The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Dan wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:


"How does a wing generate lift?"


Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Oh My!
I don't think we are in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I believe!
I believe!
I believe!

(klicking the heels of my ruby red sneakers)

kd5sak wrote:
"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
nk.net...
TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:

Bernoulli theory:

So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
again at
the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom
is
relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
air
passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
area
than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells
us
that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
pressure.

I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster) over
the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.

You are, but don't feel bad. It is a common misconception even still
taught by some flight instructors. The truth is, there is nothing
connecting molecules of air together. It does not matter that a
molecule above the wing has to travel farther in order to 'catch up' to
one below the wing. It never met the lower molecule and cares nothing
about it. :-)

Airplane wings use the curved upper surface to displace air which,
because it is slightly sticky, follows the surface of the wing. If you
hold a water glass sideways under a stream of water you will see the
water curve around the glass all the way to the bottom. Air flowing
over a wing does the same thing. As you probably learned in basic
physics, though, gases like air maintain a constant total pressure. Air
is being accelerated in one direction over the wing, so pressure is
being increased in a single direction. We call this dynamic pressure.
It is the pressure you feel when you blow on your hand. If dynamic
pressure in one direction is increased and total pressure must remain
constant, then the pressure in all other directions must be decreased.
We call the molecules moving in all these other directions the static
pressure.

It is like cars in a parking lot, all moving in different directions.
If most of them reach a road and start moving in a single direction,
then there must be fewer cars moving in other directions. Since most of
the air particles are being accelerated in a single direction then
there must be fewer of them moving in any other direction. This creates
an area of low pressure above the wing. Air above the wing moves into
this low pressure area and is in turn accelerated behind and down off
the trailing edge of the wing. Newtonian physics tell us that if there
is acceleration in one direction there must be an equal and opposite
reaction in the other. We call that lift. The amount of lift generated
is computed by an equation involving the air density, speed of the
wing, area of the wing, and something called the lift coefficient which
is basically how much air can be displaced by the wing.

Thus, wings generate lift by accelerating air over the top of the wing
and then down off the trailing edge. People don't realize it does this
because they see pictures of air streams taken in wind tunnels, where
the fan continues to blow the air straight backward behind the wing. In
actual flight, however, the wing is simply forcing a huge volume of air
straight down. You can see this when an airplane flies low over water;
the ripples in the water are almost directly below the airplane.

Really, a wing is just a big fan blade, only instead of spinning
around it moves in a straight line. You do not stand at the edge of the
fan to catch the breeze it generates. You stand behind it. You also
know that the air blown by a fan comes from in front of the fan. You
can hold strips of paper in front of a fan and watch them being sucked
toward the fan. Well, the wing is just a fan blade. A great big fan
blade, to be sure, but that is all that it is.

We call it Bernoulli's principle because Bernoulli was the first to
notice that if you accelerate a fluid in one direction that pressure in
the other directions is reduced. One method of accelerating a fluid is
to force it through a tube that narrows, which is what Bernoulli did.
Wings do not really do that, although you commonly see science
popularizers showing air flowing through a Bernoulli tube and then
removing half the tube and calling it a wing. The fact is, air is not
really being compressed in that way at all. It is simply being
accelerated over the top of the wing by the front part of the curved
surface. That is why lift is greatest at the point where the wing is
thickest. Nevertheless, Bernoulli's equations work well for predicting
lift even though the method of accelerating the air is slightly
different than forcing it through a narrow tube. It is the same
principle, just differently implemented.

The Wright Brothers actually found that wings generate somewhat more
lift than would have been first predicted by Bernoulli. Their first
wings were too thick with a greatly exaggerated curve in order to
generate maximum lift. What they discovered through trial and error,
though, was that although such a wing generated a great deal of lift it
also could not generate more by increasing the angle of attack -- the
angle with which it meets the air. Instead, what they got by increasing
angle of attack was complete separation of air flow from the wing and
lift went to 0, what we call a stall. This is one reason the Wrights
never rebuilt the first Flyer after it was destroyed shortly after
making its first flights. They realized that the machine would never be
able to climb very rapidly and that it would always be prone to
suddenly falling out of the sky because of stalls. They considered the
thing to be extremely dangerous and went back to the drawing board.
Also, of course, they destroyed it to keep it out of the hands of
potential competitors like Curtis. A shame, really.

Or, you can just take the simple explanation and say that the air has
to travel further over the wing in order to generate lift. It is wrong,
but it works well enough for laymen.

Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:


"How does a wing generate lift?"

Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt. Col.
and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to do their
job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/

TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:

It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
and the thread is ended.

"cjcampbell" wrote in
ups.com:


TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:

It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
and the thread is ended.




You don't have a clue do you? Another government controlled corporate
CNN/FOX brainwashed person

TRUTH wrote:


Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....

Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven (7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby proto-kittens
for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine, coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by the
power of thought alone.

See Also

* Creationism
* Intelligent Design
* Telekinesis
* l33t

TRUTH wrote:

"cjcampbell" wrote in
ups.com:


TRUTH wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:


It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
and the thread is ended.





You don't have a clue do you? Another government controlled corporate
CNN/FOX brainwashed person'


Godwin's Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet
culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is
made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the
motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any
such deliberate invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful.

Contents


* 1 Origin
* 2 Debate and controversy
* 3 Notes
* 4 See also
* 5 External links and references


Origin

Godwin's Law was named after Mike Godwin, an attorney who was legal counsel
for the Electronic Frontier Foundation at the time the law was first
popularized. He has since written a book about free speech and online privacy
called Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age in which he
discusses the origin of Godwin's Law.

Godwin established the law as part of an experiment in memetics, the study of
information transfer. On Usenet there was a trend toward demonizing opponents
in arguments by comparing the position they held to that of Hitler or the
Nazis, in Godwin's own words "a trivialization I found both illogical and
offensive." [1] So, in 1990, Godwin developed the law as a counter-meme and
began posting it in Usenet discussions after such a comparison occurred.

Richard Sexton maintains that Godwin's Law is a formalization of his October
16, 1989, post [2]:

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.

Strictly speaking, however, Godwin's Law is different from Sexton's statement,
since it does not claim that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion
"old" or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a
discussion is over.


Debate and controversy

One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's Law is that sometimes using
Hitler or the Nazis is an apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is
debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says
something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the
economy," one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make
him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as
a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of
an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is
not universally true.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's Law applies especially to the
situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as
well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared,
both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Hitler, on a semiotic
level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used
as a valid comparison to anything but other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's
Law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface,
would seem to be reasonable comparisons.

Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does
not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to
Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or
comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic
overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such
hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to
Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.


Notes

From a philosophical standpoint, Godwin's Law could be said to exclude
normative (emotional) considerations from a positivist (rational) discussion.
Frequently, a reference to Hitler is used as an evocation of evil. Thus a
discussion proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered
terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative
discussion of subjective right and wrong. It is exacerbated by the frequent
fallacy "Hitler did A, therefore A is evil" (Reductio ad Hitlerum.) However,
as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law include the invocation of the Hitler
comparison in a positivist manner that does not have a normative dimension.

In general, Godwin's Law does not apply in situations wherein one could
reasonably expect Hitler or Nazis to be mentioned, such as a discussion of
Germany in World War II. Exceptions, of course, may exist and should be
obvious given the preceding discussion.

On December 12, 2005, Godwin's Law was the subject of a question in the UK
television quiz show University Challenge.


See also

* Benford's law of controversy
* Jargon File
* Reductio ad Hitlerum
* Wilcox-McCandlish law of online discourse evolution
* Adages named after people



External links and references
Listen to this article · (info)
Spoken Wikipedia
This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2005-07-01, and
does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles

* Godwin's Law FAQ
* Usenet posting: Mike Godwin restates the Usenet variant of Godwin's Law
(Aug 1991)
* Godwin's Law entry in the Jargon File
* Godwin's Law in Ursine's Jargon Wiki.
* Meme, Counter-meme, Mike Godwin, Wired 2.10, October 1994—Godwin
discusses his Law
* EFF page on Godwin's Law and reformulations
* ADL calls added definition of nazi offensive
* Mike Godwin runs a blog called "Godwin's Law."
* Usenet posting: Richard Sexton's original post (Oct 1989)
* Jurisimprudence: a listing of various fandom and Internet debate laws
similar to Godwin's Law
* Reason magazine, 14 July 2005. "Hands Off Hitler!: It's time to repeal
Godwin's Law".
* Breaking Godwin's Law
* Westgard's Law: a corollary of Godwin's Law regarding the First Amendment

In article . com,
says...
Complete an utter BS.

I agree with you but why did you quote it all?
I don't want to argue or be rude but you repeated all the posrt just to
add ONE line!

What's complete and utter BS???

--
Duncan

At some distance above the curved upper surface the air acts
as a wall.


"kd5sak" wrote in message
news |
| "Richard Lamb" wrote in message
|
nk.net...
| TRUTH wrote:
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
| news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
|
| Bernoulli theory:
|
| So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional
airfoil? Look
| again at
| the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved
shape. While the bottom
| is
| relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more
curved. Thus, when
| air
| passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is
squeezed into a smaller
| area
| than that airflow passing the lower surface. The
Continuity equation tells
| us
| that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster,
and the Bernoulli
| equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it
creates a lower
| pressure.
|
| I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller
area". I Understood
| that the flow over the top surface had to travel further
(thus faster) over
| the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to
the back of the
| airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an
aeronautical
| engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.
|
| Harold
|
|

I always thought that wings and engines moved money downward
and that allowed flight.




"Dan" wrote in message
news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12...
| Richard Lamb wrote:
|
|
| "How does a wing generate lift?"
|
| Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone
believes they
| do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to
do so.
|
| This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired