more confusion on cessna performance chart

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Jan 15, 10:27 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:



Jim Logajan wrote in
0:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense to
me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger, Dirac,
or Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related equations in
order to model or understand the onset of turbulence.

When the molecules in your coke can start sonoluminescing from the
turbulence, prolly.

Ah - I see - I think. How stupid of me. So would that result in cold
fusion or coke fusion?

Hey, be quiet, I've nearly got the wife, aka "money bags"
talked into taking flying lessons. Once that happens I
might be able to squeak some funds for our own A/C.
I needs encouragement!

Uh, no you don't.


You need a different hobby.

How about slot car racing?


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense to
me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger, Dirac, or
Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related equations in order to
model or understand the onset of turbulence.

Warmer atmospheric gas has a greater photon
exchange rate and that creates repulsion, that of course
is why a heated closed volume increases in pressure.

NO. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the gas particles increase
with temperature, which in turns leads to the increase in pressure in the
case you mention. There is no reason to involve photons to derive the
equation of state.

Besides, your followup paragraph is a non sequitur to anything that
preceded it.

We may term that as "anti-viscosity", where viscosity
is similiar to "stickiness".

NO. The origin of viscosity at the atomic scale is generally covered in
undergraduate statistical and thermal physics courses and I can assure
you that there is no reason to invent new terms like "anti-viscosity".
For example, the undergraduate text "Fundamentals of Statistical and
Thermal Physics" by F. Reif covers viscosity in section 12.3.

I take it you haven't studied physics in college at any advanced level
and probably don't have a degree in physics?

In brief, *warm things repel warm things* better than
*cold things repel colds things*, all other things being
equal.

That is meaningless to me. Oh, and earlier you incorrectly wrote:

To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. In general the
viscosity of a gas _increases_ as the temperature rises while in general
the viscosity of liquids _decrease_ rapidly at the temperature rises.

On Jan 17, 4:16*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 15, 5:59 pm, terry wrote:





On Jan 16, 7:05 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Humidity feeds into "density altitude" because water
vapour molecule H2O has density ~ 10 compared to
Nitrogen N2 ~ 14 *at equal pressures*

Not quite. *The density is *proportional to molecular weight, which
would be in the ratio of *18 for water to 28 for nitrogen ( g /mol )
But of course we are really interested in the density ratio between
water and air which would be 18 to 28.9

Ths simply comes from rearranging the Gas Equation we all learn in
high school
PV =nRT
substiute n =m/M * where m is mass and M *molecular weight , you
rearrange to get
m/V = PM / RT
m/V of course = density
( assuming ideal behaviour exists which is a pretty good assumption at
the pressures and temperatures involved in flying light aircraft ).

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
* In Quantum Theory that makes sense.
To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

So if warm air is more turbulent ( I think I can accept that ) wouldnt
that mean that at higher temperatures for the same density altitude
you would get less lift and require longer take off distance?

" As previously stated the results are the other way around."

Cheers
Terry

I checked what you "previously stated", and the words
"correction" and "difference" didn't have the usual "+/-"
in them.
Is the Cessna handbook online, that will save time,
I'm interested.

I coulnt find it on line, but I would be happy to scan and email the
page, or even email you the Excel spreadsheet with the data and my
calculations. Then you can do all the quantum mechanics, vector
analysis, euclid geometry and reverse differentiation your heart
desires, and report back to us. Just let me know if you want to
recieve this info by email.
terry

On Jan 16, 11:41 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense to
me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger, Dirac, or
Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related equations in order to
model or understand the onset of turbulence.

Warmer atmospheric gas has a greater photon
exchange rate and that creates repulsion, that of course
is why a heated closed volume increases in pressure.

NO. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the gas particles increase
with temperature, which in turns leads to the increase in pressure in the
case you mention. There is no reason to involve photons to derive the
equation of state.

Mr. Potato Head, the OP, is using a constant
"density pressure". Read the ****in spec's, before
blabbing.

Besides, your followup paragraph is a non sequitur to anything that
preceded it.

We may term that as "anti-viscosity", where viscosity
is similiar to "stickiness".

NO. The origin of viscosity at the atomic scale is generally covered in
undergraduate statistical and thermal physics courses and I can assure
you that there is no reason to invent new terms like "anti-viscosity".
For example, the undergraduate text "Fundamentals of Statistical and
Thermal Physics" by F. Reif covers viscosity in section 12.3.
I take it you haven't studied physics in college at any advanced level
and probably don't have a degree in physics?

Mr. Potato head, see Ackowlegements here...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0511/0511050.pdf

Whatever simplistic notions occupy your cranium
are relatively delusional. What I do is to place physics
in a common sense fashion, in explanation to this
group. and then ref to the hard science.

I do acknowledge that the explanation of heating
and the term "anti-viscsoity" is excellent.

In brief, *warm things repel warm things* better than
*cold things repel colds things*, all other things being
equal.

That is meaningless to me. Oh, and earlier you incorrectly wrote:

To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. In general the
viscosity of a gas _increases_ as the temperature rises while in general
the viscosity of liquids _decrease_ rapidly at the temperature rises.

Well, then provide a scientific example.
With all due respect.
Ken S. Tucker

On Jan 16, 12:22 pm, terry wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:16 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jan 15, 5:59 pm, terry wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:05 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Humidity feeds into "density altitude" because water
vapour molecule H2O has density ~ 10 compared to
Nitrogen N2 ~ 14 *at equal pressures*

Not quite. The density is proportional to molecular weight, which
would be in the ratio of 18 for water to 28 for nitrogen ( g /mol )
But of course we are really interested in the density ratio between
water and air which would be 18 to 28.9

Ths simply comes from rearranging the Gas Equation we all learn in
high school
PV =nRT
substiute n =m/M where m is mass and M molecular weight , you
rearrange to get
m/V = PM / RT
m/V of course = density
( assuming ideal behaviour exists which is a pretty good assumption at
the pressures and temperatures involved in flying light aircraft ).

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.
To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

So if warm air is more turbulent ( I think I can accept that ) wouldnt
that mean that at higher temperatures for the same density altitude
you would get less lift and require longer take off distance?

" As previously stated the results are the other way around."

Cheers
Terry

I checked what you "previously stated", and the words
"correction" and "difference" didn't have the usual "+/-"
in them.
Is the Cessna handbook online, that will save time,
I'm interested.

I coulnt find it on line, but I would be happy to scan and email the
page, or even email you the Excel spreadsheet with the data and my
calculations. Then you can do all the quantum mechanics, vector
analysis, euclid geometry and reverse differentiation your heart
desires, and report back to us. Just let me know if you want to
recieve this info by email.
terry

Let's see the posted info for all to see and then we all
may examine the data equally, otherwise, shut the ****
up. Don't waste our time.
Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 16, 11:41 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense to
me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger, Dirac,
or Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related equations in
order to model or understand the onset of turbulence.

Warmer atmospheric gas has a greater photon
exchange rate and that creates repulsion, that of course
is why a heated closed volume increases in pressure.

NO. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the gas particles
increase with temperature, which in turns leads to the increase in
pressure in the case you mention. There is no reason to involve
photons to derive the equation of state.

Mr. Potato Head, the OP, is using a constant
"density pressure". Read the ****in spec's, before
blabbing.

I'm addressing your posts, not his, because not only do your posts do
nothing to answer the OP's question, you continue to bring in aspects
that are either irrelevant or incorrect or both. References to
turbulence, quantum mechanics, and "photon exchange rates" seem about as
relevant as cosmology, string theory, or general relativity.


Besides, your followup paragraph is a non sequitur to anything that
preceded it.

We may term that as "anti-viscosity", where viscosity
is similiar to "stickiness".

NO. The origin of viscosity at the atomic scale is generally covered
in undergraduate statistical and thermal physics courses and I can
assure you that there is no reason to invent new terms like
"anti-viscosity". For example, the undergraduate text "Fundamentals
of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif covers viscosity in
section 12.3. I take it you haven't studied physics in college at any
advanced level and probably don't have a degree in physics?

Mr. Potato head, see Ackowlegements here...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0511/0511050.pdf

One acknowledgement by an author who is not degreed in physics and who
doesn't appear to have any papers in peer-reviewed journals hardly
excuses your attempt to invent and spread your own brand of physics.
Anyway, I've got more acknowledgements than you - check the ack sections
of the following:

http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/Pref...wledgments.htm
http://jetpress.org/volume11/vasculoid.html
http://jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactory.htm
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame...s/art0142.html

One unintended contribution he
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/7.4.6.5.htm

Whatever simplistic notions occupy your cranium
are relatively delusional. What I do is to place physics
in a common sense fashion, in explanation to this
group. and then ref to the hard science.

It looks to me like you leaped on past the standard "billiard ball"
model of gas physics so you could drop in mention of quantum physics to
demonstrate how well read you are. So if it makes you feel better to
throw insults at me, well, who am I to stand in your way?

I do acknowledge that the explanation of heating
and the term "anti-viscsoity" is excellent.

If you say so.

In brief, *warm things repel warm things* better than
*cold things repel colds things*, all other things being
equal.

That is meaningless to me. Oh, and earlier you incorrectly wrote:

To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. In general
the viscosity of a gas _increases_ as the temperature rises while in
general the viscosity of liquids _decrease_ rapidly at the
temperature rises.

Well, then provide a scientific example.
With all due respect.

Sure. Air and water. Here's a table that shows dynamic viscosity of
water as both a gas and a liquid as a function of temperature and
pressu

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/st...ity-d_770.html

Note how the viscosity of liquid water decreases with increasing
temperature and viscosity of gaseous water increases with increasing
termperature.

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of liquid water:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wa...ity-d_596.html

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of air:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ai...ity-d_601.html

Unfortunately my brief search didn't turn up viscosity of liquid O2 or
N2, but the above examples are sufficient for my purpose.

Lastly, there is the reference to the section of Reif's book which I
already mentioned that shows the theory behind the experimental
observations referenced above. You could also take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity

Which ironically you also quoted elsewhere but it seems didn't read.

On Jan 16, 4:18 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:22 pm, terry wrote:



On Jan 17, 4:16 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 15, 5:59 pm, terry wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:05 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Humidity feeds into "density altitude" because water
vapour molecule H2O has density ~ 10 compared to
Nitrogen N2 ~ 14 *at equal pressures*

Not quite. The density is proportional to molecular weight, which
would be in the ratio of 18 for water to 28 for nitrogen ( g /mol )
But of course we are really interested in the density ratio between
water and air which would be 18 to 28.9

Ths simply comes from rearranging the Gas Equation we all learn in
high school
PV =nRT
substiute n =m/M where m is mass and M molecular weight , you
rearrange to get
m/V = PM / RT
m/V of course = density
( assuming ideal behaviour exists which is a pretty good assumption at
the pressures and temperatures involved in flying light aircraft ).

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.
To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

So if warm air is more turbulent ( I think I can accept that ) wouldnt
that mean that at higher temperatures for the same density altitude
you would get less lift and require longer take off distance?

" As previously stated the results are the other way around."

Cheers
Terry

I checked what you "previously stated", and the words
"correction" and "difference" didn't have the usual "+/-"
in them.
Is the Cessna handbook online, that will save time,
I'm interested.

I coulnt find it on line, but I would be happy to scan and email the
page, or even email you the Excel spreadsheet with the data and my
calculations. Then you can do all the quantum mechanics, vector
analysis, euclid geometry and reverse differentiation your heart
desires, and report back to us. Just let me know if you want to
recieve this info by email.
terry

Let's see the posted info for all to see and then we all
may examine the data equally, otherwise, shut the ****
up. Don't waste our time.
Regards
Ken
You talk like that in front of your "moneybags"?

That's the *only* form of "our" around here that could remotely apply.

Otherwise, people seem to be doing a pretty nice - and polite - job of
illustrating that your knowledge of physics is every bit as deficient
as your knowledge of flying.

Ask "moneybags" for a loan. Go buy a clue.

On Jan 17, 8:18*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jan 16, 12:22 pm, terry wrote:





On Jan 17, 4:16 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 15, 5:59 pm, terry wrote:

On Jan 16, 7:05 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Humidity feeds into "density altitude" because water
vapour molecule H2O has density ~ 10 compared to
Nitrogen N2 ~ 14 *at equal pressures*

Not quite. *The density is *proportional to molecular weight, which
would be in the ratio of *18 for water to 28 for nitrogen ( g /mol )
But of course we are really interested in the density ratio between
water and air which would be 18 to 28.9

Ths simply comes from rearranging the Gas Equation we all learn in
high school
PV =nRT
substiute n =m/M * where m is mass and M *molecular weight , you
rearrange to get
m/V = PM / RT
m/V of course = density
( assuming ideal behaviour exists which is a pretty good assumption at
the pressures and temperatures involved in flying light aircraft ).

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
* In Quantum Theory that makes sense.
To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.
Regards
Ken- Hide quoted text -

So if warm air is more turbulent ( I think I can accept that ) wouldnt
that mean that at higher temperatures for the same density altitude
you would get less lift and require longer take off distance?

" As previously stated the results are the other way around."

Cheers
Terry

I checked what you "previously stated", and the words
"correction" and "difference" didn't have the usual "+/-"
in them.
Is the Cessna handbook online, that will save time,
I'm interested.

I coulnt find it on line, but I would be happy to scan and email the
page, or even email you the Excel spreadsheet with the data and my
calculations. *Then you can do all the quantum mechanics, vector
analysis, euclid geometry and *reverse differentiation your heart
desires, and report back to us. *Just let me know if you want to
recieve this info by email.
terry

Let's see the posted info for all to see and then we all
may examine the data equally, otherwise, shut the ****
up. Don't waste our time.
Regards

Now no need to be rude Ken, its your choice how you spend your time,
its not me that is wasting it. I posted a question which I thought
would be of interest to pilots of real aircraft for whom understanding
(or lack thereof) of takeoff performance data can literally be the
difference between living and dying. I didnt post the data set
because it is large and it was not my intention to have others spend
hours analysing it. ( although anyone is welcome to it , and my full
analysis of it, but offf line) I found something that didnt gel with
my understanding, and sort reasons for the potential discrepancy. As
for some of your suggestions Ken, all I can say mate is that you need
to come out of the clouds a little, most things in life are not as
complicated as you seem to think. I am sure you could come up with a
thousand brilliant ideas, that even your Mensa friends would be
impressed by, as to the possible reasons why a car might go put put
splutter , splutter and then stop.. but just checking the gas first
makes a lot more sense. I like physics and maths too and whilst I do
have a PhD in science ( physical chemistry) I am certainly no genius.
I have spent many many hours mathematically analysing a lot what is
involved in flying, from navigation problems, density altitudes with
corrections for humidty, wt and balance, radius of a turn with
correction for crosswind ( thanks Cain Liddle) , I even wrote a
program for an air traffic controller who wanted to be able to predict
the wind speed and direction from radar tracks and flight plan
information for multiple aircraft..... But you know what, none of
this stuff has ever required anything I didnt learn in high school,
like a good grasp of trigonometry, solve a quadratic here and there,
Newtons Laws, the gas equations etc. For christ sake leave the
quantum mechanics and anti viscosity discussions to your Mensa
meetings.
Terry

On Jan 16, 3:10 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jan 16, 11:41 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense to
me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger, Dirac,
or Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related equations in
order to model or understand the onset of turbulence.

Warmer atmospheric gas has a greater photon
exchange rate and that creates repulsion, that of course
is why a heated closed volume increases in pressure.

NO. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the gas particles
increase with temperature, which in turns leads to the increase in
pressure in the case you mention. There is no reason to involve
photons to derive the equation of state.

Mr. Potato Head, the OP, is using a constant
"density pressure". Read the ****in spec's, before
blabbing.

I'm addressing your posts, not his, because not only do your posts do
nothing to answer the OP's question, you continue to bring in aspects
that are either irrelevant or incorrect or both. References to
turbulence, quantum mechanics, and "photon exchange rates" seem about as
relevant as cosmology, string theory, or general relativity.





Besides, your followup paragraph is a non sequitur to anything that
preceded it.

We may term that as "anti-viscosity", where viscosity
is similiar to "stickiness".

NO. The origin of viscosity at the atomic scale is generally covered
in undergraduate statistical and thermal physics courses and I can
assure you that there is no reason to invent new terms like
"anti-viscosity". For example, the undergraduate text "Fundamentals
of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif covers viscosity in
section 12.3. I take it you haven't studied physics in college at any
advanced level and probably don't have a degree in physics?

Mr. Potato head, see Ackowlegements here...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0511/0511050.pdf

One acknowledgement by an author who is not degreed in physics and who
doesn't appear to have any papers in peer-reviewed journals hardly
excuses your attempt to invent and spread your own brand of physics.
Anyway, I've got more acknowledgements than you - check the ack sections
of the following:

http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/Pref...s/art0142.html

One unintended contribution hehttp://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/7.4.6.5.htm

Whatever simplistic notions occupy your cranium
are relatively delusional. What I do is to place physics
in a common sense fashion, in explanation to this
group. and then ref to the hard science.

It looks to me like you leaped on past the standard "billiard ball"
model of gas physics so you could drop in mention of quantum physics to
demonstrate how well read you are. So if it makes you feel better to
throw insults at me, well, who am I to stand in your way?

I do acknowledge that the explanation of heating
and the term "anti-viscsoity" is excellent.

If you say so.



In brief, *warm things repel warm things* better than
*cold things repel colds things*, all other things being
equal.

That is meaningless to me. Oh, and earlier you incorrectly wrote:

To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. In general
the viscosity of a gas _increases_ as the temperature rises while in
general the viscosity of liquids _decrease_ rapidly at the
temperature rises.

Well, then provide a scientific example.
With all due respect.

Sure. Air and water. Here's a table that shows dynamic viscosity of
water as both a gas and a liquid as a function of temperature and
pressu

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/st...ity-d_770.html

Note how the viscosity of liquid water decreases with increasing
temperature and viscosity of gaseous water increases with increasing
termperature.

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of liquid water:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wa...ic-viscosity-d...

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of air:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ai...c-viscosity-d_...

Ok, I bookmarked that.

Unfortunately my brief search didn't turn up viscosity of liquid O2 or
N2, but the above examples are sufficient for my purpose.
Lastly, there is the reference to the section of Reif's book which I
already mentioned that shows the theory behind the experimental
observations referenced above. You could also take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity

Which ironically you also quoted elsewhere but it seems didn't read.

Given a constant "density atlitude", how is Take-off distance
a function of temperature. We have Lift, Skin friction, Boundary
layer and Viscosity as gas characteristics that depend upon
temperature.
Regards
Ken

On Jan 17, 1:08 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote :



On Jan 16, 3:10 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 16, 11:41 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jan 15, 10:05 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I'm guessing: but I get the impression that the onset
of turbulence over wings was also dependant on temp-
erature, even when the density altitude is the same.
In Quantum Theory that makes sense.

Your sudden invocation of quantum theory doesn't make any sense
to me. At no point does one need to utilize the Schrodinger,
Dirac, or Klein-Gordon equations or any of their related
equations in order to model or understand the onset of
turbulence.

Warmer atmospheric gas has a greater photon
exchange rate and that creates repulsion, that of course
is why a heated closed volume increases in pressure.

NO. The kinetic energy (and the momentum) of the gas particles
increase with temperature, which in turns leads to the increase in
pressure in the case you mention. There is no reason to involve
photons to derive the equation of state.

Mr. Potato Head, the OP, is using a constant
"density pressure". Read the ****in spec's, before
blabbing.

I'm addressing your posts, not his, because not only do your posts do
nothing to answer the OP's question, you continue to bring in aspects
that are either irrelevant or incorrect or both. References to
turbulence, quantum mechanics, and "photon exchange rates" seem about
as relevant as cosmology, string theory, or general relativity.

Besides, your followup paragraph is a non sequitur to anything
that preceded it.

We may term that as "anti-viscosity", where viscosity
is similiar to "stickiness".

NO. The origin of viscosity at the atomic scale is generally
covered in undergraduate statistical and thermal physics courses
and I can assure you that there is no reason to invent new terms
like "anti-viscosity". For example, the undergraduate text
"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif
covers viscosity in section 12.3. I take it you haven't studied
physics in college at any advanced level and probably don't have a
degree in physics?

Mr. Potato head, see Ackowlegements here...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0511/0511050.pdf

One acknowledgement by an author who is not degreed in physics and
who doesn't appear to have any papers in peer-reviewed journals
hardly excuses your attempt to invent and spread your own brand of
physics. Anyway, I've got more acknowledgements than you - check the
ack sections of the following:

http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/Pref...tmhttp://jetpr

ess.org/volume11/vasculoid.htmlhttp://jetpress.org/volume13/Nanofactor y.htmhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?

main=/articles/art0142.



html

One unintended contribution
hehttp://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/7.4.6.5.htm

Whatever simplistic notions occupy your cranium
are relatively delusional. What I do is to place physics
in a common sense fashion, in explanation to this
group. and then ref to the hard science.

It looks to me like you leaped on past the standard "billiard ball"
model of gas physics so you could drop in mention of quantum physics
to demonstrate how well read you are. So if it makes you feel better
to throw insults at me, well, who am I to stand in your way?

I do acknowledge that the explanation of heating
and the term "anti-viscsoity" is excellent.

If you say so.

In brief, *warm things repel warm things* better than
*cold things repel colds things*, all other things being
equal.

That is meaningless to me. Oh, and earlier you incorrectly wrote:

To start, warm air is more chaotic than cold air at the
molecular level, and the chaos *seeds* the turbulence.
You know, hot fluids are less viscous than cold and so
less sticky. That's likely a secondary correction.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong. In general
the viscosity of a gas _increases_ as the temperature rises while
in general the viscosity of liquids _decrease_ rapidly at the
temperature rises.

Well, then provide a scientific example.
With all due respect.

Sure. Air and water. Here's a table that shows dynamic viscosity of
water as both a gas and a liquid as a function of temperature and
pressu

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/st...ity-d_770.html

Note how the viscosity of liquid water decreases with increasing
temperature and viscosity of gaseous water increases with increasing
termperature.

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of liquid
water:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wa...tic-viscosity-
d.
..

Here's a table showing dynamic and kinematic viscosity of air:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ai...tic-viscosity-
d_.
..

Ok, I bookmarked that.

Unfortunately my brief search didn't turn up viscosity of liquid O2
or N2, but the above examples are sufficient for my purpose.
Lastly, there is the reference to the section of Reif's book which I
already mentioned that shows the theory behind the experimental
observations referenced above. You could also take a look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity

Which ironically you also quoted elsewhere but it seems didn't read.

Given a constant "density atlitude", how is Take-off distance
a function of temperature. We have Lift, Skin friction, Boundary
layer and Viscosity as gas characteristics that depend upon
temperature.

Wow Ken,

Waht's all that mean, now?

Bertie

Beyond evidence he's tugging on the schnapps again, it means nothing.