thank god you'll never fly.
>
> Can you make him go fast, yet? Please, pretty please? I want you to
> put the pedal to the metal, now. I really want to see him going fast!
> <g>


Patience.

If you had researched the Bunyip as I suggested you know i will work a k00k
for years.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 8, 5:18 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> I think you are really describing Bernoulli. If you agree that the
>> pressure on the top of the wing is lowered by the wing's progress
>> through the air, then that is just what Bernoulli suggests.
>
> This is true...but even if you do, there seems to be a lot of people
> who do not realize the implications of what you just wrote.

You, for one.


Bertie
>

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 12:37 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>
> > Why?
>
> It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from each
> other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should almost be
> intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight piston and pull
> back on the piston and double the size of the volume do you seriously think
> the gas will not expand into the other half as fast as it can to try and
> stay in contact with the piston?
>
> If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then I see
> no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with your
> questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup anyway.
>
> Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
> from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.

I applaud. Very well put.

Dan

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 8, 8:17 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:37 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > "the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????
>
> > > Why?
>
> > It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from each
> > other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should almost be
> > intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight piston and pull
> > back on the piston and double the size of the volume do you seriously think
> > the gas will not expand into the other half as fast as it can to try and
> > stay in contact with the piston?
>
> > If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then I see
> > no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with your
> > questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup anyway.
>
> > Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
> > from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.
>
> I applaud. Very well put.

Not well put.

What Jim is describing here and what I was refuting are two different
things.

Jim is describing why a fluid would have propensity to follow the
piston wall of an expanding cylinder chamber. I have never doubted
that reason the fluid follows the wall is because of intermolecular
bombardment, and with walls...etc.

That was not what I was refuting.

If you read carefully my post, you will see that I was refuting what
the article claims, which is that the fluid follows the piston because
the piston actually pulls on the molecules in the chamber, which, of
course, is ridiculous.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

SockPuppet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> Patience.
>>
>> If you had researched the Bunyip as I suggested you know i will work a k00k
>> for years.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Hah! I bet that Le Chaud Lapin will eventually tire you out.
>
> His posting career stretches across the centuries into past internet
> epochs. And if you were to take the time you would see that the reaction
> he gets on engineeering and computer science groups is the same as he
> gets here.
>
>
>

I'll take a piece of this action. :-))
The hot rabbit types War and Peace when Occam's Razor is what's needed.
The Bunyip types a single word reply that not only counters what the hot
rabbit has said incorrectly, but corrects it with the right answer in
one fell swoop!
I'll take a bottle of Jack Daniels on the Bunyip :-))

DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

SockPuppet > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Patience.
>>
>> If you had researched the Bunyip as I suggested you know i will work
>> a k00k for years.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> Hah! I bet that Le Chaud Lapin will eventually tire you out.
>


You reckon?


> His posting career stretches across the centuries into past internet
> epochs. And if you were to take the time you would see that the
> reaction he gets on engineeering and computer science groups is the
> same as he gets here.
>
>
I hve seen what he does elsewhere.

So he's a blockhead. He=s still a k00k. Hes alrady lost.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> SockPuppet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Patience.
>>>
>>> If you had researched the Bunyip as I suggested you know i will work
>>> a k00k for years.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hah! I bet that Le Chaud Lapin will eventually tire you out.
>>
>> His posting career stretches across the centuries into past internet
>> epochs. And if you were to take the time you would see that the
>> reaction he gets on engineeering and computer science groups is the
>> same as he gets here.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'll take a piece of this action. :-))
> The hot rabbit types War and Peace when Occam's Razor is what's
> needed. The Bunyip types a single word reply that not only counters
> what the hot rabbit has said incorrectly, but corrects it with the
> right answer in one fell swoop!
> I'll take a bottle of Jack Daniels on the Bunyip :-))
>


That stuff will rot your gut!

Try the McCallan!


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 8, 8:17 pm, wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 12:37 am, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > > "the molecules stay in contact with the solid
>> > > body"...?????????????
>>
>> > > Why?
>>
>> > It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from
>> > each other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should
>> > almost be intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an
>> > air-tight piston and pull back on the piston and double the size of
>> > the volume do you seriously think the gas will not expand into the
>> > other half as fast as it can to try and stay in contact with the
>> > piston?
>>
>> > If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases,
>> > then I see no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing
>> > with your questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate
>> > newsgroup anyway.
>>
>> > Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to
>> > stay away from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup:
>> > futility avoidance.
>>
>> I applaud. Very well put.
>
> Not well put.
>
> What Jim is describing here and what I was refuting are two different
> things.

Yeh, he's telling you how it works and you're describing th einside of
your Skull, which apparently has just been set up for staging a tour of
"Fjukkwits on ice"


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 3:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.
>
> The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they are gliders
> or powered.

Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
changes. The rest of Bernoulli/Newton still apply. For helicopter and
autogyro blades, the lift/drag vectors are similar except that in
autorotation there are propeller and autorotative regions of the
rotor.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
ps.com:

> On Oct 8, 3:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> > Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.
>>
>> The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they are
>> gliders or powered.
>
> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
> changes. The rest of Bernoulli/Newton still apply. For helicopter and
> autogyro blades, the lift/drag vectors are similar except that in
> autorotation there are propeller and autorotative regions of the
> rotor.
>

OK, take your workd for it, but I thought Autogyros had pretty much
straight blades. Alpha is obviously going to be relative to distance to the
hub if the alpha is positive, but even so, you could look at it the same as
washout if I'm following you correctly.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
> changes.

Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>> changes.
>
> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.

WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider.


Bertie

[Phil]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> > If you
> > don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
> > by that lower pressure
>
> It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> > then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
> > section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
> > air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
> > (inside the wing) has normal pressure.
>
> > So the air below the line is
> > pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
> > pressing down.
>

I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
the wing.

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in news:1191952801.357185.176540
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>
> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> > If you
>> > don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
>> > by that lower pressure
>>
>> It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
>> simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>>
>> > then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
>> > section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
>> > air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
>> > (inside the wing) has normal pressure.
>>
>> > So the air below the line is
>> > pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
>> > pressing down.
>>
>
> I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
> is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
> the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
> pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
> air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
> air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
> top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
> the wing.
>

What if your wing doesn't have any air in it?

Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, Phil > wrote:
> I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
> is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
> the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
> pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
> air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
> air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
> top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
> the wing.

Air _inside_ the wing. Hmm...please don't take this the wrong way, I
can assure I don't mean it as an insult, but what do you do for a
living and what is your technical bacground (math, physics, etc.) if
you don't mind my asking?

If air inside the wing pushes upward on the underside of the top of
the wing, it also pushes downward on the overside of the bottom of the
wing, thus nullifying any effect of the air inside the wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
>> is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
>> the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
>> pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
>> air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
>> air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
>> top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
>> the wing.
>
> Air _inside_ the wing. Hmm...please don't take this the wrong way, I
> can assure I don't mean it as an insult, but what do you do for a
> living and what is your technical bacground (math, physics, etc.) if
> you don't mind my asking?
>
> If air inside the wing pushes upward on the underside of the top of
> the wing, it also pushes downward on the overside of the bottom of the
> wing, thus nullifying any effect of the air inside the wing.
>

Wow, you're like, the next einstien, dude.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> writes:
>>
>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>> changes.
>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>
> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider.
>
>
> Bertie

Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his
point here.
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole'
thermals right over there now shouldn't it
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>> changes.
>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>
>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his
> point here.
> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole'
> thermals right over there now shouldn't it


God I hope he starts on gliders.

I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.

Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>> changes.
>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his
>> point here.
>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole'
>> thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>
>
> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>
> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>
> Bertie

Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The threads
involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the drivel he
posts just amaze me.
You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those like
him.
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
serious flying forum.
The complete information about lift including all the corrections for
the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available a
5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
on....and on......and on!
Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>>> changes.
>>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
>>>> glider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
>>> his point here.
>>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
>>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll
>>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>>
>>
>> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>>
>> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
> those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
> threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
> drivel he posts just amaze me.
> You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
> like him.
> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
> to
> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
> comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
> serious flying forum.
> The complete information about lift including all the corrections for
> the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available
> a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
> on....and on......and on!
> Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
> Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
>:-))

Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?

OTOH< if he wants to pay me for my time...


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
>>>>> glider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
>>>> his point here.
>>>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
>>>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll
>>>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>>>
>>> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>>>
>>> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
>> those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
>> threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
>> drivel he posts just amaze me.
>> You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
>> like him.
>> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
>> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
>> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
>> to
>> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
>> comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
>> serious flying forum.
>> The complete information about lift including all the corrections for
>> the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available
>> a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
>> on....and on......and on!
>> Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
>> Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
>> :-))
>
> Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?
>
> OTOH< if he wants to pay me for my time...
>
>
> Bertie
>

More fun this way!


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>>>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
>>>>>> glider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
>>>>> his point here.
>>>>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
there
>>>>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
l'll
>>>>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>>>>
>>>> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>>>>
>>>> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
>>> those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
>>> threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
>>> drivel he posts just amaze me.
>>> You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
>>> like him.
>>> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
physics
>>> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
>>> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
>>> to
>>> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
>>> comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on
a
>>> serious flying forum.
>>> The complete information about lift including all the corrections
for
>>> the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
available
>>> a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
>>> on....and on......and on!
>>> Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
>>> Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
>>> :-))
>>
>> Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?
>>
>> OTOH< if he wants to pay me for my time...
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> More fun this way!
>
>

Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of
fun as well.



Have you looked at free.usenet?

Weird.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>>>>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
>>>>>>> glider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
>>>>>> his point here.
>>>>>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
> there
>>>>>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
> l'll
>>>>>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>>>>> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
>>>> those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
>>>> threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
>>>> drivel he posts just amaze me.
>>>> You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
>>>> like him.
>>>> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
> physics
>>>> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
>>>> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
>>>> to
>>>> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
>>>> comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on
> a
>>>> serious flying forum.
>>>> The complete information about lift including all the corrections
> for
>>>> the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
> available
>>>> a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
>>>> on....and on......and on!
>>>> Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
>>>> Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
>>>> :-))
>>> Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?
>>>
>>> OTOH< if he wants to pay me for my time...
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> More fun this way!
>>
>>
>
> Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of
> fun as well.
>
>
>
> Have you looked at free.usenet?
>
> Weird.
>
>
> Bertie

Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues. Haven't
had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts.
I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail program.
Works fine so far with 0 issues for me.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>>>>>>>>>> changes.
>>>>>>>>> Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
>>>>>>>> WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
>>>>>>>> glider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that
>>>>>>> proves his point here.
>>>>>>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
>> there
>>>>>>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
>> l'll
>>>>>>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>>>>>> God I hope he starts on gliders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not
>>>>> for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out.
>>>>> The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to
>>>>> the drivel he posts just amaze me.
>>>>> You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and
>>>>> those like him.
>>>>> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
>> physics
>>>>> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
>>>>> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the
>>>>> time to
>>>>> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
>>>>> comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life
>>>>> on
>> a
>>>>> serious flying forum.
>>>>> The complete information about lift including all the corrections
>> for
>>>>> the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
>> available
>>>>> a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it
>>>>> goes on....and on......and on!
>>>>> Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
>>>>> Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
>>>>> :-))
>>>> Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?
>>>>
>>>> OTOH< if he wants to pay me for my time...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> More fun this way!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit
>> of fun as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you looked at free.usenet?
>>
>> Weird.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues.
> Haven't had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts.
> I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail
> program. Works fine so far with 0 issues for me.
>
>
OK, it'll only take a second. John Doe psots there.

Nobody else but him...

Sppoooooky.


Bertie

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to
> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
> comprehension.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation
that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm
replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material
on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references
and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that
material. And unlike the OP, left it at that.

Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't
mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to
believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge
the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave
it at that - that's my modest goal.)

> I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
> serious flying forum.

This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
>> department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
>> Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to
>> deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
>> comprehension.
>
> I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation
> that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm
> replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material
> on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references
> and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that
> material. And unlike the OP, left it at that.
>
> Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't
> mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to
> believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge
> the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave
> it at that - that's my modest goal.)
>
>> I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
>> serious flying forum.
>
> This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking.

Jim, if you think that dealing with this nutcase is beneficial to the
rest of the group then I'd be the last guy in hell to tell you to stop
doing it. All I'm saying to you and to others having serious science
knowledge is that the answers to this moron's constant repetition of
utter crap can be found in a single publication; that publication is
"Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". A simple link to this book is all
that's necessary for anyone to post to steer this creep in the right
direction.
Pardon me for saying this, but I've been teaching aerodynamics for 50
years and from my point of view, what you are doing in sparring with
this character is useless on the educational line as his entire purpose
in posting to the forum is to push himself as a "cut above" the people
answering him.
If it pleases you to take this bait, as I said, I'm not the internet
police. Go get um!
Just be advised, most of the people who post on these forums are fairly
well versed on the issues surrounding lift and don't require additional
tutoring on the issue.
Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a more
bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
All this having been said, I realize that you are not me and have a mind
of your own fully capable of dealing with things like this and the final
decision as to whether or not you're being used as cannon fodder by this
idiot will of course be yours.
Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole'
> thermals right over there now shouldn't it

I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals in MSFS
is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has tried it, in
simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
>> with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll
>> ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
>
> I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals
> in MSFS is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has
> tried it, in simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it
> cannot be done.
>

Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhah whahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw
h!


Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> If air inside the wing pushes upward on the underside of the top of
> the wing, it also pushes downward on the overside of the bottom of the
> wing, thus nullifying any effect of the air inside the wing.
>

OK, I'm going to try once more. Let's say the wing is standing
still. It is surrounded by normal atmospheric pressure. It has
normal atmospheric pressure inside it. No net effect, right? Now
lets say you could cause an area of low pressure over the top surface
of the wing. You have normal pressure inside the wing pushing down on
the inside bottom of the wing. But you have normal air pressure below
that surface pushing up. These cancel each other, and you have no net
effect from the bottom surface of the wing. But the bottom surface is
not pulling down compared to the top surface. It has no net effect
because the pressure on both the inside and the outside of the bottom
surface of the wing is the same.

But what about the top surface of the wing? You have normal
atmospheric pressure inside the wing pushing up against the bottom of
the top surface of the wing. But outside the wing above that surface
you have lower pressure. That is a net difference, and that would
cause lift. It wouldn't be countered by the pressure against the
inside bottom of the wing because that is countered by the pressure
outside the bottom of the wing.

It's the same situation you have in flight, except then you have the
addition of higher pressure under the bottom of the wing. Both the
high pressure under the wing and the low pressure above the wing
contribute to lift.

Phil

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 9, 7:51 pm, Phil > wrote:

Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Your original posts implied that
you were thinking that there was some kind of suction force. Most
importantly, it appear that you were thinking that the molecules on
the overside of the top surface of the wing were somehow pulling up on
the wing.

This last post of yours, is, technically acceptable, but if you look
at it closely, it's like someone asking you if you have $20 in your
pocket, you say, "No, I have a $2, a $5, 3 $1's, and a $10."

Physicists generally don't arbitrarily pick apart an object the way
you are saying. With the point of view you just gave, I could just as
well say that there really is no pressure on the upperside of the
bottom surface of the wing, but 10,000 "mini-pressures", each to be
taken individually and added up.

> > Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
> > reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
> > still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
> > the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
> > is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
> > generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
> > detaches?

If you look at this paragraph that you wrote before, it seems at first
glance that you are not aware that the air, doing good-stream
conditions, is doing nothing more than not pushing down as hard as in
a stall or standstill.

> Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
> on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.

->Le Chaud Lapin-

You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there
should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or
all.

>>Do you know of any research that supports that theory?

Perhaps there was just a misunderstanding.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 7:51 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
> Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Your original posts implied that
> you were thinking that there was some kind of suction force. Most
> importantly, it appear that you were thinking that the molecules on
> the overside of the top surface of the wing were somehow pulling up on
> the wing.
>
> This last post of yours, is, technically acceptable,


You don't know how a wing works and now you are making pronouncements on
what is technically acceptable?


You are a k00k

>
> Perhaps there was just a misunderstanding.
>


Well, since you misunderstand everything...

Bertie
>
>

[Phil]

On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Phil > wrote in news:1191952801.357185.176540
> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> >> > If you
> >> > don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
> >> > by that lower pressure
>
> >> It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> >> simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> >> > then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
> >> > section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
> >> > air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
> >> > (inside the wing) has normal pressure.
>
> >> > So the air below the line is
> >> > pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
> >> > pressing down.
>
> > I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
> > is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
> > the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
> > pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
> > air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
> > air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
> > top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
> > the wing.
>
> What if your wing doesn't have any air in it?
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It will still fly, of course. If you talk about the upper wing
surface as a solid, with the air inside the wing under it, or if you
talk about the whole wing as a solid with air under it, the principle
is the same. You have lower pressure above the wing, and it
contributes lift.

[Phil]

On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there
> should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or
> all.

I think we agree on this part. :-)

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 9, 9:09 pm, Phil > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there
> > should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or
> > all.
>
> I think we agree on this part. :-)

Glad to see that we're on the same page. :-)

See you in the air somewhere.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Phil > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Phil > wrote in news:1191952801.357185.176540
>> @r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>> >> > If you
>> >> > don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked
>> >> > upward by that lower pressure
>>
>> >> It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something
>> >> that simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>>
>> >> > then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
>> >> > section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line.
>> >> > The air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below
>> >> > this line (inside the wing) has normal pressure.
>>
>> >> > So the air below the line is
>> >> > pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
>> >> > pressing down.
>>
>> > I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the
>> > line is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing
>> > upward on the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air
>> > _inside_ the wing pressing upward on the underside of the top
>> > surface of the wing. The air above the wing top surface has lower
>> > than normal pressure. The air inside the wing has normal pressure.
>> > So it presses upward on the top surface of the wing. This is lift
>> > generated by the top surface of the wing.
>>
>> What if your wing doesn't have any air in it?
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It will still fly, of course. If you talk about the upper wing
> surface as a solid, with the air inside the wing under it, or if you
> talk about the whole wing as a solid with air under it, the principle
> is the same. You have lower pressure above the wing, and it
> contributes lift.
>
>
Well, you needn't think of the interior of a wing unless it's very very
leaky!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 9:09 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>> > You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there
>> > should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or
>> > all.
>>
>> I think we agree on this part. :-)
>
> Glad to see that we're on the same page. :-)
>
> See you in the air somewhere

Not in this lifeime, anthony.

Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 9, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote groups.com:
> > See you in the air somewhere
>
> Not in this lifeime, anthony.

You said you were old, but I had no idea that you were so close to
death.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 9, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Le Chaud Lapin > wrote
>> groups.com:
>> > See you in the air somewhere
>>
>> Not in this lifeime, anthony.
>
> You said you were old, but I had no idea that you were so close to
> death.
>


Oh aren't you a wit.


You'll never fly, fjukkwit.

You'll never even leave your bedroom.


bertie

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:

> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".

> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))

Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
would correct Bertie instead of praise him.












> DH
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.n et.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:33:38 -0500
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:33:37 -0400
> From: Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
> References: <TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net> <1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <p2ukt4-hrk.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <1191694545.462771.143250 d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com> <Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <kd5qt4-m62.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com> <1191938547.569257.8860 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09 4ax.com> <Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30>
> In-Reply-To: <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net>
> Lines: 56
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
> X-Trace: sv3-XmX07olO4dkIdR0xopsdgG3lf1iQkQV0DsTfvmsNBJuyFpL8yx ZeLLpjeR9SPjdNhvsTn6aJY6EYkPb!/IvbWifa2CYqPyFpOiYFFR0TSQpjtWxTOWT3TxqdIE6hGYFkl+K KNDfPbhgeg1KXy5cG8HkSNlJm!AEM=
> X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603738
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
t:

> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>
>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>
> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
> were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>
>
>



Oooow! Aren't we kinky psycho boi?



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 8:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote oups.com:
>
> > On Oct 8, 3:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >> > Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.
>
> >> The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they are
> >> gliders or powered.
>
> > Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
> > changes. The rest of Bernoulli/Newton still apply. For helicopter and
> > autogyro blades, the lift/drag vectors are similar except that in
> > autorotation there are propeller and autorotative regions of the
> > rotor.
>
> OK, take your workd for it, but I thought Autogyros had pretty much
> straight blades. Alpha is obviously going to be relative to distance to the
> hub if the alpha is positive, but even so, you could look at it the same as
> washout if I'm following you correctly.
>
> Bertie

They do have straight blades, but the different velocities
found at various radii make the difference in AOA at thos points. In
forward flight it gets complicated. Here's a good link:
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Physics/FluidDynamics/FlyingDynamics/Aerodynamics/Lowspeed/Helicopter/Autorotation/Autorotation.htm
Some helicopters have washout in the blades, but there are
still the rotational/advancing/retreating/radius issues to deal with.
I find it most amazing that helicopters flew successfully not all that
long after the Wright Brothers. The Germans had a workable machine in
the late '30s.
I thought helicopters were easy-to-understand machines until I had to
study them for my AME license. I like complex machinery, and these
things fit the bill. I have a little dual in an R44 and have great
respect for the folks who fly such ornery animals. Keep ya busy in a
hover.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 9, 8:10 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> oups.com:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 3:58 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> >> > Fair enough, but the wing is behaving in exactly the same way.
>>
>> >> The wings of fixed-wing aircraft behave the same way whether they
>> >> are gliders or powered.
>>
>> > Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
>> > changes. The rest of Bernoulli/Newton still apply. For helicopter
>> > and autogyro blades, the lift/drag vectors are similar except that
>> > in autorotation there are propeller and autorotative regions of the
>> > rotor.
>>
>> OK, take your workd for it, but I thought Autogyros had pretty much
>> straight blades. Alpha is obviously going to be relative to distance
>> to the hub if the alpha is positive, but even so, you could look at
>> it the same as washout if I'm following you correctly.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> They do have straight blades, but the different velocities
> found at various radii make the difference in AOA at thos points.



OK, got it.


>>In
> forward flight it gets complicated. Here's a good link:
> http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sciences/Physics/FluidDynamics/Fly
i
> ngDynamics/Aerodynamics/Lowspeed/Helicopter/Autorotation/Autorotation.


I'll decline if you don't min! It's late and the things scare the crap
out of me anyway.

h
> tm
> Some helicopters have washout in the blades, but there are
> still the rotational/advancing/retreating/radius issues to deal with.
> I find it most amazing that helicopters flew successfully not all that
> long after the Wright Brothers. The Germans had a workable machine in
> the late '30s.

Well, the austrians were flying tethered contraption in WW1 and there
were som other dubious things, but I know about Achgelis and Flettner,
allright. Cool machines that are too often forgotten.

> I thought helicopters were easy-to-understand machines until I had to
> study them for my AME license. I like complex machinery, and these
> things fit the bill. I have a little dual in an R44 and have great
> respect for the folks who fly such ornery animals. Keep ya busy in a
> hover.
>


Yes, I've tried em and also got OK with RC helis, but the cost of
keeping those going was nuts! The real thing doesn't interest me much.
Too expensive noisy and slow.


Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

John Doe wrote:
> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>
>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>
> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
> were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.

Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I treat
people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get along on
mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't give him a load
of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you could do the same.
You've tried telling me more about myself since you engaged me on this
thread than Bertie has in the years I've been on Usenet.
Now you're telling me about Bertie.
You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
backwards.
But no biggie really. You and I will never understand each other.
DH


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>
>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>
>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
>> were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
>> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>
> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I treat
> people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get along on
> mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't give him a load
> of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you could do the same.
> You've tried telling me more about myself since you engaged me on this
> thread than Bertie has in the years I've been on Usenet.
> Now you're telling me about Bertie.
> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
> backwards.
> But no biggie really. You and I will never understand each other.
> DH
>
>

Oh oyu really need to go over to see his little freak show in free.usenet,
Dudley.

I've seen a few fruitcakes on usenet, but this guy takes the prize.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
t:

>
> A nym shifting cross-posting regular troll
>


And quite proud of it too.





Bertie




> See also:
> Bertie the Bunyip <bertie_the_bunyip hotmail.com>
> Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Jane Doe <AA aa.a.a.a.a.>
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic gmail.com>
>
>
> Path:
> newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!
newsdbm04.news.pr
> odigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!
newscon04.news.prodigy
> .net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.glorb.com!n ewsfeed.hal-mli.net!
f
> eeder1.hal-mli.net!news.alt.net!blackhelicopter.databasix.com !not-for-
m
> ail From: Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks,free.usenet
> Subject: Re: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Your Company
> Lines: 25
> Message-ID: <fehev0$7kb$1 blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
> References: <TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net>
> <1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <p2ukt4-hrk.ln1
> mail.specsol.com> <1191694545.462771.143250
> d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com>
> <Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <kd5qt4-m62.ln1
> mail.specsol.com> <Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> <6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com> <1191938547.569257.8860
> o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09
> 4ax.com> <Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> <l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net>
> <Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> <Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net>
> <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30>
> <kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net> <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192
> newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> X-Trace: blackhelicopter.databasix.com
> 1191984929 7819 blackhelicopter.databasix.com (10 Oct 2007 02:55:29
> GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse databasix.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603868
> alt.usenet.kooks:1542619 free.usenet:1685
>
> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>> [i]
>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>
>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>
>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
>> were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
>> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Oooow! Aren't we kinky psycho boi?
>
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>>>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
>>> were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
>>> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I treat
>> people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get along on
>> mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't give him a load
>> of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you could do the same.
>> You've tried telling me more about myself since you engaged me on this
>> thread than Bertie has in the years I've been on Usenet.
>> Now you're telling me about Bertie.
>> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
>> backwards.
>> But no biggie really. You and I will never understand each other.
>> DH
>>
>>
>
> Oh oyu really need to go over to see his little freak show in free.usenet,
> Dudley.
>
> I've seen a few fruitcakes on usenet, but this guy takes the prize.
>
>
> Bertie

I have to admit, these guys are entertaining if little else :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a
>>>>> more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If
>>>> you were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
>>>> would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>>> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I treat
>>> people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get along on
>>> mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't give him a
>>> load of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you could do the
>>> same. You've tried telling me more about myself since you engaged me
>>> on this thread than Bertie has in the years I've been on Usenet.
>>> Now you're telling me about Bertie.
>>> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
>>> backwards.
>>> But no biggie really. You and I will never understand each other.
>>> DH
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh oyu really need to go over to see his little freak show in
>> free.usenet, Dudley.
>>
>> I've seen a few fruitcakes on usenet, but this guy takes the prize.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I have to admit, these guys are entertaining if little else :-))
>

It's what I live for.

Bertie

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as
>>> a more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>
>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>
>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If
>> you were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques,
>> you would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>
> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I
> treat people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get
> along on mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't
> give him a load of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you
> could do the same. You've tried telling me more about myself since
> you engaged me on this thread than Bertie has in the years I've
> been on Usenet. Now you're telling me about Bertie.

Ignorance is bliss?

> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
> backwards.

You were telling someone else to be more bandwidth friendly, then
you praised your friend Bertie. Recognizing the contradiction isn't
rocket science.

> But no biggie really.

Right, you are so understanding, while encouraging someone else to
disrupt the groups you post to.

> You and I will never understand each other.

Speak for yourself.













> DH
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.n et.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:25 -0500
> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400
> From: Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
> References: <TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net> <1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <p2ukt4-hrk.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <1191694545.462771.143250 d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com> <Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <kd5qt4-m62.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com> <1191938547.569257.8860 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09 4ax.com> <Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30> <kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net> <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
> In-Reply-To: <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <TI6dnSHHcZhk2ZHanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d rcn.net>
> Lines: 28
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
> X-Trace: sv3-0hUxohWcroN+JdoS9J8tNBN872pZrcWY/cnfE3F4erOS7HXUgJ2eHdPio/9yPFiBUeH/dKBS40IoYb3!iu79l7QGqPu8xjbjlIA+OWxqSNaY4q2DX/So5d8dydysKUQ4eTJwdY2qzl3DEXjxAntHvZ176vvi!6fY=
> X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.36
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603875
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in
t:

> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as
>>>> a more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>>
>>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>>
>>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If
>>> you were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques,
>>> you would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>>
>> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I
>> treat people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get
>> along on mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't
>> give him a load of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you
>> could do the same. You've tried telling me more about myself since
>> you engaged me on this thread than Bertie has in the years I've
>> been on Usenet. Now you're telling me about Bertie.
>
> Ignorance is bliss?
>
Yeah, right troll boi..




>> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
>> backwards.
>
> You were telling someone else to be more bandwidth friendly, then
> you praised your friend Bertie. Recognizing the contradiction isn't
> rocket science.
>
>> But no biggie really.
>
> Right, you are so understanding, while encouraging someone else to
> disrupt the groups you post to.
>
>> You and I will never understand each other.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwha!
God I love usenet.



Bertie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> DH
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Path:
>> newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!
newsdst01.news.p
>> rodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net! prodigy.net!
newshub.
>> sdsu.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigane ws.com!
local01.nntp.
>> dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.net.POSTED! not-for-mail
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:25 -0500 Date: Tue, 09 Oct
>> 2007 23:20:25 -0400 From: Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com>
>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>> Subject: Re: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
>> References: <TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net>
>> <1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>
>> <p2ukt4-hrk.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <1191694545.462771.143250
>> d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com>
>> <Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <kd5qt4-m62.ln1
>> mail.specsol.com> <Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> <6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com> <1191938547.569257.8860
>> o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09
>> 4ax.com> <Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> <l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net>
>> <Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> <Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net>
>> <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30>
>> <kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net> <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192
>> newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> In-Reply-To: <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192
>> newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> Content-Type: text/plain;
>> charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Message-ID: <TI6dnSHHcZhk2ZHanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d rcn.net>
>> Lines: 28
>> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
>> X-Trace:
>> sv3-
0hUxohWcroN+JdoS9J8tNBN872pZrcWY/cnfE3F4erOS7HXUgJ2eHdPio/9yPFiBUe
>> H/dKBS40IoYb3!
iu79l7QGqPu8xjbjlIA+OWxqSNaY4q2DX/So5d8dydysKUQ4eTJwdY2q
>> zl3DEXjxAntHvZ176vvi!6fY= X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
>> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
>> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL
>> headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process
>> your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.36
>> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603875
>>
>
>
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

John Doe wrote:
> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
>>>> consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as
>>>> a more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
>>>> Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
>>> Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If
>>> you were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques,
>>> you would correct Bertie instead of praise him.
>> Bertie and everyone else on Usenet can speak for themselves. I
>> treat people as I see them and as they treat me. Bertie and I get
>> along on mutual respect. He does his thing and I do mine. I don't
>> give him a load of crap and he returns the favor. I only wish you
>> could do the same. You've tried telling me more about myself since
>> you engaged me on this thread than Bertie has in the years I've
>> been on Usenet. Now you're telling me about Bertie.
>
> Ignorance is bliss?
>
>> You seem to know a lot about everybody. Trouble is you have it ass
>> backwards.
>
> You were telling someone else to be more bandwidth friendly, then
> you praised your friend Bertie. Recognizing the contradiction isn't
> rocket science.
>
>> But no biggie really.
>
> Right, you are so understanding, while encouraging someone else to
> disrupt the groups you post to.
>
>> You and I will never understand each other.
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> DH
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.n et.POSTED!not-for-mail
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:25 -0500
>> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:20:25 -0400
>> From: Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com>
>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>> Subject: Re: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
>> References: <TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net> <1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <p2ukt4-hrk.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <1191694545.462771.143250 d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com> <Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <kd5qt4-m62.ln1 mail.specsol.com> <Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com> <1191938547.569257.8860 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09 4ax.com> <Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net> <Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30> <kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net> <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
>> In-Reply-To: <l5XOi.7706$6p6.6192 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Message-ID: <TI6dnSHHcZhk2ZHanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d rcn.net>
>> Lines: 28
>> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
>> X-Trace: sv3-0hUxohWcroN+JdoS9J8tNBN872pZrcWY/cnfE3F4erOS7HXUgJ2eHdPio/9yPFiBUeH/dKBS40IoYb3!iu79l7QGqPu8xjbjlIA+OWxqSNaY4q2DX/So5d8dydysKUQ4eTJwdY2qzl3DEXjxAntHvZ176vvi!6fY=
>> X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
>> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
>> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>> X-Postfilter: 1.3.36
>> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603875
>>
>
>
All the best to you.

--
Dudley Henriques

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:

....

No problem.
Your career is marvelous, IMO.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

John Doe > wrote in news:P9YOi.5440$4V6.1278
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> ...
>
> No problem.
> Your career is marvelous, IMO.
>



What, been following it in your littel cyber bat cave, k00kie boi?


Bertie

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> > simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking force," it's
> called "suction".
>
> My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate enough
> of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to lift an 8 lbs.
> bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If there is no "sucking
> force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?

You're joking the sucking force right?

The bowling ball is being kept up it because...

1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air in
the wand
3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and the
vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling ball with
vacuum.
5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.

This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes mercury
to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard atmosphere.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> says...
>> > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something
that
>> > simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>>
>> My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking force,"
it's
>> called "suction".
>>
>> My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate
enough
>> of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to lift an 8
lbs.
>> bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If there is no "sucking
>> force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?
>
> You're joking the sucking force right?
>
> The bowling ball is being kept up it because...
>
> 1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
> 2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air in
> the wand
> 3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
> 4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and the
> vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling ball with
> vacuum.
> 5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
> square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.
>
> This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes mercury
> to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard atmosphere.
>


Yes, you shold go and try to fly a bowling ball.


I'll sign you off right here for it.


Bertie

[Phil]

On Oct 10, 10:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> > > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> > > simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> > My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking force," it's
> > called "suction".
>
> > My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate enough
> > of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to lift an 8 lbs.
> > bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If there is no "sucking
> > force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?
>
> You're joking the sucking force right?
>
> The bowling ball is being kept up it because...
>
> 1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
> 2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air in
> the wand
> 3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
> 4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and the
> vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling ball with
> vacuum.
> 5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
> square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.
>
> This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes mercury
> to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard atmosphere.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

You are simply describing the mechanism for what is commonly referred
to as suction. Tell me, if someone says to you that the sun is going
down, do you feel compelled to correct them and insist that they say
the horizon is moving up??

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Phil > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 10:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
>
> > > In article . com>,
> > > says...
> > > > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> > > > simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> > > My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking force," it's
> > > called "suction".
>
> > > My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate enough
> > > of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to lift an 8 lbs.
> > > bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If there is no "sucking
> > > force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?
>
> > You're joking the sucking force right?
>
> > The bowling ball is being kept up it because...
>
> > 1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
> > 2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air in
> > the wand
> > 3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
> > 4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and the
> > vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling ball with
> > vacuum.
> > 5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
> > square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.
>
> > This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes mercury
> > to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard atmosphere.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> You are simply describing the mechanism for what is commonly referred
> to as suction. Tell me, if someone says to you that the sun is going
> down, do you feel compelled to correct them and insist that they say
> the horizon is moving up??- Hide quoted text -

No, but the person is an educated adult, saying that the Sun revolves
around the Earth, yes, I might correct them, especially if the context
involves learning.

If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
theoretically.

Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Phil]

On Oct 11, 3:24 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 10:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
>
> > > > In article . com>,
> > > > says...
> > > > > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
> > > > > simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>
> > > > My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking force," it's
> > > > called "suction".
>
> > > > My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate enough
> > > > of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to lift an 8 lbs.
> > > > bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If there is no "sucking
> > > > force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?
>
> > > You're joking the sucking force right?
>
> > > The bowling ball is being kept up it because...
>
> > > 1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
> > > 2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air in
> > > the wand
> > > 3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
> > > 4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and the
> > > vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling ball with
> > > vacuum.
> > > 5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
> > > square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.
>
> > > This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes mercury
> > > to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard atmosphere.
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> > You are simply describing the mechanism for what is commonly referred
> > to as suction. Tell me, if someone says to you that the sun is going
> > down, do you feel compelled to correct them and insist that they say
> > the horizon is moving up??- Hide quoted text -
>
> No, but the person is an educated adult, saying that the Sun revolves
> around the Earth, yes, I might correct them, especially if the context
> involves learning.
>
> If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
> is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
> might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
> could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
> vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
> vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
> any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
> theoretically.
>
> Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
> knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I guess you've stopped someone from trying to put a V8 on their
vacuum cleaner.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 11, 6:36 pm, Phil > wrote:
> > If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
> > is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
> > might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
> > could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
> > vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
> > vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
> > any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
> > theoretically.
>
> > Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
> > knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, I guess you've stopped someone from trying to put a V8 on their
> vacuum cleaner

Maybe. There are plenty of people everwhere who think that it should
be possible to build a super vacuum if they simply make the sucking
power of the motor great enough.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 11, 6:36 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> > If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
>> > is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
>> > might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
>> > could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
>> > vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
>> > vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
>> > any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
>> > theoretically.
>>
>> > Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
>> > knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Well, I guess you've stopped someone from trying to put a V8 on their
>> vacuum cleaner
>
> Maybe. There are plenty of people everwhere who think that it should
> be possible to build a super vacuum if they simply make the sucking
> power of the motor great enough.
>

Hey, you suck, give it a go.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Oct 11, 12:35 pm, Phil > wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 10:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 10, 8:38 pm, Jeff Lawrence > wrote:
>>
>> > > In article
>> > > . com>,
>> > > says...
>> > > > It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something
>> > > > that simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.
>>
>> > > My vacuum cleaner begs to differ. Yes, there is a "sucking
>> > > force," it's called "suction".
>>
>> > > My vacuum cleaner (with the proper wand attachment) can generate
>> > > enough of this sucking force--which you say does not exist--to
>> > > lift an 8 lbs. bowling ball up against the force of gravity. If
>> > > there is no "sucking force" then what keeps the bowling ball up?
>>
>> > You're joking the sucking force right?
>>
>> > The bowling ball is being kept up it because...
>>
>> > 1. Itstarts with 14.7 lbs/inch^2 of pressure all around it.
>> > 2. Your vaccum, when placed on the bowling ball, rarefies the air
>> > in the wand
>> > 3. There is no longer enough air to push on the bowling ball.
>> > 4. If the area that is covered by the ball is 1 square inch, and
>> > the vacuum is perfect, that would be enough to hold the bowling
>> > ball with vacuum.
>> > 5. Though vacuum is not perfect, area is undoubtedly greater than 1
>> > square inch, so it still works out to be enough to lift 8 lbs.
>>
>> > This 14.7 lbs per square inch is the same pressure that causes
>> > mercury to rise in a rarefied tube 29.92 inches at standard
>> > atmosphere.
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>>
>> You are simply describing the mechanism for what is commonly referred
>> to as suction. Tell me, if someone says to you that the sun is going
>> down, do you feel compelled to correct them and insist that they say
>> the horizon is moving up??- Hide quoted text -
>
> No, but the person is an educated adult, saying that the Sun revolves
> around the Earth, yes, I might correct them, especially if the context
> involves learning.
>
> If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
> is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
> might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
> could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
> vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
> vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
> any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
> theoretically.
>
> Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
> knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.
>

You couldn't apply a bottle of suntan lotion.

Bertie
>

[Phil]

On Oct 11, 6:46 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 6:36 pm, Phil > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If you teach someone who knows little about physics that there really
> > > is a suction force, that my explanation does not matter, that person
> > > might be inclined to believe that the lifting ability of your vacuum
> > > could be increased indefinitely if the right engine is added to the
> > > vacuum, which is not true. Even with 100,000 h.p. engine in the
> > > vacuum, there will come a point where the vacuum is no able to lift
> > > any more than the < 100 lbs that it could possible lift,
> > > theoretically.
>
> > > Perspective matters, especially when the purpose of acquiring
> > > knowledge is to apply that knowledge in technical contexts.
>
> > > -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, I guess you've stopped someone from trying to put a V8 on their
> > vacuum cleaner
>
> Maybe. There are plenty of people everwhere who think that it should
> be possible to build a super vacuum if they simply make the sucking
> power of the motor great enough.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you are underestimating most other people's intelligence. And
seriously, do you really think someone might try to do that??

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Oct 12, 9:18 am, Phil > wrote:
> > Maybe. There are plenty of people everwhere who think that it should
> > be possible to build a super vacuum if they simply make the sucking
> > power of the motor great enough.
>
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think you are underestimating most other people's intelligence. And
> seriously, do you really think someone might try to do that??-

>From what I have seen so far, Yes.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 12, 9:18 am, Phil > wrote:
>> > Maybe. There are plenty of people everwhere who think that it should
>> > be possible to build a super vacuum if they simply make the sucking
>> > power of the motor great enough.
>>
>> > -Le Chaud Lapin-- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I think you are underestimating most other people's intelligence. And
>> seriously, do you really think someone might try to do that??-
>
>>From what I have seen so far, Yes.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
>

No underestimating your's anthony.


Bertie