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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn Thrust
I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio
and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on the bottom". You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such simple sounding theories are usually wrong, and in this case you have neglected forward motion, which provides many secondary effects. This is why the down part of an airplane is at the BACK, not the BOTTOM. The airplane is travelling through the air, and the first thing the air gets is the up, and the last thing it gets is the down. Of course, as far as the air is concerned, it's backwards (plane goes up, air goes down, at least for a while). That's what makes the vortex. Money is needed primarily to achieve forward motion. While an airplane on the ground will consume a certain amount of money, flying it consumes far more. You put some in at the beginning, and the bills come =after= the flight. This is what causes the money vortex, which is exactly analogous to the air vortex that holds the wing up. It is impossible to put all the money in one place and have the airplane fly. It is just as impossible to put the up and the down where it seems they "should" go and get the plane to fly. Only a rocketship can do that, and there is a =lot= of down coming out of the bottom, and a lot of up where the top is. But there's no sideways motion (at least there shouldn't be!) Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn Thrust
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:23:55 GMT, Jose
wrote: You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. I hope you're going to cut and paste this all together and put it on a Web site somewhere. Decades from now, persons yet unborn will be asking, "Does anybody have a link . . .? Don |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it,
which is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor. There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force on either the air or the disk. The molecules next to the disk have a pressure equal to the weight of the disk below it and the actual disk above it. There is no net force and thus no momentum change. Momentum = mass * velocity, and the vertical velocity of the air and the disk are zero. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn Thrust Demons....(NASA)
There is the question of gliders and airplanes. Airplanes
don't need any help to get it up and glider pilots need help to get it up. But once they get it up, glider pilots have more skill at keeping it up. "Richard Lamb" wrote in message nk.net... | ChuckSlusarczyk wrote: | | | Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the | result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and | made many new scientific discovery's such as: | | -Pillows are not Gooses | -Gooses have feathers | -Pillows have down | -Gooses feathers are outside | -Pillows down is inside | -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers | -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive | -Pillows are easy to catch | -Gooses bite...hard | -Pillows are soft | -Gooses keep you awake | -Pillows make you sleepy | -Gooses get grumpy | -Pillows are calm | | | snipped out the complicated part to avoid getting lost again | | See ya | | Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S | | | | I got it, Chuck. | | Tim's eloquent theorem showed me the error of my ways. | | Richard | | still trying to figure out the Helium but tho... |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
Dan wrote: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12: Richard Lamb wrote: "How does a wing generate lift?" Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes they do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so. This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt. Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted. He can be seen in this video, about halfway through: http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html Bowman is also running for Congress http://www.rmbowman.com/ As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience with the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS, they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military response to all of them? Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process takes 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft. On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems genning up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc. Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what action would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets? NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or since 9/11 tend to make the news? Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since? I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before 9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked? FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything like scrambled eggs? strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films. The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn Thrust
Jose wrote:
I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on the bottom". You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such simple sounding theories are usually wrong, ... snipped the expensive part Jose Occom's Razor, Jose. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn ThrustDemons....(NASA)
Jim Macklin wrote:
Cup holders allowed drinking in flight and that in turn required "draining the pilot's sump" more often in flight. This required relief tubes, but then women started flying and that requires the potty. The potty requires plumbing and that means plumbers. More money "down the drain" [pun intended] and then the government started buying toilet seats and we all heard what THAT cost. Maybe we could try to build a jet engine that burned paper trash instead of petroleum products. This could save a lot of oil and several steps in the process of flight, they could just directly burn money. The oil companies will be knocking at your door soon Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn ThrustDemons....(NASA)
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Richard Isakson says... As further proof that Chuck's theory doesn't work, I tried an experiment this morning. I took a pillow off my bed. It is mostly feathers, after all. To give it a proper test, I hiked up the Ebey's Landing Bluff Trail to the edge of the cliff. Having great faith in Chuck and fully expecting my pillow to soar up over my head, I give that pillow a good strong toss ... Nope. It went staight down. Splat! Right into the Puget Sound. Thanks to Chuck, I'll be sleeping on a soggy pillow tonight! Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and made many new scientific discovery's such as: -Pillows are not Gooses -Gooses have feathers -Pillows have down -Gooses feathers are outside -Pillows down is inside -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive -Pillows are easy to catch -Gooses bite...hard -Pillows are soft -Gooses keep you awake -Pillows make you sleepy -Gooses get grumpy -Pillows are calm After obtaining this data I decided to pull all the feathers off a Goose and leave the down attached.The Goose didn't seem happy, maybe I could get a research grant to determine if the Gooses get grumpy because they are half naked or because they're cold.But that's a whole nuther topic. I then proceeded to the Clark ave bridge (altitude about 75') and pitched this unhappy Goose off to see him fly .He didn't and boy he was really mad when I went down to retrieve him. Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down". After the first test I thought that possibly I was in an area of high gravity so I went to where gravity is less ...the airport. Everyone knows airports are built in low gravity areas.But that's another topic in itself as to how I discovered that.I then went to the top of the highest hangar and threw the Goose off. He failed to fly again and was REALLY ****ed off at me. So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one for flying and one for landing.Pillows are filled with the "down" feathers .That's why your pillow went "down" when you launched it. This is an example of why this type of testing must be conducted by experts. More research must be done so please send money so this very important research can continue. I'd also like to get a stunt double for the Goose as well. Now I'm off to see if the reports of an aviator looping,rolling and spinning a cow are true!! See ya Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S Chuck, um, ask Moller how to get gummint grants to pursue your research. You may be onto something. As for the aviator looping, spinning and rolling a cow must you bring Zoom into this? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
george wrote:
Dan wrote: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12: TRUTH wrote: Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12: Richard Lamb wrote: "How does a wing generate lift?" Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes they do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so. This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt. Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted. He can be seen in this video, about halfway through: http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html Bowman is also running for Congress http://www.rmbowman.com/ As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience with the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS, they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military response to all of them? Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process takes 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft. On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems genning up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc. Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what action would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets? NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or since 9/11 tend to make the news? Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since? I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before 9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked? FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything like scrambled eggs? strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films. The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets In all fairness to the whacko who started all this, when I sat nuke alert in the late 1970s they still announced "scramble, scramble, scramble" over the P.A. when launching. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
lift, wings, and Bernuolli
There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force
.... averaged over a whole bunch of molecules, yes. But considering each molecule separately, there certainly =is= momentum change at each collsision. Jose -- Money: what you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Sport Pilot pilots not insurable? | Blueskies | Piloting | 14 | July 12th 05 05:45 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |