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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. No surprise there. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. And now you're just ducking. Like you do, every time it's pointed out that when air is pushed down, an equal volume of air must go UP? You then avoid saying "air flow" and start grasping for other terms. So how far down do you think air can flow before the ground is out of reach? Forever? |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. No surprise there. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. And now you're just ducking. Like you do, every time it's pointed out that when air is pushed down, an equal volume of air must go UP? You then avoid saying "air flow" and start grasping for other terms. Eventually it must go up. After it has transferred its momentum to the earth. I'm sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. So how far down do you think air can flow before the ground is out of reach? Forever? Essentially, yes. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote: Because the airplane and the Earth have zero relative vertical velocity during straight and level flight, conservation of momentum requires the net vertical flow of air to also be zero. Therefore in subsonic flows where the fluid is assumed incompressible, to the extent any fluid is moving downward, conservation of mass requires an equal amount of mass must be moving upward (the continuity requirement.) Hence airplanes must cause air to move in circles. Nope. Wrong. The aircraft is experience an force upward the entire time it is in flight. That force means there must be an equal force acting on the air, and since the air was not moving vertically (in our idealized case for this discussion) before the aircraft arrived, the force exerted on it must mean that it is moving downward afterward it has passed. Nothing you wrote in your paragraph contradicts anything in my paragraphs. So I'm at a loss therefore as to what specific statements you claim are wrong. So how about I break it down into smaller claims and you tell me which of these statements you agree with and which you disagree with: 1) Conservation of momentum requires that at all times during flight that net vertical momentum of the total system must be zero. Agree or disagree? 2) We can treat air as incompressible, so conservation of mass means the net vertical mass flow of the system during level flight must be zero. Agree or disagree? 3) Therefore if, say, the downwash is 1 kg/s at any given instant due to the wing, somewhere else in the fluid there must be an upwash at that same instant of 1 kg/s. Agree or disagree? 4) Because upwash mass rate equals downwash mass rate, at some point the downward flow reverses direction and becomes the upwash. Agree or disagree? Yes some deflection downward occurs. But I don't know that it could be said to "diffuse" in any sense due to conservation of mass and momentum requirements. As the air the plane has forced downward encounters more air, the momentum is diffused so that a greater and greater mass of air moves downward at smaller and smaller velocities (net)... ...until it encounters the ground. Keep in mind that balloons need no downwash to stay aloft. Yet we know from conservation laws that the *static* pressure on the surface of the earth must be increase due to their presence. Nothing you've written rules out the possibility that the *dynamic* pressure of the downwash translates into a *static* pressure increase well before the downwash reaches the surface of the earth. The physics of the situation do not seem to rule out that a priori. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Jim Logajan wrote: Because the airplane and the Earth have zero relative vertical velocity during straight and level flight, conservation of momentum requires the net vertical flow of air to also be zero. Therefore in subsonic flows where the fluid is assumed incompressible, to the extent any fluid is moving downward, conservation of mass requires an equal amount of mass must be moving upward (the continuity requirement.) Hence airplanes must cause air to move in circles. Nope. Wrong. The aircraft is experience an force upward the entire time it is in flight. That force means there must be an equal force acting on the air, and since the air was not moving vertically (in our idealized case for this discussion) before the aircraft arrived, the force exerted on it must mean that it is moving downward afterward it has passed. Nothing you wrote in your paragraph contradicts anything in my paragraphs. So I'm at a loss therefore as to what specific statements you claim are wrong. So how about I break it down into smaller claims and you tell me which of these statements you agree with and which you disagree with: 1) Conservation of momentum requires that at all times during flight that net vertical momentum of the total system must be zero. Agree or disagree? 2) We can treat air as incompressible, so conservation of mass means the net vertical mass flow of the system during level flight must be zero. Agree or disagree? Agree, but that system needs to include the Earth itself, doesn't it? 3) Therefore if, say, the downwash is 1 kg/s at any given instant due to the wing, somewhere else in the fluid there must be an upwash at that same instant of 1 kg/s. Agree or disagree? Agree. At the surface of the Earth. 4) Because upwash mass rate equals downwash mass rate, at some point the downward flow reverses direction and becomes the upwash. Agree or disagree? Agree. At the surface of the Earth. Yes some deflection downward occurs. But I don't know that it could be said to "diffuse" in any sense due to conservation of mass and momentum requirements. As the air the plane has forced downward encounters more air, the momentum is diffused so that a greater and greater mass of air moves downward at smaller and smaller velocities (net)... ...until it encounters the ground. Keep in mind that balloons need no downwash to stay aloft. Yet we know from conservation laws that the *static* pressure on the surface of the earth must be increase due to their presence. Nothing you've written rules out the possibility that the *dynamic* pressure of the downwash translates into a *static* pressure increase well before the downwash reaches the surface of the earth. The physics of the situation do not seem to rule out that a priori. Conservation of momentum does. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. No surprise there. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. And now you're just ducking. Like you do, every time it's pointed out that when air is pushed down, an equal volume of air must go UP? You then avoid saying "air flow" and start grasping for other terms. Eventually it must go up. After it has transferred its momentum to the earth. You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. I'm sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. So how far down do you think air can flow before the ground is out of reach? Forever? Essentially, yes. How? A wing doesn't keep pushing down on a parcel of air forever. It gives that air a shove, then it moves on. That downward-shoved air pushes the air below it out of the way, not just down, but sideways. Then the sideways-moving air shoves its neighboring air out of the way, not just sideways, but down and up. Add all the "downs" and subtract all the "ups" until there's nothing left. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. No surprise there. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. And now you're just ducking. Like you do, every time it's pointed out that when air is pushed down, an equal volume of air must go UP? You then avoid saying "air flow" and start grasping for other terms. Eventually it must go up. After it has transferred its momentum to the earth. You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. You've seen the edges curling back up. For anything with downward momentum to start moving upward, something else has to start moving downward. Have you heard of "Conservation of Momentum"? I'm sorry, but that is the reality of the situation. Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches are the ones that have to reach the ground. So how far down do you think air can flow before the ground is out of reach? Forever? Essentially, yes. How? A wing doesn't keep pushing down on a parcel of air forever. It gives that air a shove, then it moves on. That downward-shoved air pushes the air below it out of the way, not just down, but sideways. Then the sideways-moving air shoves its neighboring air out of the way, not just sideways, but down and up. Add all the "downs" and subtract all the "ups" until there's nothing left. Look up "Conservation of Momentum" and get back to me. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice. The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. No, you won't. No downwash, no lift. No go learn something. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: ... You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. You've seen the edges curling back up. That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further down underneath it. Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches are the ones that have to reach the ground. You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth." The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that were *already there* at ground level. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice. Of course I do. The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases. So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be coming along shortly? And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. No, you won't. No downwash, no lift. No go learn something. Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: ... You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. You've seen the edges curling back up. That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further down underneath it. Sorry, but you're wrong. First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right out the bottom of the frame. Second, I've stated all along that as time passes the momentum is diffused among more and more air. Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches are the ones that have to reach the ground. You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth." And it is: the *net* flow. The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that were *already there* at ground level. I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually strike the ground. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice. Of course I do. The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases. So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be coming along shortly? I think their will be no net push, yes. See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. No, you won't. No downwash, no lift. No go learn something. Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? Read this: "To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates no lift." http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic Properties.pdf Read it over and over again until you get it. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: ... You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. You've seen the edges curling back up. That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further down underneath it. Sorry, but you're wrong. First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right out the bottom of the frame. Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame. If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane. Second, I've stated all along that as time passes the momentum is diffused among more and more air. Yes, you don't explain much, but you do stick to whatever you've said. Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches are the ones that have to reach the ground. You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth." And it is: the *net* flow. The "net" flow is circulating air. Circulation circulates. It doesn't go somewhere and stay there. The "net" displacement is zero. The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that were *already there* at ground level. I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually strike the ground. So then, the net flow stops when "it" hits the ground. "It" isn't the molecules that the wing touches. Would "it" be the molecules at the bottom of the air column? (they're already on the ground) Identify "it" and maybe we'll know when the flow stops. The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice. Of course I do. The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases. So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be coming along shortly? I think their will be no net push, yes. There will be two pushes. There will be no net displacement. See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push. "No net push" doesn't make much sense here. There are opposing pushes, but at _different_ times. That's the difference. By your reasoning, microphones wouldn't work because the diaphragms inside won't move. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. No, you won't. No downwash, no lift. No go learn something. Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? Read this: "To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates no lift." I'm not disagreeing with that. I'll rephrase it, and say no circulation is generated. It is not even relevant. http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic Properties.pdf Read it over and over again until you get it. Get what? It's about wings and geometry. Find something about air moving through air. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: ... You've seen pics of it curling right back up. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp It hasn't bounced off the ground. You've seen the edges curling back up. That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further down underneath it. Sorry, but you're wrong. First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right out the bottom of the frame. Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame. If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane. None of which refutes what I said. Second, I've stated all along that as time passes the momentum is diffused among more and more air. Yes, you don't explain much, but you do stick to whatever you've said. Because it's the truth. Look up "conservation of momentum". Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column descending to the ground. I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches are the ones that have to reach the ground. You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth." And it is: the *net* flow. The "net" flow is circulating air. Circulation circulates. It doesn't go somewhere and stay there. The "net" displacement is zero. No. If there were no net displacement, there would be no net change in momentum. No net change in momentum means no force down on the air by the aircraft. No force down on the air means no force up on the aircraft. The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that were *already there* at ground level. I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually strike the ground. So then, the net flow stops when "it" hits the ground. "It" isn't the molecules that the wing touches. Correct. Would "it" be the molecules at the bottom of the air column? (they're already on the ground) Identify "it" and maybe we'll know when the flow stops. The movement of air downward is "it". The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium by which the aircraft can transmit that push. Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never going to make it across the road. No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice. Of course I do. The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases. So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be coming along shortly? I think their will be no net push, yes. There will be two pushes. There will be no net displacement. See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push. "No net push" doesn't make much sense here. There are opposing pushes, but at _different_ times. That's the difference. By your reasoning, microphones wouldn't work because the diaphragms inside won't move. And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but opposite force. But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow redirection, and get lift with no net downwash. No, you won't. No downwash, no lift. No go learn something. Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? Read this: "To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates no lift." I'm not disagreeing with that. I'll rephrase it, and say no circulation is generated. It is not even relevant. http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic Properties.pdf Read it over and over again until you get it. Get what? It's about wings and geometry. Find something about air moving through air. "To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates no lift." isn't about air moving? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pressure Distribution Charts | sisu1a | Soaring | 0 | September 21st 08 05:53 PM |
Soundwaves Boost Wing Lift | [email protected] | Home Built | 30 | September 5th 05 10:21 PM |
747 weight distribution | Robin | General Aviation | 25 | June 22nd 05 03:53 AM |
Distribution of armor on a B-52 | B2431 | Military Aviation | 12 | August 16th 04 09:07 PM |
Alternator load distribution in a Baron | Viperdoc | Owning | 7 | December 9th 03 10:27 PM |