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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Le Chaud Lapin writes: In electrical engineering, we have our own set of fundamental principles. The "terminal" set of primitives governing electronics (electrostatics and electrodynamics) is Maxwells Equations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation. [Ironically, during his lifetime, Maxwell was also someone who was a leading expert on aerodynamics. The notions of gradients, the Laplacian, and scalar potentials have strong parallels in both fields.] In EE, we have out own myths, like power lines causing brain cancer, but when they arise, the experts work hard to show indisputable evidence, verifiable, rigorous evidence to the contrary, to nip the non-sense in the bud. We do still have areas of disputes, like what causes shot noise in circuits [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise], but on the bread- and-butter basics, you won't find a college-leve textbook speaking untruth. So naturally I am extremely surprised to see this happening in aerodynamics. You are, after all, the rocket scientists. Perhaps you have seen EE from the inside and aerodynamics from the outside. They may resemble each other far more than you realize. Remember how well Tesla was received. 2. NASA says it's wrong. From Jim Logajan: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html The question, though, is who exactly is "NASA"? The organization didn't write the text (which, by the way, is an explanation for schoolkids); a human being did. Is an individual human being as reliably correct as all of NASA? This is another illustration of the dangers of credentialism. I'll be the first to admit that i don't have the capacity to do so at this moment, but imagine that that one shape of the leading edge is not appropriate for all speeds of the aircraft. For a given set of context variables like density, temperature, pressure, angle-of- attack, airspeed, what-the-plane-was-doing-20-milliseconds-ago, turbulences...wind, etc...there is an optimal shape for that leading edge, depending on what you are trying to do. It would be quite wild if someone were to design a wing that could morph, dynamically by control of a computer, into an instaneously-optimal shape. Most of the adjustments in wing shape are intended to reduce drag or raise the critical angle of attack. Otherwise a flat board would suffice. Nope. Wrong, fjukktard. A chuck glider 777 is not going to make it to Tokyo Bertie |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Tina wrote:
Matt, come on, you're better than that. You have to know what you're talking about re current flow is simply accepting one convention or another. In either case (using a plus or a minus sign consistantly when writing loop equations for example) the calculations and observations match fairly well. I was simply making a point that there are different ways of looking at the same thing. Much the same with lift and Bernoulli and Newton. Does the difference in pressure between the top and bottom of the airfoil cause the downward airflow behind the airfoil, or does the mechanical deflection of the airflow cause the different in pressure between the top and bottom of the wing? Inquiring minds want to know? :-) Matt |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
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. What about in the electrolyte inside a battery? What about in a plasma? What about in solid electrolytes? If you are referring to holes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole and electrons in semiconductors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor , where the descriptions of flow of charge through a semiconductor lattice shows both positive and negative charge flow, in opposite directions, in the present of an electrical field, the negative charge being represented by electrons, the positive charge being represented by holes. I'm now pretty convinced that you are Mxmaniac and I need to update my kill file. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
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. I can think of no mechanism to move protons in a solid, but they move quite well in a vacuum. Ever heard of a proton accelerator? A current flow in a proton accelerator is a current flow of protons. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com: 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. If you are referring to holes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole and electrons in semiconductors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor , where the descriptions of flow of charge through a semiconductor lattice shows both positive and negative charge flow, in opposite directions, in the present of an electrical field, the negative charge being represented by electrons, the positive charge being represented by holes. Every book in electrical engineering is likely quite explicit in telling students up front, (more like forming an agreement with the students), that the holes are to be modeled as physical particles because that it is mathematically equivalent to the true phenonmenon, which is a void moving through the lattice, that, although there are people who are quite capable of modeling the truth, which is based on stochastics and energy-band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band theory, they will use the one that is simpler since the two models are functionally equivalent. Note that any professor writing a book claiming that holes are real particles would probably be barred from teaching. In the world of electrical engineering, it would be like saying that the Santa Claus really does exist, knowing that the professors themselves created the figment of Santa Claus. I cannot emphasize enough that there is no confusion whatsoever in the minds of the students about what is actually going on inside the lattice. There is no doubt in their minds that there are no such thing as physical particles called holes moving through a lattice. There is no doubt because professors conscientiously created this fiction, and tells their students: "We all know that there are no hole particles...but.." You will notice that the Wikpedia description of holes uses the word 'conceptual' in the first sentence. A related concept is something called phonons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon These are quantum mechanical pseudo-particles. Electrical engineers and physicists know that they do not exist. They know because they made them up, just like the made up the holes. There is nothing wrong with doing this. In each case, there is no untruth being spoken, because the scientists say up front: "We are about to tell you something that is not really true. Just keep in mind what the real truth is as we go along, please." This implies that the EE students know the real truth, which they do, because those same professors tell them that also. The aerodynamicists say: "We are about to tell you something that is true.", and they say nothing more, because they think that what they are about to say is not a mathematically equivalent model of the truth, but truth itself. Consider the case where one might do a systems problem to find the voltage across a capacitorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor, and end up with something like... V(t) = 12 * Integral(Delta(t)) + u(t)*e^-3t*e[jwt/(4*pi)] j is the square root of negative one (-1) w = angular frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_frequency t = time u(t) is Heaviside step function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_step_function Delta(t) is the Dirac-delta function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta) This voltage contains complex numbers sitting n an exponential. It also contains a phenomenon that occurs so quick that is is mathematically impossible to observe in time, yet its effect during that brief moment is infinite. This is ridiculous. We know with certainty that no such things exist in real-life. But that's ok, because we made these things. Electrical engineers looking at this will know immediately what the truth is, what the math represents. What is odd is that one eventually reachs a point where no uneasiness at all comes from moving between the real and the unreal. They are, in an abstract sense, in separable. Futhermore, concerning the point you made, if the above voltage V(t) is positive, then by the formula for charge on a capacitor, Q=CV, since C, the capacitance, is [ahemm....always positive...please, if you are a EE reading this, please don't start up with me about general impedance converters ], the the charge is possitive, but we just noted in the semiconductor example above that one does not find positive charge running around in circuits because the are constrained to the nuclei of atoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus with their neutron buddies. This does not bother electrical engineers because they see the formula and immediately see the image of what is going on, the truth of physics as it occurs. Note that, if the formula claims that there is positive charge on one plate of the capacitor, there really is no positive charge "on the plate" so to speak, but a depletion of negative charge, which is mathematically eqivalent model of truth, just as there is no such thing as square- root of negative number in real life, but if you use Euler's Formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula, a Taylor expansion of the formula about t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_expansion, you will see that the V(t) comes out to the nice sine waves that you would see on an oscilloscopehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscilloscope . Contrast this with what the aerodynamicists are doing. They are not issuinig disclaimers saying, "this is not really what is happening, we all know that, but let us pretend to make the math simpler for now". They claim what they are illustrating *is* the truth. Yes, they are, they're just no ttelling you because you aren't designing airplanes, fjukkwit. Bertie |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
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- You're an idiot Bertie |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
"Dan Luke" wrote in news:13gercm9vnp7160
@news.supernews.com: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote: The physicists I know worry about confirming their calculations by observation. I don't know who MX is referring to. The little "Famous physicists " pics he had on his jammies. Haw! You're on a hot streak, Bertie. Thanks, a good k00king always brings out the best! Bertie |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin writes:
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. He said "movement of positive charge," not "movement of protons." |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
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. This is what happens with semiconductors. In the other case, there is only one situation: 1. What the observers think is the truth. In this latter case in aerodynamics, the observers do not say, "We all know that this is not what is really happening..". Instead, they say, "This is what's happening." I can think of no mechanism to move protons in a solid, but they move quite well in a vacuum. Yes, I know. When I was tutoring electrodynamics, I used the problem that I am sure you are familiar with, a proton, entering a uniform magnetic field, and one must find the radius of its circular motion based on the mass of the proton, the magnetic field intensity, etc. This problem is so common, I decided to use a proton instead of an electron to try to catch students who were cheating by simply copying problems from previous years. The answer given by cheaters would have the right radius but the wrong direction. Ever heard of a proton accelerator? Yes, in fact, I had it as a disclaimer in my original post, just as I had a disclaimer about a capacitor not being negative. [Note I said that capacitors have positive capacitance, which is true, until you start implementing virtual capacitors using general impedance converters, which can make them negative, but then they are not real capacitors, etc.] I took out counterexample about proton accelerators because Wikipedia did not have an immediate link for the exact phrase "proton accelerator", and the related links were bordering on quantum physics, and I certainly don't want to open up a can of worms about quantum physics in this group. A current flow in a proton accelerator is a current flow of protons. Sure. But no one ever disputed that. Matt was implying that electrical engineers/physicist cannot agree on what is actually going on, which is not true. Most physicists who work with proton accelerators are quite aware that that there is a proton moving under the influence of the Lorentz force in an accelerator. No particle physicist ever claims otherwise. Also, if you ask a bunch of electrical engineers, "Does everyone that every know that there really is no such thing as a hole, that it is in fact massive numbers of protons, entering an exiting the energy band according to a stochastic model?" They would say, "Yes, yes, we know! Now get on with your talk about these non- existent holes." Aerodynamics, today, is different. If you ask a bunch of aeronautical engineers, "Does everyone know that the lift is due to the air on top traveling faster than the air beneath, thus invoking Bernoulli's Principle..yada yada....", Barry Schiff, and the person who wrote the article at NASA, will say, "No. We do not agree with what you just said." -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Matt Whiting writes: 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 absolute truth is unknown, and the real proof of wizardry is the ability to say "I don't know." And the proof of your idiocy is that you can actualy say that with a presumably straight face. |
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 |