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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Tina wrote:
In fact, if there is a downward component of the air's velocity that had come from its passage over the upper surface of the airfoil, then there had been an acceleration provided to that air -- acceleration in this case being conventionally defined as the second time derivative of position. Now, if the air is accelerated downward, and it has mass, it means there had been a force applied. The local prime mover is of course the wing, so it must experience an upward force. Maybe you have a different idea as to on what that equal and opposite force is operating on -- I'd be interested in hearing about that. There are a number of basic principles in operation here, be careful not to paint yourself into too tight a corner unless you are quite expert. I am not claiming skill in this area -- physics was a minor a long time ago -- but I remember some of the basics. The main thing about all this is that both Bernoulli and Newton are complete explanations of lift and will stand alone. In fact they are both explanations of the same thing really as they occur simultainously as lift is being created. The big rub about Bernoulli is that for years Ole' Daniel was raped by text books stating several totally false applications of Bernoulli as fact. The equal transit theory for example, often stated as an explanation for Bernoulli is totally incorrect. The real truth of it is that neither Newton or Bernoulli were dealing with lift at all in their respective work that explains lift. My fondest hope is that someday, pilots will collectively get it together enough to realize that Bernoulli and Newton are not in competition with each other and never have been. Personally though.....I like my old friend Mary Shafer's explanation for lift that blames it on the "lift demons". :-) DH -- Dudley Henriques |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
BDS wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" ... On 3 Oct, 13:27, "BDS" wrote: "Mxsmanic" wrote Le Chaud Lapin writes: What is the definition of a stall anyway? An abrupt loss of lift. Son, for someone who continually chastises the pilots here for their lack of knowledge, you sure can come up with some doozies yourself! Actually, it's correct, but only because he read it off wickepedia or something. Here's my take on it - a stall occurs at the angle of attack where the coefficient of lift stops increasing with angle of attack and begins to decrease. It continues to decrease beyond this point as angle of attack is increased further. It is not necessarily an abrupt change - most lift versus angle of attack curves that I've seen do not have a drastic (abrupt) drop beyond the peak. BDS This is a good explanation. -- Dudley Henriques |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Mr Dudley sir, those are not lift demons, those are lift fairies or
lift pixies. If you call them demons they may take you high and then let go. Newton warned us that for every fairy there is an equal and opposite demon. I would be interested in having the OP tell us how to derive conservation of momentum from F=MA though. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Personally though.....I like my old friend Mary Shafer's explanation for lift that blames it on the "lift demons". :-) No science like lift demons is ever the work of just one person. See for example the collection titled: "The Emerging Science of Lift Demons": at this site: http://www.main.org/polycosmos/glxywest/lift_faq.htm |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 3, 7:29 pm, Tina wrote:
In fact, if there is a downward component of the air's velocity that had come from its passage over the upper surface of the airfoil, then there had been an acceleration provided to that air -- acceleration in this case being conventionally defined as the second time derivative of position. The acceleration is indeed downward. If God declared that all air molecules in the universe must remain still for the sake of USENET explication, and the wing move forward, and you took a snapshot of that picture, there would be a vacuum created above the wing. It would be quite large (not laminar). The floor of this vacuum would be the wing itself. The ceiling would be the underside of an air mass above the entire wing, ready to move downward to fill the void. Now if God said, "Let molecules move!", the air mass above would, indeed, push downward. But they would not be allow to go completely downward. Molecules accelerated from the leading edge of the wing would fly backward, colliding with those coming from above, and the net-effect would be a stream. Now, if the air is accelerated downward, and it has mass, it means there had been a force applied. The local prime mover is of course the wing, so it must experience an upward force. Maybe you have a different idea as to on what that equal and opposite force is operating on -- I'd be interested in hearing about that. The force is coming from the air mass above the wing, the air mass that would be right above the vacuum created if no molecules were allowed to move. That airmass pushes downward, toward the void. This has nothing to do with the wing, except that the wing created the void, and also created high-pressure area at tip of wing causing acceleration of air backwards. There are a number of basic principles in operation here, be careful not to paint yourself into too tight a corner unless you are quite expert. I am not claiming skill in this area -- physics was a minor a long time ago -- but I remember some of the basics. I am not an expert either, but I know enough to know that the explanations I am reading in books are, at best, misleading. Some of them are plain wrong. Note: going to start a new thread so we can get to the bottom of this. And yes, I am certain. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 3, 6:39 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
The main thing about all this is that both Bernoulli and Newton are complete explanations of lift and will stand alone. In fact they are both explanations of the same thing really as they occur simultanously as lift is being created. The big rub about Bernoulli is that for years Ole' Daniel was raped by text books stating several totally false applications of Bernoulli as fact. The equal transit theory for example, often stated as an explanation for Bernoulli is totally incorrect. Exactly. The equal-transit theory isn't correct. The air over the top actually reaches the trailing edge *before* the bottom's flow. Intuitive thinking would have it arriving later because the distance is greater. Our OP should see the diagrams he http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html This one shows the pressure distribution over the typical cambered airfoil: http://www.kemi.fi/kk019065/calculators/ClarkY.jpg Note that there's pressure acting on the bottom. Where would that come from, if not Newton? And note that Bernoulli runs out of steam on the top near the trailing edge, and the pressure actually goes above ambient there. I see this on the wing of my Jodel in flight. It's a low wing, fabric covered, and the pressures are easily visible by the way the fabric is pressed down or pulled up between the ribs. Over about the last third of the chord, the fabric is pushed below the ribs as the pressure there goes quite positive, while ahead of that it's pulled up. Look at that leading edge. Lots of lift over the first bit, right where we'd expect a lot of drag (positive pressure) instead. Not at all what you'd expect intuitively, is it? And that's where the uninformed get into trouble: by using "experience' gained from other, vastly different things, or from reasoning based on inadequate information. After all the years of reading this stuff and seeing wind- tunnel demos and graphs and all such, I know there's an awful lot of information out there on the generation of lift. Most of it is available on the 'net. The strangest thing is the newbie who starts to argue with his textbooks, very publicly (as on a newsgroup) without Googling it for himself first. He knows better, he's sure. Dan |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Tina wrote:
Mr Dudley sir, those are not lift demons, those are lift fairies or lift pixies. If you call them demons they may take you high and then let go. Newton warned us that for every fairy there is an equal and opposite demon. Well.....as they say.....everything is relative; :-))) I'm sitting here wondering if I could actually survive explaining fairies and pixies at the bar at next reunion of the Naval Test Pilot School :-)) With fighter pilots, you have to be REAL careful with the words you throw out there, especially after a few rounds of "attitude adjustment". Knew a guy once who got to his first fighter assignment and hadn't had the honor of having a call sign given to him. To make an impression on the squadron, on his first day of duty assignment he showed up at the ready room with a tray full of the best damn muffins any of the guys had ever tasted. His wife had baked them. From that day on through his retirement, poor Ed was known as "Muffin". Ya just have to pity a guy who flies formation with "Viper", "Ironman", "and "Snake" with a callsign like "Muffin". He did get at least a partial break. Most of the guys called him "Muff". DH -- Dudley Henriques |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
"We" are not in need of getting to the bottom of this. Most of us have
been there and done that.This particular writer, if she chooses to analyse physics problems, tends to use the Newtonion approximations as first principles. The good news is my profession doesn't demand those skills often. I would, however, be interested, as I mentioned earlier, how you derive conservation of mV from Newton's force/acceleration relationship. I think you made that claim earlier in this thread. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote: Personally though.....I like my old friend Mary Shafer's explanation for lift that blames it on the "lift demons". :-) No science like lift demons is ever the work of just one person. See for example the collection titled: "The Emerging Science of Lift Demons": at this site: http://www.main.org/polycosmos/glxywest/lift_faq.htm I remember the lift demon stories from years ago. In fact, I believe the origins go back to WW2 in my memory anyway. I just liked the Mary put it together. :-) -- Dudley Henriques |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Morgans wrote:
The ONLY way to get rid of a know-nothing, know-it-all, obnoxious troll, is to IGNORE him. ALL of him. EVERY time, not just when you feel like it. Hush up and grab some popcorn with me n' Bertie. They're just announcing the second act! TheSmokingGnu |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |