Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
/snip/
Any change in pressure is *by definition* a change in the number of
particles in the fluid that are impacting the surface.
That assertion is incorrect. You are no dummy so I'm sure you'll correct
it when you realize the errors.
Sorry, but it's not. Pressure is created by particle collisions.
Hmmm...looks like Jim expected too much from you: the kinetic theory of
gases has it that pressure may be computed from the temperature AND the
density of gases... that is to say, by retaining the SAME molar quantity
of gas, and raising its temperature (which translates to a higher
velocity), the pressure is increased P.V = R.t and all that....

Put it another way: each "hotter" molecule reverses direction at a
surface with greater force.

Brian W
I'm perfectly aware of that...
It took me too long to realise the problem: you have a problem with
saying: "Oh yes, I got it worng."

I didn't get anything wrong.

I am and was perfectly aware of the fact that the temperature of a gas
indicates a different average speed for the gas molecules and thus a
different momentum when the strike a surface.

People who WON'T do that in technical discussions qualify as people who
are just happy to stir up heated debate.

I agree. What of it.

I am going to leave this thread now: wrasslin' with pigs gets the
hands jest too soiled...

You can go.


I feel the same as Brian.
This had not been a discussion as much as a troll.

OF BLOODY COURSE, the high pressure area under the wing pushes up.
So what.

It couldn't possibly do that without the reduction of pressure on the top.
That's where all the magic is.

And you, sir, are a bloody bore.

So now, please also dismiss me.