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