![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 3, 7:29 pm, Tina wrote:
In fact, if there is a downward component of the air's velocity that had come from its passage over the upper surface of the airfoil, then there had been an acceleration provided to that air -- acceleration in this case being conventionally defined as the second time derivative of position. The acceleration is indeed downward. If God declared that all air molecules in the universe must remain still for the sake of USENET explication, and the wing move forward, and you took a snapshot of that picture, there would be a vacuum created above the wing. It would be quite large (not laminar). The floor of this vacuum would be the wing itself. The ceiling would be the underside of an air mass above the entire wing, ready to move downward to fill the void. Now if God said, "Let molecules move!", the air mass above would, indeed, push downward. But they would not be allow to go completely downward. Molecules accelerated from the leading edge of the wing would fly backward, colliding with those coming from above, and the net-effect would be a stream. Now, if the air is accelerated downward, and it has mass, it means there had been a force applied. The local prime mover is of course the wing, so it must experience an upward force. Maybe you have a different idea as to on what that equal and opposite force is operating on -- I'd be interested in hearing about that. The force is coming from the air mass above the wing, the air mass that would be right above the vacuum created if no molecules were allowed to move. That airmass pushes downward, toward the void. This has nothing to do with the wing, except that the wing created the void, and also created high-pressure area at tip of wing causing acceleration of air backwards. There are a number of basic principles in operation here, be careful not to paint yourself into too tight a corner unless you are quite expert. I am not claiming skill in this area -- physics was a minor a long time ago -- but I remember some of the basics. I am not an expert either, but I know enough to know that the explanations I am reading in books are, at best, misleading. Some of them are plain wrong. Note: going to start a new thread so we can get to the bottom of this. And yes, I am certain. ![]() -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |