visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl
wrote:
...

You've seen pics of it curling right back up.
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp
It hasn't bounced off the ground.

You've seen the edges curling back up.

That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the
vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further
down underneath it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame. Second, I've stated all along that as time
passes the momentum is diffused among more and more air.



Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column
descending to the ground.

I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches
are the ones that have to reach the ground.

You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the
momentum is transfer to the earth."

And it is: the *net* flow.


The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that
were *already there* at ground level.

I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually
strike the ground.


The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the
same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth
with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium
by which the aircraft can transmit that push.

Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my
voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone
over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never
going to make it across the road.

No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice.

Of course I do.

The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases.

So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be
coming along shortly?

I think their will be no net push, yes.

See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push.


And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial
exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that
enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn
can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft
and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but
opposite force.
But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn
that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so
I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow
redirection, and get lift with no net downwash.

No, you won't.

No downwash, no lift. No go learn something.

Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as
a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction?

Read this:

"To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original
text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates
no lift."

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic
Properties.pdf

Read it over and over again until you get it.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl
wrote:
...

You've seen pics of it curling right back up.
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp
It hasn't bounced off the ground.
You've seen the edges curling back up.
That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the
vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further
down underneath it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.

Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.

Second, I've stated all along that as time passes the momentum is diffused among more and more air.

Yes, you don't explain much, but you do stick to whatever you've said.

Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column
descending to the ground.
I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches
are the ones that have to reach the ground.
You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the
momentum is transfer to the earth."

And it is: the *net* flow.

The "net" flow is circulating air. Circulation circulates. It doesn't go
somewhere and stay there. The "net" displacement is zero.

The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that
were *already there* at ground level.

I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually
strike the ground.

So then, the net flow stops when "it" hits the ground.
"It" isn't the molecules that the wing touches.
Would "it" be the molecules at the bottom of the air column? (they're
already on the ground)
Identify "it" and maybe we'll know when the flow stops.

The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the
same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth
with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium
by which the aircraft can transmit that push.
Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my
voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone
over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never
going to make it across the road.
No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice.
Of course I do.

The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases.
So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be
coming along shortly?

I think their will be no net push, yes.

There will be two pushes. There will be no net displacement.

See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push.

"No net push" doesn't make much sense here. There are opposing pushes,
but at _different_ times. That's the difference. By your reasoning,
microphones wouldn't work because the diaphragms inside won't move.

And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial
exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that
enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn
can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft
and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but
opposite force.
But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn
that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so
I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow
redirection, and get lift with no net downwash.
No, you won't.

No downwash, no lift. No go learn something.
Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as
a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction?

Read this:

"To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original
text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates
no lift."

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'll rephrase it, and say no circulation
is generated. It is not even relevant.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic
Properties.pdf

Read it over and over again until you get it.

Get what? It's about wings and geometry. Find something about air moving
through air.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl
wrote:
...

You've seen pics of it curling right back up.
http://www.efluids.com/efluids/gallery/gallery_pages/Morris_4.jsp
It hasn't bounced off the ground.
You've seen the edges curling back up.
That photo shows ALL of the flow curling back up. The bottom of the
vortex couldn't be any clearer, and there's nothing extending further
down underneath it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.

Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.

None of which refutes what I said.


Second, I've stated all along that as time passes the momentum is diffused
among more and more air.

Yes, you don't explain much, but you do stick to whatever you've said.

Because it's the truth.

Look up "conservation of momentum".


Pressure waves can reach the ground, without the air in the column
descending to the ground.
I never said that the particular molecules that the aircraft touches
are the ones that have to reach the ground.
You said "The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the
momentum is transfer to the earth."

And it is: the *net* flow.

The "net" flow is circulating air. Circulation circulates. It doesn't go
somewhere and stay there. The "net" displacement is zero.

No. If there were no net displacement, there would be no net change in
momentum. No net change in momentum means no force down on the air by
the aircraft. No force down on the air means no force up on the aircraft.


The molecules that "reach" the ground are the ones that
were *already there* at ground level.

I never implied that the same molecules are the ones that eventually
strike the ground.

So then, the net flow stops when "it" hits the ground.
"It" isn't the molecules that the wing touches.

Correct.

Would "it" be the molecules at the bottom of the air column? (they're
already on the ground)
Identify "it" and maybe we'll know when the flow stops.

The movement of air downward is "it".


The fact is that if the aircraft and the Earth are to remain the
same distance apart, the plane must "push" against the Earth
with a force equal to the force of gravity. The air is the medium
by which the aircraft can transmit that push.
Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my
voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a microphone
over there, in a split second. The air expelled from lungs is never
going to make it across the road.
No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice.
Of course I do.

The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases.
So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be
coming along shortly?

I think their will be no net push, yes.

There will be two pushes. There will be no net displacement.

See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push.

"No net push" doesn't make much sense here. There are opposing pushes,
but at _different_ times. That's the difference. By your reasoning,
microphones wouldn't work because the diaphragms inside won't move.

And to explain to you why your hypothetical craft with the radial
exhaust of air from a centrifugal fan won't work. The air that
enters downward gets turned to go sideways. That 90 degree turn
can only be accomplished by the a push upward from the aircraft
and thus the air must push down on the system with an equal but
opposite force.
But is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as a 180 degree turn
that directs incoming air back in the opposite direction? No, so
I'll just turn my squirrel cage upside down with 180 degree flow
redirection, and get lift with no net downwash.
No, you won't.

No downwash, no lift. No go learn something.
Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as
a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite
direction?

Read this:

"To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original
text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates
no lift."

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'll rephrase it, and say no circulation
is generated. It is not even relevant.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic
Properties.pdf

Read it over and over again until you get it.

Get what? It's about wings and geometry. Find something about air moving
through air.

"To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original
text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates
no lift." isn't about air moving?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
...
First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.
Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.

None of which refutes what I said.

Oh, it was simply interesting to you that the vortex goes off into the
distance, right out the bottom of the picture.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
...
First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.
Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.

None of which refutes what I said.

Oh, it was simply interesting to you that the vortex goes off into the
distance, right out the bottom of the picture.

No. That shows that the air continues to move downward far below the
small portion of the vortex which is moving up.

The net movement of the air after the plane's passing must be downward,
because the plane is exerting a force on the air.

Force is a change of momentum with respect to time.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
...
First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.
Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.
None of which refutes what I said.
Oh, it was simply interesting to you that the vortex goes off into the
distance, right out the bottom of the picture.

No. That shows that the air continues to move downward far below the
small portion of the vortex which is moving up.

No it doesn't. Perspective shows nothing. If the camera was above the
approaching airplane and looking down at it, the picture would show that
the air continues to move upward far above the small portion of the
vortex which is showing up.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
...
First of all, the downward motion of the vortex clearly carries right
out the bottom of the frame.
Are you impaired? The airplane is approaching the camera. The camera is
looking up at the airplane. The bottom of the frame contains the distant
background. Objects farther than the airplane appear lower in the frame.
If the camera was above the approaching airplane and looking down at
it, distant objects would appear higher in the frame than the airplane.
None of which refutes what I said.
Oh, it was simply interesting to you that the vortex goes off into the
distance, right out the bottom of the picture.

No. That shows that the air continues to move downward far below the
small portion of the vortex which is moving up.

No it doesn't. Perspective shows nothing. If the camera was above the
approaching airplane and looking down at it, the picture would show that
the air continues to move upward far above the small portion of the
vortex which is showing up.

LOL

Perspective would show the same amount of movement at greater and
greater distances as less and less absolute distance on the picture.

But the downward flow goes right off the bottom of the page...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

snip

No downwash, no lift. No go learn something.
Let's learn here. From you. Is that 90 degree turn *exactly* the same as
a 180 degree turn that directs incoming air back in the opposite
direction?

Read this:

"To determine [the angle represented by a greek letter in the original
text], we observe that no downwash is generated when the wing generates
no lift."

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'll rephrase it, and say no circulation
is generated. It is not even relevant.

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cwoolsey/Cour...al/Aerodynamic
Properties.pdf

Read it over and over again until you get it.

Get what? It's about wings and geometry. Find something about air moving
through air.

http://www.onemetre.net/Design/Downwash/Downwash.htm

"The theory of downwash starts by noting that you only get downwash when
you have lift.* No lift, no downwash."

http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

' The "Newton" explanation is wrong because downwash occurs BEHIND the
wing, where it can have no effects? Downwash can't generate a lifting
force? INCORRECT.

Wrong, and silly as well! The above statement caught fire on the
sci.physics newsgroup. Think for a moment: the exhaust from a rocket
or a jet engine occurs BEHIND the engine. Does this mean that
action/reaction does not apply to jets and rockets? Of course not.
It's true that the exhaust stream doesn't directly push on the inner
surface of a rocket engine. The lifting force in rockets is caused
by acceleration of mass, and within the exhaust plume the mass
is no longer accelerating. In rocket engines, the lifting force
appears in the same place that the exhaust is given high velocity:
where gases interact inside the engine.

And with aircraft, the lifting force appears in the same place that
the exhaust (the downwash) is given high downwards velocity. If a
wing encounters some unmoving air, and the wing then throws the air
downwards, the velocity of the air has been changed, and the wing
will experience an upwards reaction force. At the same time, a
downwash- flow is created. To calculate the lifting force of a
rocket engine, we can look exclusively at the exhaust velocity and
mass, but this doesn't mean that the rocket exhaust creates lift.
It just means that the rocket exhaust is directly proportional to
lift (since the exhaust velocity and the lifting force have a
common origin.) The same is true with airplane wings and downwash.
To have lift at high altitudes, we MUST have downwash, and if we
double the downwash, we double the lifting force. But downwash
doesn't cause lift, instead the wing's interaction with the air
both creates a lifting force and gives the air a downwards velocity
(by F=MA, don't you know!)'

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:

It's true that the exhaust stream doesn't directly push on the inner
surface of a rocket engine.

Yeah, I like that aerospike design, the inside-out nozzle thing.

wing encounters some unmoving air, and the wing then throws the air
downwards, the velocity of the air has been changed, and the wing
will experience an upwards reaction force. At the same time, a
downwash- flow is created.

The wing, remember, is moving forward. "Downwards" is one component of
circulation.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

It's true that the exhaust stream doesn't directly push on the inner
surface of a rocket engine.

Yeah, I like that aerospike design, the inside-out nozzle thing.

wing encounters some unmoving air, and the wing then throws the air
downwards, the velocity of the air has been changed, and the wing
will experience an upwards reaction force. At the same time, a
downwash- flow is created.

The wing, remember, is moving forward. "Downwards" is one component of
circulation.

Those weren't my words.

Yes, but Newton's laws tell us that there is a net force down on the
air. No net force down on the air, no net force up on the plane.

Force is change of momentum with respect to time.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg