![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi folks,
According to Bernoulli’s principle, an increase of speed will be accompanied by a decrease in static pressure. However, Bernoulli’s law only pertains to flows without any external energy being added (or removed). That’s why I do not understand why Bernoulli can be used to explain the Magnus effect. If a clockwise rotating cylinder (Flettner-Rotor) is moved through the air from right to left (i.e. free stream direction is from left to right), this will cause the flow on the upper site (free stream velocity + rotation) to be faster than on the lower site (free stream velocity - rotation). More importantly, an upward lifting force acting on the turning cylinder can be observed. All books / internet sites I checked so far explain the lifting effect by Bernoulli’s law (faster flow on the upper site of the cylinder causes a drop in static pressure and hence lift). However, I don’t see why Bernoulli applies here as the rotation of the cylinder means to add additional energy to the free stream and thus should not lead to a reduced static pressure, should it? Therefore, I would be very grateful for any advice why the Magnus effect can be explained with Bernoulli’s law. Thank you Mikki |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Mikki
wrote: Hi folks, According to Bernoulli’s principle, an increase of speed will be accompanied by a decrease in static pressure. However, Bernoulli’s law only pertains to flows without any external energy being added (or removed). That’s why I do not understand why Bernoulli can be used to explain the Magnus effect. If a clockwise rotating cylinder (Flettner-Rotor) is moved through the air from right to left (i.e. free stream direction is from left to right), this will cause the flow on the upper site (free stream velocity + rotation) to be faster than on the lower site (free stream velocity - rotation). More importantly, an upward lifting force acting on the turning cylinder can be observed. All books / internet sites I checked so far explain the lifting effect by Bernoulli’s law (faster flow on the upper site of the cylinder causes a drop in static pressure and hence lift). However, I don’t see why Bernoulli applies here as the rotation of the cylinder means to add additional energy to the free stream and thus should not lead to a reduced static pressure, should it? I'm no expert but I'll have a stab at it. at the very edge of the air where it is touching the rotor there is a boundary layer entrained with the surface of the rotor. when you spin the rotor you drag that boundary layer around with the rotor. put it in a breeze and you end up with an area just off the boundary layer where going into wind there is an increased relative velocity compared with the part going with the wind where there is a reduced relative velocity. the velocity difference creates the pressure difference which causes the lift. just remember that you can fly the wing through still air or you can blow the wind over a stationary wing and still create the same lift force. I dont believe that it is a very large lift force generated. the flettner rotor propelled ship was a failure in practise I believe. Stealth Pilot |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why should the velocity difference experienced between the top and
bottom side of the spinning cylinder attribute to lift??? According to Bernoulli changes in stream velocity will be accompanied by changes in pressure ONLY if no external energy is being added or removed. That is the reason why the static pressure can be measured in a fast moving aircraft without being biased by velocity. Even though the airplane may fly with several hundred kilometers per hour, i.e. feels the air passing with several hundred km/h, the static pressure is not changed compared to still air (as long as the orifice for measuring the static pressure is not placed on the wings). This is because Bernoulli's law does not apply in this scenario, as for propelling the aircraft external energy is consumed. As for turning the Flettner-Rotor (as well as the air in the boundary layer of the rotor) extra energy is required, too, Bernoulli's law should not apply in this case, either. Therefore, I consider the explanation provided too simple. But maybe I am wrong! That's why still appreciate any further answers/suggestions to my question Mikki :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() put it in a breeze and you end up with an area just off the boundary layer where going into wind there is an increased relative velocity compared with the part going with the wind where there is a reduced relative velocity. the velocity difference creates the pressure difference which causes the lift. Why should the velocity difference experienced between the top and bottom side of the spinning cylinder attribute to lift??? According to Bernoulli changes in stream velocity will be accompanied by changes in pressure ONLY if no external energy is being added or removed. That is the reason why the static pressure can be measured in a fast moving aircraft without being biased by velocity. Even though the airplane may fly with several hundred kilometers per hour, i.e. feels the air passing with several hundred km/h, the static pressure is not changed compared to still air (as long as the orifice for measuring the static pressure is not placed on the wings). This is because Bernoulli's law does not apply in this scenario, as for propelling the aircraft external energy is consumed. As for turning the Flettner-Rotor (as well as the air in the boundary layer of the rotor) extra energy is required, too, Bernoulli's law should not apply in this case, either. Therefore, I consider the explanation provided too simple. But maybe I am wrong! That's why still appreciate any further answers/suggestions to my question Mikki :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 21, 1:44*pm, Mikki wrote:
put it in a breeze and you end up with an area just off the boundary layer where going into wind there is an increased relative velocity compared with the part going with the wind where there is a reduced relative velocity. the velocity difference creates the pressure difference which causes thelift. Why should the velocity difference experienced between the top and bottom side of the spinning cylinder attribute tolift??? It shouldn’t, for one thing there is no velocity difference. Where Bernoulli’s effect requires the motion of air the relative airflow or free stream that causes aerodynamic force does not. The relative airflow influencing the cylinder is made up by its rotation and the breeze it is in. The motion of air (breeze) is the same on the top as it is on the bottom although its relative airflow may have a velocity difference on top and bottom as a result of rotation. Another thing if you could generate an actual steady speed circular airflow around the cylinder the air on top will have a much different velocity than the air on bottom by virtue of their totally different directions. This drastic change in velocity does not cause any pressure differences as a result of Bernoulli’s effect because its speed does not change. For the second thing a rotating ball or cylinder moving through the air does not generate lift at all in the real world only in the artificial world of formula based texts. Lift and drag are very similar forces, aircraft have circumnavigated the earth in spite of drag while others have used drag exclusively as a means of horizontal acceleration to fly around mother earth. Even in circumstances where drag opposes one motion it can cause another. The drag from a prop causes the airplane to tend to roll in a direction opposite prop rotation. When you paddle a canoe the drag from the paddle is what the canoe uses as a means of thrust. When the ball or cylinder is spinning drag is reflected in a force that opposes rotation. The surface drag on one side of the ball is in one direction but the ball does not move in this direction because the surface drag on the opposite side is not only in the opposite direction it is the same amount that is on the other side. If the amount of surface drag on one side of the ball were to become different than the opposite side a more linear friction drag force will be created. What makes a spinning car tire move linearly is the non-aerodynamic drag between the tire and the ground. One way to make the surface drag around the ball or cylinder to be uneven is to move it through the air while it is spinning, pushing it into the air. Why do people call this uneven surface drag lift? This requires some intentional ignorance. If the ball generated a force perpendicular to its flight path without spinning in would truly be lift but it don’t. What makes the ball generate a force perpendicular to its flight path is the fact that it is spinning. Lift is most accurately defined as being perpendicular to the relative airflow that caused it. The relative airflow that is influencing the ball is caused by its motion while in the air (spinning) and its motion through the air. To derive at the inaccurate assumption the spinning ball is generating lift you must totally ignore the large fact that it is spinning. How many people would believe the spinning ball is generating lift if you told them that it was based on the false premise that the ball is not spinning? The drag on the spinning ball opposes its linear motion as well as its circular motion, how many directions is that? The uneven drag around a paddle wheel causes a paddleboat to move forward. This is a good example of drag and thrust being the same force. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First Magnus pilots | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | April 4th 09 07:36 PM |
black box explained | houstondan | Piloting | 3 | June 30th 06 04:55 AM |
ADIZ Violation Explained in AOPA Magazine | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 168 | January 15th 06 02:49 AM |
Magnus Effect | COLIN LAMB | Soaring | 23 | October 27th 04 07:02 PM |
The bernoulli theory of starting a long thread | David CL Francis | Piloting | 7 | October 26th 03 07:40 PM |