I give up, after many, many years!

terry writes:

well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

On May 31, 1:02*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
well if you are not sure, it would be polite to say so instead of
using your usual authorative tone ...

There's nothing authoritative about my tone.

That pretty much says it all. *You want people to help you but you
dont give a **** what they feel or how you treat them.

I care much more about them than they do about me.

I gave you an example, cacluculating the density of a parcel of
atmosphere from the gas laws.

You just plug in the numbers and do the arithmetic by rote for most
calculations. *Nothing particularly advanced or difficult about that.

I neither said it was advanced or difficult, only that it was correct,
and obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of the gas laws. In fact it
was I who made the point in my original thread that it was nothing
more than high school science. But the point is you claimed ( again)
to know what you really didnt. My gut feel is that you probably do
understand you were wrong now, but as I said in my previous post and
others have noted ad nauseum, you will not admit to being wrong. You
have confirmed this once again. And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?
Terry
PPL Downunder





Terry

terry writes:

And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

On May 31, 5:51*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
And yes Anthony , I do arithmetic by
rote. *How do you do arithmetic, by first principles?

I've at least examined it theoretically.

Anyway, all the air pressure on our planet results from gravity, not
temperature or confinement or anything else.

I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion ? Change of
subject no 3.
Last chance Anthony. Why would the non containment of the atmosphere
prevent the ideal gas law in its form used by me not allow one to
calculate the air density in the vicinity of an airport? That is
what you have stated twice remember Anthony?

terry writes:

I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid only
in certain ranges..

On Jun 1, 3:04 am, Tina wrote:
On Jun 1, 5:37 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

terry writes:
I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

As a student pilot, if you have no gravity, you could
have smaller wings on your airplane, right?

Well, no. The gas 'laws' are approximations and fail to be predictive
except within certain ranges, just as Newtonian physics are valid only
in certain ranges..

Doing wing sectional sims, I used the centrifugal
force of the displaced air over the wing surfaces.
It is a fairly simple algorithm, in accord with physics,
and works surprisingly well.
It also stalls well, since Energy=Force x distance,
and once the airstream kinetic energy is bled off,
the airstream reverses and follows the wing to
give turbulence. Good Stuff.
Ken

On Jun 1, 7:37*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
I dont doubt you analysed it Anthony, *but you still havent seen, or
aren't willing to admit , that you had it all wrong. *Now what has the
SOURCE of the air pressure got to do with the discussion?

A great deal. *Without gravity, air pressure would be zero, and volume would
be infinite.

Slithering away again Anthony, what was the real challenge put to
you?