![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of
flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related. Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil? Are you really educated as an engineer? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 4, 9:13 am, Tina wrote:
If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related. Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil? Well I was trying to illustrate what goes on between the two sheets of paper, but I guess a table will do. Technically, if you place one sheet of paper on top a table, and yank up hard on the paper, there will be a tendency for the table to lift off the ground, but since the mass of table is so great, the net pressure upward on table is not enough to counteract gravity so the table remains at rest (actually, at a quantum level it does not completely "not move", but for our purpose we can say that it doesn't). So I used two sheets of paper because the bottom paper will rise. So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in flight books seem to ignore it. This weekend I am going to download material on aerodynamics and read what it says. There is another experiment that could demonstrate this principle more dramatically, using an actual airplane wing: SMOKING CIGARETTES/AIRPLANE WING EXPERIMENT: I would take an airplane wing, and mount it rails that can move in the forward and aft directions along what would be the longitudinal axis of the airplane if if the wing were so attached. Then I would take a bunch of cigarettes, light them, and hang them up-side-down from a high ceiling above the wing of the aircraft. The wing would have an exaggerated AoA, say 30%, no flaps, displaced slightly so that it is ahead of the hanging cigarettes, but so that the cigarettles cannot touch. The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats upward. Then I would use a tremendous force applied to move the wing forward along the rails, say, by linear induction motor, or whatever, to move the wing forward, being careful that the apparutus doing so is already ahead of the wing and connected by steel wire to minimize interference effects. You would see that, if the impulse is great enough, not only would the smoke be diverted from upward and moved in the direction that the wing went (forward), but the hanging cigarettes themselves would move. If flat pressure sensors were mounted above the wing, close to the trailing edge, they would show a momentary decrease in pressure. If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure. After the force stops, there would be relaxation where the rarefication above the wing and compression below the wing are elminiated by flows due to the pressure gradient. In a real airplane, this is what is happening, but because the the wing is constantly moving foward, the rarefication above the wingg and the compression below the wing are never quite normalized by to normal atmosphere. The downwash above wing is due to air rushing in to fill the void. SMOKING CIGARETTE/HARD-COVER BOOK EXPERIMENT: There is an similar, not-as-dramatic experiment you can do at home that is closely related to experiment above. Let a piece of stiff cardboard be your wing. Hold it from the side at an angle of attack, as above, but don't rest your arm on top of a table. That would create a boundary condition beneath the wing. Light a cigarette and inverted so that it is the hot part is near the top of the wing, so where in middle between leading and trailing edge. Get your arm out of the way of the void that is about to be created. Now, in one quick motion, move the cardboard forward. Notice the tremendous net impulse force that is generated on the cardboard. The smoke will follow. These things are happening in flight, along with Bernoulli. Are you really educated as an engineer? Yes, electrical/software. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote... On Oct 4, 9:13 am, Tina wrote: If "Getting on the same page" means learning some of the physics of flying, I'd enjoy knowing how these 'experiments' are related. Are you suggesting that a table top under the paper is in any way representative of what goes on in a dynamic airfoil? Well I was trying to illustrate what goes on between the two sheets of paper, but I guess a table will do. Technically, if you place one sheet of paper on top a table, and yank up hard on the paper, there will be a tendency for the table to lift off the ground, but since the mass of table is so great, the net pressure upward on table is not enough to counteract gravity so the table remains at rest (actually, at a quantum level it does not completely "not move", but for our purpose we can say that it doesn't). So I used two sheets of paper because the bottom paper will rise. So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in flight books seem to ignore it. This weekend I am going to download material on aerodynamics and read what it says. There is another experiment that could demonstrate this principle more dramatically, using an actual airplane wing: SMOKING CIGARETTES/AIRPLANE WING EXPERIMENT: I would take an airplane wing, and mount it rails that can move in the forward and aft directions along what would be the longitudinal axis of the airplane if if the wing were so attached. Then I would take a bunch of cigarettes, light them, and hang them up-side-down from a high ceiling above the wing of the aircraft. The wing would have an exaggerated AoA, say 30%, no flaps, displaced slightly so that it is ahead of the hanging cigarettes, but so that the cigarettles cannot touch. The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats upward. Then I would use a tremendous force applied to move the wing forward along the rails, say, by linear induction motor, or whatever, to move the wing forward, being careful that the apparutus doing so is already ahead of the wing and connected by steel wire to minimize interference effects. You would see that, if the impulse is great enough, not only would the smoke be diverted from upward and moved in the direction that the wing went (forward), but the hanging cigarettes themselves would move. If flat pressure sensors were mounted above the wing, close to the trailing edge, they would show a momentary decrease in pressure. If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure. After the force stops, there would be relaxation where the rarefication above the wing and compression below the wing are elminiated by flows due to the pressure gradient. In a real airplane, this is what is happening, but because the the wing is constantly moving foward, the rarefication above the wingg and the compression below the wing are never quite normalized by to normal atmosphere. The downwash above wing is due to air rushing in to fill the void. SMOKING CIGARETTE/HARD-COVER BOOK EXPERIMENT: There is an similar, not-as-dramatic experiment you can do at home that is closely related to experiment above. Let a piece of stiff cardboard be your wing. Hold it from the side at an angle of attack, as above, but don't rest your arm on top of a table. That would create a boundary condition beneath the wing. Light a cigarette and inverted so that it is the hot part is near the top of the wing, so where in middle between leading and trailing edge. Get your arm out of the way of the void that is about to be created. Now, in one quick motion, move the cardboard forward. Notice the tremendous net impulse force that is generated on the cardboard. The smoke will follow. These things are happening in flight, along with Bernoulli. Are you really educated as an engineer? Yes, electrical/software. -Le Chaud Lapin- Are you crazy?! Do you know what cigarettes cost these days??!! BDS |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message ps.com... So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in flight books seem to ignore it. Subsequently, all the airplanes are falling from the sky. I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it. Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on the aerodynamic principles in books, so you're not going to get much respect here if you want everybody to do experiments just to discuss to your otherwise-unproven theories. Some people here have built their own planes, or engineered airplanes, or maintained them so -their- science is sufficiently proven. All the discussions and textbooks and usenet theories in the world aren't worth your first solo flight around the pattern. That demonstrates that the aerospace engineers proved their wing design and that the pilots here proved their ability to manipulate that technology. That's what it takes. About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to have flown an airplane. If you don't do their math for them just the way they want you to, however, somehow it's all the pilots and plane builders out here who don't know what they're talking about. I think your theory would be great put into practice on an experimental aircraft. I promise you, if you fly it they will come. Best of luck to you. -c |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:36:55 -0700, "Gatt"
wrote: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message ups.com... So yes, I believe this experiment illustrates an important phenomenon in aerodynamics. It is not the only phenomenon that plays a role, but it has one, nevertheless. The decriptions of lift that I read in flight books seem to ignore it. Subsequently, all the airplanes are falling from the sky. I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it. Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on the aerodynamic principles in books, so you're not going to get much respect here if you want everybody to do experiments just to discuss to your otherwise-unproven theories. Some people here have built their own planes, or engineered airplanes, or maintained them so -their- science is sufficiently proven. All the discussions and textbooks and usenet theories in the world aren't worth your first solo flight around the pattern. That demonstrates that the aerospace engineers proved their wing design and that the pilots here proved their ability to manipulate that technology. That's what it takes. About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to have flown an airplane. If you don't do their math for them just the way they want you to, however, somehow it's all the pilots and plane builders out here who don't know what they're talking about. I think your theory would be great put into practice on an experimental aircraft. I promise you, if you fly it they will come. Best of luck to you. -c I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly. The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories. Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them. Ron Kelley |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 12:03 am, Ron wrote:
I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly. The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories. Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them. Ron Kelley Thanks Ron. Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are not. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are not. First, I finally found time to read your initial post to this thread. It is true that all the explanations you've read over the years are not quite right - that is due to the nature of fluid dynamics. Except for some trivial examples, the mathematics can't be solved except by numeric approximation methods. The Bernoulli theorem for example assumes a pre- existing streamline. It does not actually provide the all-important streamlines! Otherwise the theorem does take account of all the applicable conservation laws - but not in a form that can shed much insight into lift (IMHO). As to the response you've seen - well, I have some theories but if they are correct there is nothing I can do, except possibly indirectly. Such as making this post. I think for the purposes of piloting that one does not need to know the Navier-Stokes equations. Because quite honestly the real explanation of lift is to be found in the differential equations (or integral form) governing mass continuity, momentum, and energy. All those simple explanations are just that - simple and obviously incomplete. Rest assured you're correct in your observations on the inadequate explanations - but don't make the mistake of assuming a simple _and_ accurate one must exist, if only you think hard enough on it. If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to make some suggestions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 5, 1:11 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote: I think for the purposes of piloting that one does not need to know the Navier-Stokes equations. That's true. Because quite honestly the real explanation of lift is to be found in the differential equations (or integral form) governing mass continuity, momentum, and energy. Yes, I agree. All those simple explanations are just that - simple and obviously incomplete. Rest assured you're correct in your observations on the inadequate explanations - but don't make the mistake of assuming a simple _and_ accurate one must exist, if only you think hard enough on it. I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom... [which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had to read more. In his book, "The Proficient Pilot", on page 8, Barry Schiff writes: "There is, for example, this amusing fable: 'Air flowing above the wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense." In his book Learning to Fly With Rod Machado, on page 70, Rod Machado writes: "Because air flowing over the wing bends, it is forced to travel a greater distance than the air flowing underneath. Because it travels a greater distance, the bent air must move faster on its journey over the wing. It's this relative increase in wind speed above the wing that lowers pressure and productes lift." Since I was new to piloting, I asked a few pilots if they understood aerodynamics about an airfoil, and they all said yes. The reason they gave is the one that Rod Machado gave. I asked the older pilots if they knew who Barry Schiff was, and they said yes. I asked them if they realized that Barry Schiff did not think that was the reason, and they said I was mistaken, that Barry Schiff would never be as confused as I seemed to be about flying. I asked them if they knew who Rod Machado was. They said yes. I asked them if they thought that Rod Machado and Barry Schiff would agree. They said yes. I asked them if they were 100% certain, and they said yes. Thus began my earnest interest in aerodynamics. I had always been interested in flying, but this accelerated the interest quite a bit. I took a sheet of paper and blew over it, the trick that we've all done, and it went up of course, but I suspected that the reason it went up was not the reason that was being given by so many people. I visited a few aero/astro departments online, and while no one is going to argue with the mathematics of field theory...I did get the feeling that there were experts in the field saying the opposite things. So before digging into the math [afterall, there is nothing wrong with math], I decided to refresh my understanding of Bernoulli's theorem from my old physics book, and while reading that book, it occured to me that Barry Schiff's view is more likely right than not...that is, until I read his explanation of relationship between Newton and downwash on the next 2 pages of his book. I found a couple of other books that gave the explanation of downwash that was similar. Most importantly, I also notice that there was a ***HUGE*** amount of hand-waving going on, far more than one would expect in a field that has been researched for over a century. I still need to find a book that I can trust. I went to the WWW and started reading more aero-astro excerpts, and concluded that not only is theory still in flux, the experts do not even agree on the basics. The very basics. Huge amounts of money had been spent on wind-tunnels. But after all that, I could not get two experts to agree on the basics. And this was a not simply a matter of different styles, using integral instead of differential form of equations, for example, or, deciding where to put a constant, as we electrical engineers do in our expressions of the Fourier integrals...there was *fundamental* disgreement about what causes lift on an airplane. I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started rattling off things about NASA. I begin to imagine airflow over a wing and concluded that pinching at front of wing must be very important, more important than one would think, reading the explanations. I also concluded that a glider should have wings that are very long but with a short cord, which aslo turned out to be true. I then revisited my physics book...and it _appeared_ that the application of Bernoulli to flying is wrong in many contexts, but I decided to not discuss that just yet because it would be too controversial. I ask one of the pilots if he thought rarefication had anything to do with it. He said, "No, it's all Bernoulli." I asked him what would happen if I did the paper experiment, the one mentioned in my OP, and he did not know, but said it does not matter because a piece of paper is not a wing and it does not fly through the air. I asked him if he understood why the paper would move, and he said, again, it does not matter. I asked him if he saw any relation between my paper experiment and the movement of a airfoil, and he said, finally, no, there is none, because it is all Bernoulli. I asked a CFI one last time, and he too said it was all Bernoulli, precisely the argument that Barry Schiff refutes in his book. So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments. If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to make some suggestions. Sure. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:1191561472.221396.70520
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: On Oct 5, 12:03 am, Ron wrote: I will first admit I haven't done the experiments outlined in Lapin's posts. I will second admit that airplanes do fly. Thirdly I will admit there are many very good reference books on "why" airplanes fly. The key word here is "why". The fact that people can design and build a machine that flies, means they have mastered the elements of design that allow an aircraft to fly. It doesn't mean they know "why" it flies. There are accepted theories, disproved theories, questionable theories and unproven theories, but they are all theories. Le Chaud Lapin has posted some experiments that in their present form exhibit some interesting characteristics. Whether or not these characteristics can be extrapolated to winged aircraft remains to be seen. Certainly further, much more complex, testing would have to be done. However, that fact should not provoke the kind of vitriolic attacks I've seen in this forum. Just because someone posts something outside the box of conventional thinking is no reason to attack them. Ron Kelley Thanks Ron. Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. I saw your post about 30 seconds after and concluded that perhaps they are not. Except we both know that isn't what you are doing. Bertie |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le Chaud Lapin writes:
Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages. Those who engage rapidly in personal attacks are the most active posters, but are not necessarily representative. Personal attacks are very easy to construct and thus can be launched very quickly. Rational argument or debate is much more difficult. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAA advisory voids IFR certification for GPS's!!! | Prime | Owning | 12 | May 29th 07 01:43 AM |
Brass or copper sheet? | Scott | Home Built | 11 | October 15th 06 02:20 AM |
4130 sheet | log | Home Built | 4 | September 1st 04 01:42 AM |
Day 2 New Castle Score Sheet | Guy Byars | Soaring | 3 | September 25th 03 02:39 AM |
S-H Spars: Anyone check for voids laterally? | Mark Grubb | Soaring | 1 | September 20th 03 04:27 AM |