![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Air does not behave very much like an imcompressible fluid at low air speeds. Not even close. That's not what the engineers say. I am an engineer and have the degree to prove it and I totally agree with him, so stuff it. Under some conditions, low air speeds is one of them, air can be treated like it is an imcompressible fluid. The difference between TAS and EAS is only about 13% even at Mach 1. Since small aircraft come nowhere near to Mach 1, for all practical purposes air is incompressible for most calculations. Word salad that shows you don't get the concept. At low airspeed, the equations for incompressible fluid flow are close enough to what actually happens that they can be used for practical calculations. This does not mean that air "acts like an incompressible fluid" in any way, shape, or form. Obviously air, being a gas, can be compressed, but taking that into account at low speeds greatly complicates the calculations, and the final result isn't significantly different. Finally, the light comes on... Well, gee-whiz, you backed into a place where you are finally correct. Aren't you great? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wrong again, Anthony! There is no King of England.
Rip Mxsmanic wrote: writes: I am an engineer and have the degree to prove it and I totally agree with him, so stuff it. I'm actually the King of England. Finally, the light comes on... The light was always on, but it's hard to see through heavily tinted glasses. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: That's not what the engineers say. Name 3. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 17, 5:09 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: Air does not behave very much like an imcompressible fluid at low air speeds. Not even close. That's not what the engineers say. Maybe only the ones that drives locomotives. Under some conditions, low air speeds is one of them, air can be treated like it is an imcompressible fluid. Obviously air, being a gas, can be compressed, but taking that into account at low speeds greatly complicates the calculations, and the final result isn't significantly different. Duh. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do. I
doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at our speeds. And climbing has nothing to do with relativity. mike "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... writes: Duh. The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to relativistic effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to relativistic effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board calculations? [And while they may be trivial for aircraft, they are not in all cases--the GPS has to be adjusted for these effects to maintain accuracy, for example.] -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
mike regish writes:
It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do. No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example, must be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to adjust for the cumulative relativistic effects. I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at our speeds. Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... mike regish writes: It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do. No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example, must be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to adjust for the cumulative relativistic effects. I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at our speeds. Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate. Wow! That's useful information! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is no | gasman | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 06:39 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |