![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
cavelamb wrote: 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. Look, I started out to clarify the point for those who have the wrong perception of the situation... ....and it turned that there were such people. I explicitly stated that if the OP meant that the low pressure above the wing is responsible for two thirds of the pressure *difference* then he was on solid ground (while allowing as how I didn't know what the precise figures actually were). Ever since then, types like you have been coming in and saying "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when very clearly (because there are people who don't understand the situation) it does. It's like the downwash argument. You can say "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when people argue that the air behind an aircraft is not deflected downward, but it *does* matter. Having an accurate understanding of the physical processes of flight matters. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pressure Distribution Charts | sisu1a | Soaring | 0 | September 21st 08 05:53 PM |
Soundwaves Boost Wing Lift | [email protected] | Home Built | 30 | September 5th 05 10:21 PM |
747 weight distribution | Robin | General Aviation | 25 | June 22nd 05 03:53 AM |
Distribution of armor on a B-52 | B2431 | Military Aviation | 12 | August 16th 04 09:07 PM |
Alternator load distribution in a Baron | Viperdoc | Owning | 7 | December 9th 03 10:27 PM |