Backwash Causes Lift?

On Oct 6, 12:45 pm, wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the movement
of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the absolute
truth, Mr. Wizard?
The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

You've fallen into the trap you are complaining about and providing
a simplistic answer that isn't true under all circumstances.

Uh...no. The difference, as I pointed out with great redunancy in my
post, is that, in one case, there are two situations:

1. The truth, which the observers know.
2. The untruth, which the obsevers concoct to make the math simpler,
all the while keeping in mind what the truth is.

This is what happens with semiconductors.

In the other case, there is only one situation:

1. What the observers think is the truth.

In this latter case in aerodynamics, the observers do not say, "We all
know that this is not what is really happening..". Instead, they say,
"This is what's happening."

I can think of no mechanism to move protons in a solid, but they
move quite well in a vacuum.

Yes, I know. When I was tutoring electrodynamics, I used the problem
that I am sure you are familiar with, a proton, entering a uniform
magnetic field, and one must find the radius of its circular motion
based on the mass of the proton, the magnetic field intensity, etc.
This problem is so common, I decided to use a proton instead of an
electron to try to catch students who were cheating by simply copying
problems from previous years. The answer given by cheaters would have
the right radius but the wrong direction.

Ever heard of a proton accelerator?

Yes, in fact, I had it as a disclaimer in my original post, just as I
had a disclaimer about a capacitor not being negative. [Note I said
that capacitors have positive capacitance, which is true, until you
start implementing virtual capacitors using general impedance
converters, which can make them negative, but then they are not real
capacitors, etc.] I took out counterexample about proton accelerators
because Wikipedia did not have an immediate link for the exact phrase
"proton accelerator", and the related links were bordering on quantum
physics, and I certainly don't want to open up a can of worms about
quantum physics in this group.

A current flow in a proton accelerator is a current flow of protons.

Sure. But no one ever disputed that. Matt was implying that electrical
engineers/physicist cannot agree on what is actually going on, which
is not true. Most physicists who work with proton accelerators are
quite aware that that there is a proton moving under the influence of
the Lorentz force in an accelerator. No particle physicist ever
claims otherwise. Also, if you ask a bunch of electrical engineers,
"Does everyone that every know that there really is no such thing as a
hole, that it is in fact massive numbers of protons, entering an
exiting the energy band according to a stochastic model?" They would
say, "Yes, yes, we know! Now get on with your talk about these non-
existent holes."

Aerodynamics, today, is different. If you ask a bunch of aeronautical
engineers, "Does everyone know that the lift is due to the air on top
traveling faster than the air beneath, thus invoking Bernoulli's
Principle..yada yada....", Barry Schiff, and the person who wrote the
article at NASA, will say, "No. We do not agree with what you just
said."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 6, 12:45 pm, wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of
current. Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it
is the movement of positive charge and some say it us both.
Which is the absolute truth, Mr. Wizard?
The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

You've fallen into the trap you are complaining about and providing
a simplistic answer that isn't true under all circumstances.

Uh...no. The difference, as I pointed out with great redunancy in my
post, is that, in one case, there are two situations:

1. The truth, which the observers know.
2. The untruth, which the obsevers concoct to make the math simpler,
all the while keeping in mind what the truth is.

This is what happens with semiconductors.

In the other case, there is only one situation:

1. What the observers think is the truth.

In this latter case in aerodynamics, the observers do not say, "We all
know that this is not what is really happening..". Instead, they say,
"This is what's happening."

I can think of no mechanism to move protons in a solid, but they
move quite well in a vacuum.

Yes, I know. When I was tutoring electrodynamics, I used the problem
that I am sure you are familiar with, a proton, entering a uniform
magnetic field, and one must find the radius of its circular motion
based on the mass of the proton, the magnetic field intensity, etc.
This problem is so common, I decided to use a proton instead of an
electron to try to catch students who were cheating by simply copying
problems from previous years. The answer given by cheaters would have
the right radius but the wrong direction.

Ever heard of a proton accelerator?

Yes, in fact, I had it as a disclaimer in my original post, just as I
had a disclaimer about a capacitor not being negative. [Note I said
that capacitors have positive capacitance, which is true, until you
start implementing virtual capacitors using general impedance
converters, which can make them negative, but then they are not real
capacitors, etc.] I took out counterexample about proton accelerators
because Wikipedia did not have an immediate link for the exact phrase
"proton accelerator", and the related links were bordering on quantum
physics, and I certainly don't want to open up a can of worms about
quantum physics in this group.

A current flow in a proton accelerator is a current flow of protons.

Sure. But no one ever disputed that. Matt was implying that electrical
engineers/physicist cannot agree on what is actually going on, which
is not true. Most physicists who work with proton accelerators are
quite aware that that there is a proton moving under the influence of
the Lorentz force in an accelerator. No particle physicist ever
claims otherwise. Also, if you ask a bunch of electrical engineers,
"Does everyone that every know that there really is no such thing as a
hole, that it is in fact massive numbers of protons, entering an
exiting the energy band according to a stochastic model?" They would
say, "Yes, yes, we know! Now get on with your talk about these non-
existent holes."

Aerodynamics, today, is different. If you ask a bunch of aeronautical
engineers, "Does everyone know that the lift is due to the air on top
traveling faster than the air beneath, thus invoking Bernoulli's
Principle..yada yada....",


You are a liar,. You've never asked anyone at Nasa anything.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 6, 12:45 pm, wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the movement
of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the absolute
truth, Mr. Wizard?
The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

You've fallen into the trap you are complaining about and providing
a simplistic answer that isn't true under all circumstances.

Uh...no. The difference, as I pointed out with great redunancy in my
post, is that, in one case, there are two situations:

1. The truth, which the observers know.
2. The untruth, which the obsevers concoct to make the math simpler,
all the while keeping in mind what the truth is.

Too simplistic.

There is more between heaven and Earth than truth and untruth.

You appear to have the same problem that MX has, i.e. a monocromatic
outlook on things which really ****es a lot of people off.

Life, physics, engineering, and flying brush a broader spectrum.

Yeah, there is a lot published about aviation by "experts" that flys
in the face of physics, but really, so what?

I have 4 bookcases of reference books on my sphere of knowledge. There
isn't one of them that doesn't have an "untruth" in them somewhere.

Does that make all those books worthless or imply no one knows the
"real" answer?

Not hardly.

If you really want to know the "truth", USNET is not the place to
find it.

snip rest

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

If you really want to know the "truth", USNET is not the place to
find it.

USENET is the wisdom and folly of the world.

How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is going up.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

How does a gyrocopter fly because the airflow over it's "wing" is
going up.




They're gliders. The same rules apply.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the
movement of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the
absolute truth, Mr. Wizard?

The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

If you are referring to holes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole and electrons in
semiconductors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor , where the
descriptions of flow of charge through a semiconductor lattice shows
both positive and negative charge flow, in opposite directions, in the
present of an electrical field, the negative charge being represented
by electrons, the positive charge being represented by holes.

Every book in electrical engineering is likely quite explicit in
telling students up front, (more like forming an agreement with the
students), that the holes are to be modeled as physical particles
because that it is mathematically equivalent to the true phenonmenon,
which is a void moving through the lattice, that, although there are
people who are quite capable of modeling the truth, which is based on
stochastics and energy-band http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_band
theory, they will use the one that is simpler since the two models are
functionally equivalent. Note that any professor writing a book
claiming that holes are real particles would probably be barred from
teaching. In the world of electrical engineering, it would be like
saying that the Santa Claus really does exist, knowing that the
professors themselves created the figment of Santa Claus. I cannot
emphasize enough that there is no confusion whatsoever in the minds of
the students about what is actually going on inside the lattice.
There is no doubt in their minds that there are no such thing as
physical particles called holes moving through a lattice. There is no
doubt because professors conscientiously created this fiction, and
tells their students: "We all know that there are no hole
particles...but.." You will notice that the Wikpedia description of
holes uses the word 'conceptual' in the first sentence.

A related concept is something called phonons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon These are quantum mechanical
pseudo-particles. Electrical engineers and physicists know that they
do not exist. They know because they made them up, just like the made
up the holes.

There is nothing wrong with doing this. In each case, there is no
untruth being spoken, because the scientists say up front: "We are
about to tell you something that is not really true. Just keep in
mind what the real truth is as we go along, please." This implies
that the EE students know the real truth, which they do, because those
same professors tell them that also. The aerodynamicists say: "We are
about to tell you something that is true.", and they say nothing more,
because they think that what they are about to say is not a
mathematically equivalent model of the truth, but truth itself.

Consider the case where one might do a systems problem to find the
voltage across a capacitorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor, and
end up with something like...

V(t) = 12 * Integral(Delta(t)) + u(t)*e^-3t*e[jwt/(4*pi)]

j is the square root of negative one (-1)
w = angular frequency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_frequency
t = time u(t) is Heaviside step function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_step_function Delta(t) is the
Dirac-delta function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta)

This voltage contains complex numbers sitting n an exponential. It
also contains a phenomenon that occurs so quick that is is
mathematically impossible to observe in time, yet its effect during
that brief moment is infinite. This is ridiculous. We know with
certainty that no such things exist in real-life. But that's ok,
because we made these things. Electrical engineers looking at this
will know immediately what the truth is, what the math represents.
What is odd is that one eventually reachs a point where no uneasiness
at all comes from moving between the real and the unreal. They are,
in an abstract sense, in separable.

Futhermore, concerning the point you made, if the above voltage V(t)
is positive, then by the formula for charge on a capacitor, Q=CV,
since C, the capacitance, is [ahemm....always positive...please, if
you are a EE reading this, please don't start up with me about general
impedance converters ], the the charge is possitive, but we just
noted in the semiconductor example above that one does not find
positive charge running around in circuits because the are constrained
to the nuclei of atoms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus
with their neutron buddies. This does not bother electrical engineers
because they see the formula and immediately see the image of what is
going on, the truth of physics as it occurs. Note that, if the
formula claims that there is positive charge on one plate of the
capacitor, there really is no positive charge "on the plate" so to
speak, but a depletion of negative charge, which is mathematically
eqivalent model of truth, just as there is no such thing as square-
root of negative number in real life, but if you use Euler's Formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula, a Taylor expansion of
the formula about t http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_expansion, you
will see that the V(t) comes out to the nice sine waves that you would
see on an oscilloscopehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscilloscope .

Contrast this with what the aerodynamicists are doing. They are not
issuinig disclaimers saying, "this is not really what is happening, we
all know that, but let us pretend to make the math simpler for now".
They claim what they are illustrating *is* the truth.


Yes, they are, they're just no ttelling you because you aren't designing
airplanes, fjukkwit.

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the movement
of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the absolute
truth, Mr. Wizard?

The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

He said "movement of positive charge," not "movement of protons."

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

On Oct 6, 6:38 am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Really? Many books still can't agree on the definition of current.
Some say it is the movement of electrons and some say it is the
movement of positive charge and some say it us both. Which is the
absolute truth, Mr. Wizard?

The truth is that the electrons move, not the protons.

He said "movement of positive charge," not "movement of protons."


Yeh, right sockpuppet boi


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

In electrical engineering, we have our own set of fundamental
principles. The "terminal" set of primitives governing electronics
(electrostatics and electrodynamics) is Maxwells Equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation. [Ironically, during
his lifetime, Maxwell was also someone who was a leading expert on
aerodynamics. The notions of gradients, the Laplacian, and scalar
potentials have strong parallels in both fields.] In EE, we have out
own myths, like power lines causing brain cancer, but when they arise,
the experts work hard to show indisputable evidence, verifiable,
rigorous evidence to the contrary, to nip the non-sense in the bud.
We do still have areas of disputes, like what causes shot noise in
circuits [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise], but on the bread-
and-butter basics, you won't find a college-leve textbook speaking
untruth. So naturally I am extremely surprised to see this happening
in aerodynamics. You are, after all, the rocket scientists.

Perhaps you have seen EE from the inside and aerodynamics from the outside.
They may resemble each other far more than you realize. Remember how well
Tesla was received.

2. NASA says it's wrong. From Jim Logajan: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

The question, though, is who exactly is "NASA"? The organization didn't write
the text (which, by the way, is an explanation for schoolkids); a human being
did. Is an individual human being as reliably correct as all of NASA? This
is another illustration of the dangers of credentialism.

I'll be the first to admit that i don't have the capacity to do so at
this moment, but imagine that that one shape of the leading edge is
not appropriate for all speeds of the aircraft. For a given set of
context variables like density, temperature, pressure, angle-of-
attack, airspeed, what-the-plane-was-doing-20-milliseconds-ago,
turbulences...wind, etc...there is an optimal shape for that leading
edge, depending on what you are trying to do. It would be quite wild
if someone were to design a wing that could morph, dynamically by
control of a computer, into an instaneously-optimal shape.

Most of the adjustments in wing shape are intended to reduce drag or raise the
critical angle of attack. Otherwise a flat board would suffice. The very
common misconception is that the curve of the wing somehow is responsible for
the lift. It's not, of course. Only the angle of attack is responsible for
the lift.

The weird thing is that the intuitive impression one has of a wing's function
is essentially correct. It looks like something that would point air down as
it passes, and that's exactly what it does. Only the details of how it does
it are hard to figure out and understand. Fortunately, it works extremely
well even if one doesn't understand the details.

It is because a theory that correctly explains observed phenomenon
generally opens up an entirely new world of order and efficiency.

The real problem arises when you have a theory that seems to explain all the
observations you make and yet may still be incorrect.