Backwash Causes Lift?

"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

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

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

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-

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

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

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

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

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

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