Backwash Causes Lift?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ps.com:

On Oct 6, 2:09 pm, wrote:
I believe it should be possible to explain a venturi tube,
Bernoulli's
principle, and a decent part of why a wing has lift, in about 2-3
pages of written text, with pictures, using no formulas, not even
grade-school mathematics.

Commonly done in many texts. You just haven't read them yet.

Which texts are those?

I have read some texts:

1. Jeppesen got it wrong.

No they didn't




2. Rod Machado got it wrong.


Don't know who he is but if you thnk he's wrong he can't be.


3. That link that with the funny color lines that was posted in this
thread got it wrong.


Nope.

4. If you do search in Google for "Bernoulli" + "faster" + wing +
lift, you will see 1000's of pages that got it wrong.


Nope.



Plus I watched 3 CFI's at my ground school, the one I paid money to
teach me the theory of flying, get it wrong at the whiteboard.


There's too many things wrong with this sentence to even start on.

And of course, if the NASA paper is true, then there are even people
in this group who got it wrong.


Well, you did , as botht yourself and your sockpuppet.


Until 3 days ago, the number of people who had gotten (partially)
right was 1.


Oha, and who was that?

Bertie

On Oct 6, 1:32 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:09 pm, wrote:

I believe it should be possible to explain a venturi tube, Bernoulli's
principle, and a decent part of why a wing has lift, in about 2-3
pages of written text, with pictures, using no formulas, not even
grade-school mathematics.

Commonly done in many texts. You just haven't read them yet.

Which texts are those?

I have read some texts:

1. Jeppesen got it wrong.
2. Rod Machado got it wrong.
3. That link that with the funny color lines that was posted in this
thread got it wrong.
4. If you do search in Google for "Bernoulli" + "faster" + wing +
lift, you will see 1000's of pages that got it wrong.

All wrong, according to you. There's no point pointing out
any others. They'll be wrong, too.


Plus I watched 3 CFI's at my ground school, the one I paid money to
teach me the theory of flying, get it wrong at the whiteboard.

Rather common, distressingly. However, he may have had it
right; you have just determined that EVERYONE but you is wrong.

And of course, if the NASA paper is true, then there are even people
in this group who got it wrong.

Until 3 days ago, the number of people who had gotten (partially)
right was 1. The number of stories I had heard from people who got it
wrong was probably about 60-70.

After reading the link that Jim Logajan posted, the number of people
who are saying it's one way is 2. The number of people who are saying
it is the exact opposite is still 60-70.

Which textbooks would you believe if you had read 1 saying one thing,
and more than 10 others saying the exact opposite?

Does truth in physics depend on a democratic vote?

Dan

On Oct 6, 2:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:32 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I have read some texts:

1. Jeppesen got it wrong.
2. Rod Machado got it wrong.
3. That link that with the funny color lines that was posted in this
thread got it wrong.
4. If you do search in Google for "Bernoulli" + "faster" + wing +
lift, you will see 1000's of pages that got it wrong.

All wrong, according to you. There's no point pointing out
any others. They'll be wrong, too.

Plus I watched 3 CFI's at my ground school, the one I paid money to
teach me the theory of flying, get it wrong at the whiteboard.

Rather common, distressingly. However, he may have had it
right; you have just determined that EVERYONE but you is wrong.

It wasn't just one. It was 3. My instructor, plus 2 others. They said
the thing that the NASA paper is calling "a myth". Who is right? The
NASA author or the CFI's?

And of course, if the NASA paper is true, then there are even people
in this group who got it wrong.

Until 3 days ago, the number of people who had gotten (partially)
right was 1. The number of stories I had heard from people who got it
wrong was probably about 60-70.

After reading the link that Jim Logajan posted, the number of people
who are saying it's one way is 2. The number of people who are saying
it is the exact opposite is still 60-70.

Which textbooks would you believe if you had read 1 saying one thing,
and more than 10 others saying the exact opposite?

Does truth in physics depend on a democratic vote?

That's what I am asking...

After reading 60-70 that says one thing, and seeing 2 others that says
the exact opposite, and it just happen to be that the 2 are the ones
that you personally agree with, which would you believe? The 60-70?
The 2? Flip a coin?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 6, 2:09 pm, wrote:
I believe it should be possible to explain a venturi tube, Bernoulli's
principle, and a decent part of why a wing has lift, in about 2-3
pages of written text, with pictures, using no formulas, not even
grade-school mathematics.
Commonly done in many texts. You just haven't read them yet.

Which texts are those?

I have read some texts:

1. Jeppesen got it wrong.
2. Rod Machado got it wrong.
3. That link that with the funny color lines that was posted in this
thread got it wrong.
4. If you do search in Google for "Bernoulli" + "faster" + wing +
lift, you will see 1000's of pages that got it wrong.

I just added you to my kill file so I don't have to read your drivel any
longer so I'd say I'm the only one so far to get it right! :-)

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 6, 2:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:32 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I have read some texts:

1. Jeppesen got it wrong.
2. Rod Machado got it wrong.
3. That link that with the funny color lines that was posted in
this
thread got it wrong.
4. If you do search in Google for "Bernoulli" + "faster" + wing +
lift, you will see 1000's of pages that got it wrong.

All wrong, according to you. There's no point pointing out
any others. They'll be wrong, too.

Plus I watched 3 CFI's at my ground school, the one I paid money to
teach me the theory of flying, get it wrong at the whiteboard.

Rather common, distressingly. However, he may have had it
right; you have just determined that EVERYONE but you is wrong.

It wasn't just one. It was 3. My instructor, plus 2 others. They said
the thing that the NASA paper is calling "a myth". Who is right? The
NASA author or the CFI's?

And of course, if the NASA paper is true, then there are even
people
in this group who got it wrong.

Until 3 days ago, the number of people who had gotten (partially)
right was 1. The number of stories I had heard from people who got
it
wrong was probably about 60-70.

After reading the link that Jim Logajan posted, the number of
people
who are saying it's one way is 2. The number of people who are
saying
it is the exact opposite is still 60-70.

Which textbooks would you believe if you had read 1 saying one
thing,
and more than 10 others saying the exact opposite?

Does truth in physics depend on a democratic vote?

That's what I am asking...

After reading 60-70 that says one thing, and seeing 2 others that says
the exact opposite, and it just happen to be that the 2 are the ones
that you personally agree with, which would you believe? The 60-70?
The 2? Flip a coin?



You don't fly and you never wil, therefore it doesn't matter.



Bertie

writes:

This has never been an accepted definition of angle of attack and
your creation of it has no credibility.

Ho-hum. Acceptable to whom? Credible to whom?

Decide for yourself what you will accept or believe. Don't rely on others to
do it for you. Arguments can stand or fall on their own merit; do not rely on
hearsay and peer pressure to do your thinking for you.

You just create even more confusion in your mind and in the minds
of innocent truth-seekers here.

Compelling people to think for themselves will not confuse them, as long as
they are not unusually stupid. Most people don't like to think for
themselves, but they can do it if they have to.

So you don't believe NASA or NACA or anyone else that finds
lift at negative AOAs on some airfoils?

When I read what NASA says, it always seems to be different from what people
claim that NASA says.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

This has never been an accepted definition of angle of attack and
your creation of it has no credibility.

Ho-hum. Acceptable to whom? Credible to whom?

Decide for yourself what you will accept or believe. Don't rely on
others to do it for you. Arguments can stand or fall on their own
merit; do not rely on hearsay and peer pressure to do your thinking
for you.

You just create even more confusion in your mind and in the minds
of innocent truth-seekers here.

Compelling people to think for themselves will not confuse them, as
long as they are not unusually stupid. Most people don't like to
think for themselves, but they can do it if they have to.

So you don't believe NASA or NACA or anyone else that finds
lift at negative AOAs on some airfoils?

When I read what NASA says, it always seems to be different from what
people claim that NASA says.



Yeah, right. You have no idea what Nasa says, fjukkwit.


You don't even know how a wing works.

And you don't fly. and never will.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 6, 12:45 pm, wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the movement
of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the absolute
truth, Mr. Wizard?
The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

You've fallen into the trap you are complaining about and providing
a simplistic answer that isn't true under all circumstances.

Uh...no. The difference, as I pointed out with great redunancy in my
post, is that, in one case, there are two situations:

1. The truth, which the observers know.
2. The untruth, which the obsevers concoct to make the math simpler,
all the while keeping in mind what the truth is.

Too simplistic.

There is more between heaven and Earth than truth and untruth.

You appear to have the same problem that MX has, i.e. a monocromatic
outlook on things which really ****es a lot of people off.

Life, physics, engineering, and flying brush a broader spectrum.

Yeah, there is a lot published about aviation by "experts" that flys
in the face of physics, but really, so what?

I have 4 bookcases of reference books on my sphere of knowledge. There
isn't one of them that doesn't have an "untruth" in them somewhere.

Does that make all those books worthless or imply no one knows the
"real" answer?

Not hardly.

If you really want to know the "truth", USNET is not the place to
find it.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

If you really want to know the "truth", USNET is not the place to
find it.

USENET is the wisdom and folly of the world.

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 6, 8:53 am, Tina wrote:
The hand waving about lift is equally funny: people are attaching
names to various theories, but the reality is the physics used in the
analysis of lift work well enough to predict performance. The 'wise
fools' will wave their hands and argue, those knowing what they are
doing will design airplanes.

This I definitely agree with. Even if aerodynamicists (is that even a
word) were so inept at physics that could not even calculate F=ma,
after so many iterations, they would still be able to make highly
refined airfoils simply because nature provides feedback to help one
distinguish between good designs and bad designs.

However, I must point out something I noted yesterday, that if you
have theory as well as the practice, the correct theory, there might
be opportunity to experience and entiely new realm of order and
efficiency.

I re-read the chapter on fluid mechanics in my physics book last night
and it says exactly what that NASA article refutes. Naturally, I was
bit perturbed - this physics book is same one used by some very good
universities. It also read in it a near verbatim explanation of
downwash as an example of Newton's law at work, that I found in the
Jeppesen book, the same explanation with is rigorously refuted by
NASA. I remember reading this chapter over and over a long time ago,
and "not getting it", and now I realize that it's because it is most
likely wrong.

In any case, there is something to be said for re-examining the
theory. There might be a bit of opportunity here.

I *think* I understand the physics behind reduced pressure above a
moving, appropriately shaped airfoil. *If* my suspicions are correct,
then it should be possible to make an entirely new type of aircraft,
where the mechanims to keep the aircraft flying are entirely different
from what they are today. I won't say too much now. I know no one
will consider it anyway. I'll just start fiddling, albeit slowly,
with my copy of SolidWorks that is coming in the mail soon.

I plan eventually to make a small-scale model. Hopefully, someday, I
might find someone involved in aerodynamics/flight to help make a
prototype.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


Dear Le DooD,

You have got some severe imagination going on here! You need to quit
playing with lift; that has already been invented. Anti-matter and
anti-gravity is where it is at. Use your force to leap into the next era of
travel. The wheel and wing are already here.

Beam me up Scotty,

--
*H. Allen Smith*
WACO - We are all here, because we are not all there.