![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
....and the plane pulls up on the earth.
The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ....until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? LOL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: ...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? Send that to Scott Eberhardt. OK, I will. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Professional.html To email me: Copy/Paste Send Thanks, I've got it covered. Next, don't miss "A slightly more technical paper, which targets physics students and teachers, titled The Newtonian Description of Lift of a Wing, is also available online (in PDF format)" at the bottom of the webpage. You'll notice his email address at the top of that paper, the same as on the webpage. As the paper says, the amount of air below that is pushed is negligible. See "the wrong-Newtonian description of lift" on page 3. See the "virtual scoop" in Figure 5. Air from overhead is pulled down by the plane. The plane must, in turn, be pulled up. You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down. It's more like a plane at the bottom of a suction bubble, pulling down. Oh, you like differential pressure, you don't like air to pull? Too bad, he talks about air pulling on page 5. Nothing is said about downwash continuing to the surface. The paper does say that if a plane flies over a large scale, the weight of the airplane would be measured. Excited? Well, an acoustically levitated scale would register its own weight too. Or turn that upside down, and the scale sees the earth's weight acoustically levitated above the scale. Same thing, and no upwash or downwash in sight, just a standing pressure wave with a scale caught at a node between positive and negative. Almost sort of like a wing between a strong little suction bubble and a big weak pressure bubble. Is the wing almost sort of caught in a standing wave? I don't know. You certainly don't. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: ...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? Send that to Scott Eberhardt. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Professional.html To email me: Copy/Paste Send Next, don't miss "A slightly more technical paper, which targets physics students and teachers, titled The Newtonian Description of Lift of a Wing, is also available online (in PDF format)" at the bottom of the webpage. You'll notice his email address at the top of that paper, the same as on the webpage. As the paper says, the amount of air below that is pushed is negligible. See "the wrong-Newtonian description of lift" on page 3. See the "virtual scoop" in Figure 5. Air from overhead is pulled down by the plane. The plane must, in turn, be pulled up. You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down. It's more like a plane at the bottom of a suction bubble, pulling down. Oh, you like differential pressure, you don't like air to pull? Too bad, he talks about air pulling on page 5. Nothing is said about downwash continuing to the surface. The paper does say that if a plane flies over a large scale, the weight of the airplane would be measured. Excited? Well, an acoustically levitated scale would register its own weight too. Or turn that upside down, and the scale sees the earth's weight acoustically levitated above the scale. Same thing, and no upwash or downwash in sight, just a standing pressure wave with a scale caught at a node between positive and negative. Almost sort of like a wing between a strong little suction bubble and a big weak pressure bubble. Is the wing almost sort of caught in a standing wave? I don't know. Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...ntcover&dq=und erstanding+flight+anderson&cd=1#v=onepage&q=downwa sh&f=false Page 11. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: ...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? Send that to Scott Eberhardt. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Professional.html To email me: Copy/Paste Send Next, don't miss "A slightly more technical paper, which targets physics students and teachers, titled The Newtonian Description of Lift of a Wing, is also available online (in PDF format)" at the bottom of the webpage. You'll notice his email address at the top of that paper, the same as on the webpage. As the paper says, the amount of air below that is pushed is negligible. See "the wrong-Newtonian description of lift" on page 3. See the "virtual scoop" in Figure 5. Air from overhead is pulled down by the plane. The plane must, in turn, be pulled up. You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down. It's more like a plane at the bottom of a suction bubble, pulling down. Oh, you like differential pressure, you don't like air to pull? Too bad, he talks about air pulling on page 5. Nothing is said about downwash continuing to the surface. The paper does say that if a plane flies over a large scale, the weight of the airplane would be measured. Excited? Well, an acoustically levitated scale would register its own weight too. Or turn that upside down, and the scale sees the earth's weight acoustically levitated above the scale. Same thing, and no upwash or downwash in sight, just a standing pressure wave with a scale caught at a node between positive and negative. Almost sort of like a wing between a strong little suction bubble and a big weak pressure bubble. Is the wing almost sort of caught in a standing wave? I don't know. Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...ntcover&dq=und erstanding+flight+anderson&cd=1#v=onepage&q=downwa sh&f=false Page 11. Er, right. His book "which targets the general public", rather than the more technical paper "which targets physics students and teachers." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: ...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? Send that to Scott Eberhardt. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Professional.html To email me: Copy/Paste Send Next, don't miss "A slightly more technical paper, which targets physics students and teachers, titled The Newtonian Description of Lift of a Wing, is also available online (in PDF format)" at the bottom of the webpage. You'll notice his email address at the top of that paper, the same as on the webpage. As the paper says, the amount of air below that is pushed is negligible. See "the wrong-Newtonian description of lift" on page 3. See the "virtual scoop" in Figure 5. Air from overhead is pulled down by the plane. The plane must, in turn, be pulled up. You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down. It's more like a plane at the bottom of a suction bubble, pulling down. Oh, you like differential pressure, you don't like air to pull? Too bad, he talks about air pulling on page 5. Nothing is said about downwash continuing to the surface. The paper does say that if a plane flies over a large scale, the weight of the airplane would be measured. Excited? Well, an acoustically levitated scale would register its own weight too. Or turn that upside down, and the scale sees the earth's weight acoustically levitated above the scale. Same thing, and no upwash or downwash in sight, just a standing pressure wave with a scale caught at a node between positive and negative. Almost sort of like a wing between a strong little suction bubble and a big weak pressure bubble. Is the wing almost sort of caught in a standing wave? I don't know. Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...ntcover&dq=und erstanding+flight+anderson&cd=1#v=onepage&q=downwa sh&f=false Page 11. Er, right. His book "which targets the general public", rather than the more technical paper "which targets physics students and teachers." You think he rights things into his book which aren't true? You think that simply because he makes the language more plain he's included falsehoods? Really? He never says *once* in his "more technical paper" that "The plane must, in turn, be pulled up." That is you. He does say in his "more technical paper": "Lift requires power When a plane passes overhead the formally still air gains a downward velocity." Read that over and over until you get it: "When a plane passes overhead the formally still air gains a downward velocity." He also says right at the top of this "more techical paper": "This material can be found in more detail in Understanding Flight 1st and 2nd editions by David Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, McGraw-Hill, 2001, and 2009" IOW, the author of the "more technical paper" declares the book the more detailed explanation. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: ...and the plane pulls up on the earth. The air pushes up on the plane and the plane pushes down on the air; essentially transferring the earth's continuous flow of downward momentum acting on the plane to a much greater mass of air. That air keeps that downward momentum, diffusing it through more and more volume... ...until it eventually transfers it back to the Earth; countering the aircraft's upward pull on it. I'm willing to send that to any Ph.D. in Aeronautics that anyone cares to name and post the answer back here. Anyone game? Send that to Scott Eberhardt. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Professional.html To email me: Copy/Paste Send Next, don't miss "A slightly more technical paper, which targets physics students and teachers, titled The Newtonian Description of Lift of a Wing, is also available online (in PDF format)" at the bottom of the webpage. You'll notice his email address at the top of that paper, the same as on the webpage. As the paper says, the amount of air below that is pushed is negligible. See "the wrong-Newtonian description of lift" on page 3. See the "virtual scoop" in Figure 5. Air from overhead is pulled down by the plane. The plane must, in turn, be pulled up. You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down. It's more like a plane at the bottom of a suction bubble, pulling down. Oh, you like differential pressure, you don't like air to pull? Too bad, he talks about air pulling on page 5. Nothing is said about downwash continuing to the surface. The paper does say that if a plane flies over a large scale, the weight of the airplane would be measured. Excited? Well, an acoustically levitated scale would register its own weight too. Or turn that upside down, and the scale sees the earth's weight acoustically levitated above the scale. Same thing, and no upwash or downwash in sight, just a standing pressure wave with a scale caught at a node between positive and negative. Almost sort of like a wing between a strong little suction bubble and a big weak pressure bubble. Is the wing almost sort of caught in a standing wave? I don't know. Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...ntcover&dq=und erstanding+flight+anderson&cd=1#v=onepage&q=downwa sh&f=false Page 11. Er, right. His book "which targets the general public", rather than the more technical paper "which targets physics students and teachers." You think he rights things into his book which aren't true? You think that simply because he makes the language more plain he's included falsehoods? Really? I think so. He never says *once* in his "more technical paper" that "The plane must, in turn, be pulled up." That is you. Correct. He never said the next sentence "You imagined a plane at the top of an air column, pushing down" either. He does say in his "more technical paper": "Lift requires power When a plane passes overhead the formally still air gains a downward velocity." Read that over and over until you get it: "When a plane passes overhead the formally still air gains a downward velocity." He actually says that? Still air always seems very casual to me. He also says right at the top of this "more techical paper": "This material can be found in more detail in Understanding Flight 1st and 2nd editions by David Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, McGraw-Hill, 2001, and 2009" Not on the pdf I downloaded. http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/Lift_AAPT.pdf Maybe you're looking at something else. IOW, the author of the "more technical paper" declares the book the more detailed explanation. I don't see any such notion on his webpage either. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." The momentum is transferred toward the earth at essentially the speed of sound and appears as a rise in static pressure. .... OR ... _Your_ contention has *always* been that it is transferred much slower. In fact you contend that the speed of that transfer decreases at some unknown rate. By inference, it seems you also appear to contend that the transfer eventually happens due to a rise in dynamic pressure, not static pressure. You appear to continue to treat the problem as a "rocket" problem, which yields non-physical aspects like holes and voids in the atmosphere above the aircraft. (Because you've already claimed no air moves upward *until* the downwash reaches the earth's surface.) So please help me understand your view of the situation by considering the following hypothetical case and answering as many of the questions I ask as you can: Imagine a toy helicopter in a large room (or even a vertically oriented denser-than-water submarine in a box fully filled with water): ========================== -- Top | | | | B -- | --------- | -- B | | | | (===0 | | | ... ... (Height of room/box could be large or | | small, relative to blade width.) | | ========================== -- Bottom (Width of room/box could be large or small, relative to blade width.) Given a downwash through the blades (depicted by "---------" in the figure above) of the copter/submarine sufficient to hold the copter/submarine stationary, can you describe to me roughly how you see the flow of fluid above the helicopter occuring such that no fluid flows upward anywhere *through* the plane "B" made by the blades *before* the first bit of downwash created by the *blades* has reached the bottom of the room/box? That is - if the copter/submarine begins moving 1 kg/s of fluid down, do you see a void immediately forming above the blades? If not, which direction is the fluid flowing from so as to keep a void from forming? If so, what keeps fluid from filling that void? If a void above the blades is avoided by sideways fluid flow, does that mean you see voids forming along the walls above the blades? If you see voids forming anywhere, what keeps fluid from filling them? Are voids consistent with the assumption of incompressible flow? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Alan Baker wrote:
Oh, you should check out what he says in his book: "The wing develops lift by transferring momentum to the air. Momentum is mass times velocity. In straight and level flight, the momentum is transferred toward the earth. This momentum eventually strikes the earth." The momentum is transferred toward the earth at essentially the speed of sound and appears as a rise in static pressure. .... OR ... _Your_ contention has *always* been that it is transferred much slower. In fact you contend that the speed of that transfer decreases at some unknown rate. By inference, it seems you also appear to contend that the transfer eventually happens due to a rise in dynamic pressure, not static pressure. You appear to continue to treat the problem as a "rocket" problem, which yields non-physical aspects like holes and voids in the atmosphere above the aircraft. (Because you've already claimed no air moves upward *until* the downwash reaches the earth's surface.) So please help me understand your view of the situation by considering the following hypothetical case and answering as many of the questions I ask as you can: Imagine a toy helicopter in a large room (or even a vertically oriented denser-than-water submarine in a box fully filled with water): ========================== -- Top | | | | B -- | --------- | -- B | | | | (===0 | | | ... ... (Height of room/box could be large or | | small, relative to blade width.) | | ========================== -- Bottom (Width of room/box could be large or small, relative to blade width.) Given a downwash through the blades (depicted by "---------" in the figure above) of the copter/submarine sufficient to hold the copter/submarine stationary, can you describe to me roughly how you see the flow of fluid above the helicopter occuring such that no fluid flows upward anywhere *through* the plane "B" made by the blades *before* the first bit of downwash created by the *blades* has reached the bottom of the room/box? That is - if the copter/submarine begins moving 1 kg/s of fluid down, do you see a void immediately forming above the blades? If not, which direction is the fluid flowing from so as to keep a void from forming? If so, what keeps fluid from filling that void? If a void above the blades is avoided by sideways fluid flow, does that mean you see voids forming along the walls above the blades? If you see voids forming anywhere, what keeps fluid from filling them? Are voids consistent with the assumption of incompressible flow? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Remember that brown pairs are best suited to tan, greens, beige,brown and other earth tones that are darker in color. Tan colored shoes matchwell with lighter tan, white, beige, blue and other earth tones that arelighter. Black shoes look good when m | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | April 25th 08 09:31 PM |
BREAKING NEWS: Simulated FAA pulls MXSMANIC'S simulated license | Jim Macklin | Piloting | 19 | November 27th 06 01:55 PM |
BREAKING NEWS: Simulated FAA pulls MXSMANIC'S simulated license | Peter Dohm | Piloting | 0 | November 26th 06 12:12 PM |
BREAKING NEWS: Simulated FAA pulls MXSMANIC'S simulated license | M | Piloting | 1 | November 24th 06 10:48 PM |
FAA pulls funding for LAAS landing systems | JJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | March 7th 04 03:11 PM |