I give up, after many, many years!

On May 28, 12:07*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.

Michael

I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.

A few well-designed killfiles has returned this group to functionality, more
or less. Unfortunately the trolls have driven off so many of the real
pilots who once posted here that serious responses are still in short
supply.

I'd recommend starting a serious topic and seeing where it leads. The price
is certainly right...and you might be surprised.

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:IPy%j.185274$yE1.72669@attbi_s21:

I believe that, eventually, this group could be a forum for genuine
discussion about thinks like backwash and lift.

You're just a few years late for that. That time came and went.

A few well-designed killfiles has returned this group to
functionality, more or less. Unfortunately the trolls have driven off
so many of the real pilots who once posted here that serious responses
are still in short supply.

I'd recommend starting a serious topic and seeing where it leads. The
price is certainly right...and you might be surprised.


OK.


Bertie

On May 29, 10:00*am, Kevin Horner wrote:
On May 28, 11:07 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

But as I stated, while I was not sure that I was right, the others
were sure that I was wrong.

No, but are certain that the others are wrong when they say you are
wrong. Your certainty about that implies that you (subconsciously) think
you are right. I don't believe you when you say "I was not sure I was
right" because you argue from a position of certainty, not uncertainty.
If you were uncertain, you would be *much* more open-minded and willing
to listen. This is the real reason you cannot get into a deep
discussion: you won't listen to people who don't agree with your
assertions.

I was more than willing to read explanations of how backwash causes
lift (and I still am). The problem is that most of the responses were
lacking in explanations based on scientific foundations. Saying "It's
true because it has always been true" does not count, IMO.

You play the "I'm an electrical engineer and I know calculus" card well,
but it is not enough to disprove the theory of lift.

Agreed, 100%. Many of the conflicting theories of lift were put forth
by people much skilled in these areas. I only say that to say that I
am readying and willing to hear details.

One person, I think Tina, gave a very vague explanation...too vague to
serve as an exposition. I was hoping for an explanation that would at
least past the standards of high school physics. Where are the forces
on the wing, and what elements generate those forces, in detail.

The explanation does not have to be complete, meaning, I do not expect
a full CFD exposition. A high school student who only knows basic
Newtonian physics and nothing about CFD, assuming s/he understands how
the lift is being generated, would be able to say where the particles
(air), the material (wing), and how the particles impart force on the
wing, and vice versa. Saying that there is lift because something
moves downward and therefore something must move upward is not an
example of Newton's theory of reciprocity. It's far too vague.

Discussion about backwash and lift? To what end? Has anyone made you
aware that flying machines have successfully been invented already?

Well, two reasons:

1. It is problably the centerpiece of any theory involving flight,
making it interesting in its own right.
2. If backwash does _not_ cause lift, then there might be something
else, and if there is something else (a bit if), there might be
opportunity for new types of aircraft, the kind that FAA has been
begging for for last 10 years.

You want to discuss how the experts in lift theory must be wrong because
lift is inconsistently explained by different sources. To get a
discussion going, you will need to find a newsgroup filled with people
who are also non-experts that want to talk about how the experts must be
wrong. Good luck in finding it.

My suspicion derives from my own basic knowledge of physics. Again, if
someone decided to explain, I would be all ears.

As for the experts, if two experts conflict each other, who am I to
say which of them is wrong? And if there is conflict, they cannot both
be right.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Steve Foley writes:

I'm curious to know how you have determined what 'most private pilots know'.

Private pilots are no different from the average person when it comes to
higher mathematics, physics, and gas theory, and the average person doesn't
know much of anything about these things. Therefore most pilots don't know
much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.

I suspect you don't even know a significant sample.

Not necessary. See above.

terry writes:

So whats your point then?

That someone who knows about these subjects is in a better position to discuss
them than someone who does not (the latter group including the average pilot).

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

Well if you knew the answer why did you ask the question, Anthony?

I can exclude certain answers as obviously wrong without necessarily knowing
the correct answer.

For example, while I do not know the square root of ten to fifteen decimal
places off the top of my head, I do know that it is not four.

There's your problem right there. Aviation is NOT a discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion. Perhaps you prefer a social club. I prefer
a science.

terry writes:

Its not a bad thing at all, as long as you are sure the other person
is indeed wrong.

Why do I have to be sure? (Although I typically am.)

But where you have gone wrong on this group is too
many times you have told people incorrectly that they were wrong, that
will really **** a lot of people off.

Why would I care about that? People who react in that way are reliably
stupid, and I'm not interested in talking to stupid people.

And then to make it worse,
there have been people who would still take the time to explain to you
why you were wrong, and you would refuse to accept it or acknowledge
you were wrong.

Examples?

Come to think of it I cant recall a single time you admitted you
were wrong.

That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.

Example? would you like
to tell us again why we cant apply the ideal gas law to calculate the
air density of a parcel of air we want to fly in.

You cannot use the combined laws (note the nuance) because the volume of the
atmosphere is not constrained.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Therefore most pilots don't know
much of anything about these things, either. Simple logic.

Sorry, that's faulty logic.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


That's because I'm not often wrong, but I admit it when it is the case.


I have seen quite a few examples where you were wrong. I have also pointed
these out.

You have NEVER admitted to being wrong in rec.aviation.piloting.