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 |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
In article ,
"00:00:00Hg" wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:00:45 -0800, fredfighter wrote: Jose wrote: Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph. What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum? Zero at equalibrium. Incorrect. It has considerable horizontal momentum and no vertical momentum. Suppose we have a 1500 lb rocketship hovering over the moon on its rocket exhaust. What are its horizontal and vertical componnts of momentum? Again, zero. Correct, but how can you possibly get zero for this answer and think that an aircraft moving horizontally at 120 mph has no horizontal momentum... snip -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:56:39 +0000, Alan Baker wrote:
Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph. What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum? Zero at equalibrium. Incorrect. It has considerable horizontal momentum and no vertical momentum. I thought the focus was forces. The 'aircraft' with respect to the media, air. If the ground is at play with respect to horizontal 'componet' is it in the form of 'gravity' (a force) or geologial energy of some sort expressed as the force of location? This is hightly interesting. Never thought of it before. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
00:00:00Hg wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:56:39 +0000, Alan Baker wrote: Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph. What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum? Zero at equalibrium. Incorrect. It has considerable horizontal momentum and no vertical momentum. Whereas for the hovering spacecraft both components are zero. I thought the focus was forces. It should be. The hovering spacecraft has zero horizontal and vertical momentum. It has weight, directed downwards. The engine accelerates mass downward producing an upward force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the weight of the spacecraft. This imparts an acceleration to the spacecraft equal in magnitude and opposite in direction from the local acceleration due to gravity. Now of course weight is a convenient fiction. There is really no such thing as gravitational force, what we model as a force acting at a distance is in reality the distortion of spacetime in the presence of mass. Perhaps other forces are similarly ficticious. But how sure can we be that mass and velocity are any less ficticious than force? -- FF |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:55:59 -0800, fredfighter wrote:
Now of course weight is a convenient fiction. Can I allocate excess fat that same definition? There is really no such thing as gravitational force, what we model as a force acting at a distance is in reality the distortion of spacetime in the presence of mass. Perhaps other forces are similarly ficticious. I hope not the Air Force. So you want to bring general and special relativity into the frey `eh? Newton ain't good enough for you, huh? Ok. Gimme your Lorentz transformations for -Mach 1 to +Mach 1 at the transition point. I wanna see how time and gravity are related to mass transactions. The speed of sound must be a nodal harmonic of the speed of light. I wanna see it too. Gimme gimme... But how sure can we be that mass and velocity are any less ficticious than force? Gravity seems to work to it's own advantage so it's the ultimate taxing authority in the universe. That really sucks. |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:57:05 -0800, george wrote:
Gravity seems to work to it's own advantage so it's the ultimate taxing authority in the universe. That really sucks. Air resistance is fricticious I thought resistance was useless. At least for Dent and Ford. |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 01:27:46 +0000, David CL Francis wrote:
Above Mach one the air does not detect the approaching aircraft! :-) If it did, what would happen? |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
00:00:00Hg wrote: On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:57:05 -0800, george wrote: Gravity seems to work to it's own advantage so it's the ultimate taxing authority in the universe. That really sucks. Air resistance is fricticious I thought resistance was useless. At least for Dent and Ford. I've never sistanced even once |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
I asked first.
Ok, vertical momentum of a wing in level flight is zero. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
The hovering spacecraft has zero horizontal and vertical momentum.
It has weight, directed downwards. The engine accelerates mass downward producing an upward force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the weight of the spacecraft. This imparts an acceleration to the spacecraft equal in magnitude and opposite in direction from the local acceleration due to gravity. The flying wing has some horizontal momentum which is secondary here, and zero vertical momentum. It also has weight, directed downwards. The wing accelerates mass downward (mass it finds in the air molecules) producing an upward force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the weight of the wing (and its presumably attached aircraft. It does so by finding air in front of it, flinging it downwards and forwards (which causes the air in front to try to get out of the way by rising). In the steady state, one can measure high pressure below and low pressure above, but this is just the macroscopic manifestation of the greater number of molecular collisions below, and the lesser number of collisions above. That's what pressure is - we have both agreed on this. The greater number of collisions below imparts an acceleration to the aircraft equal in magnitude and opposite in direction from the local acceleration due to gravity. Unlike the spacecraft (at least to first order), the wing is actually supported by the earth, as the pressure below the wing is higher than it would have been absent the wing's passage, and this higher pressure (spread out over many square miles) pushes down on the earth with a force equal to the weight of the aircraft. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
Air resistance is fricticious
Resistance is futile. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |