Aerodynamics?

[Brett_Henderson]

Ok..I'll try this angle on how this Newtonian stuff is like trying to push yourself away from a wall that isn't there..  

Picture a musket barrel with a ball loaded. Now, picture pointing it slightly downward...  As the ball is allowed to roll (be redirected) down the barrel; would it create a mathematically defineable recoil, acting on the barrel ?


NO !

[OTTOL]

Sorry....I wasn't mulling that one over.

I just got a call from my 8/9's pregnant wife, who is 8,000miles away and unsympathetic to my cause and important mission here, tonight.  8-)

Anyway, between this and her, I just realized that it's 12:30am. Time for bed.....

Try this one on for size   http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-flow-intro

[Brett_Henderson]

Tell your wife I'm sorry for distracting you

[OTTOL]

[quote]Tell your wife I'm sorry for distracting you

[Brett_Henderson]

Maybe I'll just have to go on being wrong (but not alone and in good company) until some expert can convince me that simply redirecting air over the TOP of the wing can not only create a net vector sans outside energy, but that that vector can act ON the wing (ala the musket ball) from above and "pull" it up.. They'll also have to tell me why a vector opposite the lift isn't created when the air is redirected UP as it first passes over the wing.

As for downwash.. Hagar posted some interesting pictures/links on page 3 of this thread....

Months ago, when this thread was first active; I did some research that rattled my faith in Bernoulli, but it really didn't surprise me that pressure differential alone could not produce enough lift to hold a plane aloft... And along that line of thought, neither could the lifting force created by redirecting air, if conservation of energy means anything.


For now, I'll let all the complex, aerodynamic goings-on be a black box and go on believing Bernoulli makes the end product, lift... because I just took a shower.. and we all know what the shower curtain did

[OTTOL]

Pretty soon you won't even need to read poor Mr. Beaty's article....I'll have cut-n-paste'd the entire thing on this thread!!!....

The presence of multiple possible explanations can trigger religious wars, "Swiftian Battles" between adherents to one side and the other, and sometimes one side wins, stomping out the other explanation... even though both explanations are valid, and even though both explanations are essential. , We cannot really understand wings unless we know several different ways to explain them. A toolkit needs hammers AND screwdrivers... and anyone who searches for a "One True Tool," while emptying the rest of their mental toolbox, is going to severly limit their own expertise.

[OTTOL]

I love the Internet!! I think it has actually surpassed sliced bread!

I was searching for some info on the Coanda Effect and found this very intertaining article by Jef Raskin (that name might sound familiar to you Mac guys).

Since nobody seems to think that NASA is that bright, maybe the guy that got Mac's up and running will sway you.


Seriously, it's fairly brief and this guy has an excellent sense of humor (which makes reading this kind of stuff much less tedious).  

http://jef.raskincenter.org/main/published/coanda_effect.html

Three items that really made me chuckle: the UnderCambered Wing, The Lumpy Wing and the fact that even Einstein got it wrong and eventually "came around".

[Brett_Henderson]

Read that essay.. still no answer to my question (s)..


I spent some time at the club today.. we're getting ready for a four-booth dispaly at the convention center next month (if any of you are near Columbus, come see me .. I'll be the goof standing by the Liberty XL2 acting like I know something about airplanes.. lol )..

Anyway, as the three of us; our AP guy, the club president (nearly 25,000 hours logged

[Brett_Henderson]

Footnote:

"Thingy"

[OTTOL]

[quote]Footnote:

"Thingy"

[Brett_Henderson]

I'm going to type the full name of the guy who hosted American Bandstand, and until recently, the big New Years Eve celebration in NYC. You'll see what comes through:


Dick clark



Ok...

I'm still working on a diagram to explain the imparted forces (in your Musket example) for my own entertainment but your example really doesn't apply to an airfoil....

Sure it does. It shows how the barrel can be the directing device of an accelerating object without being acted upon by that acceleration. However I do see a flaw there, in that there is a force action/reaction between the barrel and ball relaltive to gravity; much like the car door that holds you in the car as you go around a corner. And it does ignore the Coanda Effect

[OTTOL]

Sure it does. It shows how the barrel can be the directing device of an accelerating object without being acted upon by that acceleration.

Aaaannnddd.....right back to my previous post. Air isn't an object, it's a fluid.

Apples and Oranges buddy.



...ever been thwacked by an out of control garden hose? I guarantee you that the bends in the hose didn't neutralize the imparted forces!!

[Brett_Henderson]

LOL.. well.. it aint me.. but it's a pretty.. umm .. oh nevermind..

[Brett_Henderson]

I could have said, "Picture the ball being tossed up.. and just as it peaked (ala a tennis serve) the bent tube came rushing along and with perfect timing, met the ball at its peak"..  

The tube would first move down and then up, as the ball was redirected through its length...

[OTTOL]

[quote]I could have said, "Picture the ball being tossed up.. and just as it peaked (ala a tennis serve) the bent tube came rushing along and with perfect timing, met the ball at its peak"..