![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |