On Jun 5, 4:08*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
John Cochrane wrote:
No, Gary means it. In theory, we can gain a lot by strong pull ups and
pushovers in thermal entries and exits. In fact, in theory, you can
stay up when there is only sink. You push to strong negative g's in
the sink, then strong positive gs when you are out of the sink. Huh?
Think of a basketball; your hand is sink and the ground is still air.
When you push hard negative g's in the sink, the glider exits the sink
with more airspeed than it entered, just like the basketball as it
hits your hand. The opposite happens when you pull hard for the first
second or two after entering lift.

I _think_ I get what you are saying: you basically propose extracting the
kinetic energy that is available due to the different fluid speeds. It
doesn't matter which direction the fluid streams flow - merely that one
part of the fluid is moving relative to another part and you can move your
aircraft from one to the other.

We're so used to getting energy out of upward fluid flows that we overlook
the fact that in a fundamental sense it doesn't matter (to a first
approximation) which direction the stream is going.

So what you all seem to be saying is that there is energy available for
extraction in wind shear, sinks, and thermals. If the whole mass of fluid
is moving then you are out of luck because you need a difference in fluid
speeds - with the exception that upward flows always make energy available
due to conversion of the fluid kinetic energy to gravitational potential
energy. (Hence the "first approximation" caveat.)

Is all that about right?

Yes. Your wing is a machine, and the work it performs imparts a
downward flow to the air it moves through. When that downward force is
aligned in a direction that opposes the movement of the air, it gains
energy. The air movement can be from the side, from above, or below-
the most efficient case since this vector opposes gravity. The
transfer of energy from air motion can be increased by manipulating
the inertial field of the glider, and there is an optimal g loading or
unloading for each case. Although physicists define such inertial
forces as "psuedo", the wing does not know this and must develop twice
the lift to sustain 2g flight as 1g flight, three times the lift for
3g flight,etc. The power transferred from the air to the wing
increases linearly with g force increases, while the the losses
associated with the increased g loadings are fractional and therefore
nonlinear, yielding excess power. This excess power can be carried by
the glider into a differential airmass with relative sink by a coupled
acceleration and a portion of it can be transferred to this airmass.
The case of 0g accelerations (freefall) is special in that
theoretically the wing doesn't produce induced drag. Theoretically
only, because the lift distribution will never be perfect- especially
in the unsteady flows which punctuate a soaring environment. In
practice, I have found 0g to be the best target for accelerations
since most of our wing sections are not designed to fly efficiently
upside down and everything is happening so quickly you lose less if
you guess wrong on the strength of the relative downdraft.

Much of this is counterintuitive. For example, here's something
presented in a 2001 lecture on the subject. It is stated as
exclusionary to emphasize how flight through a discontinuous
atmosphere can up-end long held conventions.

"For any body of mass moving through or in contact with a medium that
is not uniform, the most efficient path(s) for a given power input
will never be defined by a straight line or a constant speed." -
Osoba's Theorem of Dynamic Locomotion

The concise statement of this is "...never be defined by a constant
velocity..." since velocity incorporates both speed and direction but
most pilots don't understand the term that way.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba