Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

wrote:
On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Snipped

Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.

Or add ethenol to gasoline to free use from oil imports.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Stewart writes:

Don't fsking quote me out of context.

I quote as I see fit.

So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

Jim Stewart writes:

So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

On May 23, 3:11*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
BDS wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote
Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. *The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.

BDS

I think I see where this article has gone wrong.

What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.

It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.

Spot on. In any case Bernoulli cannot be "wrong" as it it's only an
energy conservation equation.

Cheers

Don't forget he is a demonstrated lier, too, has self proclaimed
himself as 'heavy' (aka obese) and has asked for money donations. The
word 'Loser' comes to mind.

He does have a unique skill, however. He brings out the sadistic side
of me -- in a secondary meaning sense of the word.

On May 22, 4:03 pm, Jim Stewart wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Stewart writes:

Don't fsking quote me out of context.

I quote as I see fit.

So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

On May 23, 5:40*am, wrote:
On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:





On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:56:35 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Stealth Pilot writes:

aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. *It can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
effect to the wing? magnetism?

Sorta. *The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
fairies pull from up top. *The obese lift fairies just hang on and
thus produce drag.- Hide quoted text -

No, there are no fat faries -fat faries would not be able to fly and
they would die. It's transvestite fairies that produce drag,

Cheers

On May 23, 6:53*am, gatt wrote:
wrote:
On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot
downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
effect to the wing? magnetism?

Sorta. *The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
fairies pull from up top. *The obese lift fairies just hang on and
thus produce drag.

EXACTLY! *GOD, somebody FINALLY nailed it. *The ones that can't hang on
slam into the elevator and produce downwash.

Noooooooooo! It's the beating of the farie wings that makes downwash!
What do you think anables them to keep the wing up. Really, the
knowledge of simple airyfairey dynamics here is abysmal.

Cheers

More_Flaps wrote:
On May 23, 3:11 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
BDS wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote
Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.
I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.
You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.
BDS
I think I see where this article has gone wrong.

What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.

It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.

Spot on. In any case Bernoulli cannot be "wrong" as it it's only an
energy conservation equation.

Cheers

Actually (and I've always found this extremely humorous :-) neither
Bernoulli OR Newton's work was ever directly involved with the
production of lift.

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 23, 8:22 am, More_Flaps wrote:

No, there are no fat faries -fat faries would not be able to fly and
they would die. It's transvestite fairies that produce drag,

Must be that built in parasite drag :-)

"BDS" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.

That's because Bernoulli's equation is nothing more than Newtons law
(conservation of momentum) applied to a streamline. It's not that hard to
derive Bernoulli's equation from Newtons...

In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does,

Bernoullli never said that. Whoever did was an idiot. Do the math. It's not
that hard.
If this were true, airplanes (as we know them) could not fly - they would
not generate enough lift.

and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what
does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the
trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.


Sorry, but, at most speeds the air "over the top" gets there well before the
air flowing under. Do the math. It's not that hard.
Circulation is a good way to model the effects.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.