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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: It's like the downwash argument. You can say "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when people argue that the air behind an aircraft is not deflected downward, but it *does* matter. Having an accurate understanding of the physical processes of flight matters. It isn't really deflected downward, not for long anyway. It's churning in a torus. Like a smoke ring. No. It really *is* deflected downward. The edges of the deflected area churn, and the air that is deflected ends up getting diffused among all the other air below *it*, but it really is deflected downward. And eventually, that downward deflection makes it way until it -- very diffusely -- impacts upon the surface of the earth. That is the only thing that finally stops it. After more than 100 years of flight, the atmosphere still hasn't been pushed down to the earth's surface. Sorry, Beryl, but you're just wrong. As I said, the atmosphere isn't getting any shorter. Do you disagree with that? Repeating that "the net flow is downward" isn't making progress. The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth. Has to be an equal upward flow. Somewhere. Where? Imagine riding in a C-130 Hercules. You're flying an RC model airplane in the cabin! (That's why I picked a C-130) The model's weight is applied to the cabin floor, of course, but the "downwash" from the model's wing doesn't pile up on the floor. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_4.jsp The column of downward flow in the center doesn't really flow down so far, does it? Yes, it does. All the way to the ground. Spread out among lots and lots of air, but that's where the momentum *has* to go. Say where the _air_ has to go. The aircraft starts the air moving downward. Net downward momentum. The ground stops that net downward motion. What if there were no ground? Jupiter has atmosphere, gravity, and I don't see why a solid surface below is required for flight. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: It's like the downwash argument. You can say "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when people argue that the air behind an aircraft is not deflected downward, but it *does* matter. Having an accurate understanding of the physical processes of flight matters. It isn't really deflected downward, not for long anyway. It's churning in a torus. Like a smoke ring. No. It really *is* deflected downward. The edges of the deflected area churn, and the air that is deflected ends up getting diffused among all the other air below *it*, but it really is deflected downward. And eventually, that downward deflection makes it way until it -- very diffusely -- impacts upon the surface of the earth. That is the only thing that finally stops it. After more than 100 years of flight, the atmosphere still hasn't been pushed down to the earth's surface. Sorry, Beryl, but you're just wrong. As I said, the atmosphere isn't getting any shorter. Do you disagree with that? Repeating that "the net flow is downward" isn't making progress. The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth. Has to be an equal upward flow. Somewhere. Where? Imagine riding in a C-130 Hercules. You're flying an RC model airplane in the cabin! (That's why I picked a C-130) The model's weight is applied to the cabin floor, of course, but the "downwash" from the model's wing doesn't pile up on the floor. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_4.jsp The column of downward flow in the center doesn't really flow down so far, does it? Yes, it does. All the way to the ground. Spread out among lots and lots of air, but that's where the momentum *has* to go. Say where the _air_ has to go. The aircraft starts the air moving downward. Net downward momentum. The ground stops that net downward motion. What if there were no ground? Jupiter has atmosphere, gravity, and I don't see why a solid surface below is required for flight. Look, the aircraft imparts downward momentum to the air. If only air is encountered by that air, the momentum cannot be go away, so it keeps moving downward. As more air shares the momentum, it moves more slowly, but it still moves until eventually, the air encounters the Earth. There, the momentum it imparts downward to the earth is match by the momentum imparted upward by the force of gravity that the aircraft exerts on the earth; balancing out the system. On Earth, the gravity of the planet far outweighs the gravity of our atmosphere and thus essentially all the momentum of the moving atmosphere must reach the ground to react out, but on Jupiter it's all atmosphere and so eventually gravity acting on that atmosphere reacts out the momentum. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: It's like the downwash argument. You can say "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when people argue that the air behind an aircraft is not deflected downward, but it *does* matter. Having an accurate understanding of the physical processes of flight matters. It isn't really deflected downward, not for long anyway. It's churning in a torus. Like a smoke ring. No. It really *is* deflected downward. The edges of the deflected area churn, and the air that is deflected ends up getting diffused among all the other air below *it*, but it really is deflected downward. And eventually, that downward deflection makes it way until it -- very diffusely -- impacts upon the surface of the earth. That is the only thing that finally stops it. After more than 100 years of flight, the atmosphere still hasn't been pushed down to the earth's surface. Sorry, Beryl, but you're just wrong. As I said, the atmosphere isn't getting any shorter. Do you disagree with that? Repeating that "the net flow is downward" isn't making progress. The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth. Has to be an equal upward flow. Somewhere. Where? Imagine riding in a C-130 Hercules. You're flying an RC model airplane in the cabin! (That's why I picked a C-130) The model's weight is applied to the cabin floor, of course, but the "downwash" from the model's wing doesn't pile up on the floor. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_4.jsp The column of downward flow in the center doesn't really flow down so far, does it? Yes, it does. All the way to the ground. Spread out among lots and lots of air, but that's where the momentum *has* to go. Say where the _air_ has to go. The aircraft starts the air moving downward. Net downward momentum. The ground stops that net downward motion. What if there were no ground? Jupiter has atmosphere, gravity, and I don't see why a solid surface below is required for flight. Look, the aircraft imparts downward momentum to the air. If only air is encountered by that air, the momentum cannot be go away, so it keeps moving downward. As more air shares the momentum, it moves more slowly, but it still moves until eventually, the air encounters the Earth. There, the momentum it imparts downward to the earth is match by the momentum imparted upward by the force of gravity that the aircraft exerts on the earth; balancing out the system. On Earth, the gravity of the planet far outweighs the gravity of our atmosphere and thus essentially all the momentum of the moving atmosphere must reach the ground to react out, but on Jupiter it's all atmosphere and so eventually gravity acting on that atmosphere reacts out the momentum. After an airplane lands, and the weight is on its wheels, a bunch of compressed air jumps off the ground back up to the altitude where it came from. Ready for re-use. Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash? |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: It's like the downwash argument. You can say "IT DOESN'T MATTER", when people argue that the air behind an aircraft is not deflected downward, but it *does* matter. Having an accurate understanding of the physical processes of flight matters. It isn't really deflected downward, not for long anyway. It's churning in a torus. Like a smoke ring. No. It really *is* deflected downward. The edges of the deflected area churn, and the air that is deflected ends up getting diffused among all the other air below *it*, but it really is deflected downward. And eventually, that downward deflection makes it way until it -- very diffusely -- impacts upon the surface of the earth. That is the only thing that finally stops it. After more than 100 years of flight, the atmosphere still hasn't been pushed down to the earth's surface. Sorry, Beryl, but you're just wrong. As I said, the atmosphere isn't getting any shorter. Do you disagree with that? Repeating that "the net flow is downward" isn't making progress. The net flow is downward until it hits the ground and the momentum is transfer to the earth. Has to be an equal upward flow. Somewhere. Where? Imagine riding in a C-130 Hercules. You're flying an RC model airplane in the cabin! (That's why I picked a C-130) The model's weight is applied to the cabin floor, of course, but the "downwash" from the model's wing doesn't pile up on the floor. http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_4.jsp The column of downward flow in the center doesn't really flow down so far, does it? Yes, it does. All the way to the ground. Spread out among lots and lots of air, but that's where the momentum *has* to go. Say where the _air_ has to go. The aircraft starts the air moving downward. Net downward momentum. The ground stops that net downward motion. What if there were no ground? Jupiter has atmosphere, gravity, and I don't see why a solid surface below is required for flight. Look, the aircraft imparts downward momentum to the air. If only air is encountered by that air, the momentum cannot be go away, so it keeps moving downward. As more air shares the momentum, it moves more slowly, but it still moves until eventually, the air encounters the Earth. There, the momentum it imparts downward to the earth is match by the momentum imparted upward by the force of gravity that the aircraft exerts on the earth; balancing out the system. On Earth, the gravity of the planet far outweighs the gravity of our atmosphere and thus essentially all the momentum of the moving atmosphere must reach the ground to react out, but on Jupiter it's all atmosphere and so eventually gravity acting on that atmosphere reacts out the momentum. After an airplane lands, and the weight is on its wheels, a bunch of compressed air jumps off the ground back up to the altitude where it came from. Ready for re-use. Nope. Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash? If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The for the aircraft to experience an upward force from the air (the only thing in contact with it), it must exert a downward force on the air. Because the air is not a rigid body in contact with the earth (the source of the downward force of gravity on the aircraft), a force applied to the air must -- M-U-S-T-! -- cause it to move downward. That downward momentum must eventually be transferred to the source of the downward force on the plane for the system to remain in equilibrium. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. How else can it be read? -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Beryl wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: If there is no downwash, it will not fly. No. You are arguing a point not under contention (at least with respect to heavier-than-air aircraft.) See everyone: this is why understanding of the actual facts is required. The ground isn't required. Air has inertia, and it's just as much a part of the earth as dirt and rocks are. So why are you fixated on the earth's solid surface? It compresses too, you know. You could argue that the downforce travels through the whole planet and back into the atmosphere in China. You simply haven't really read anyone else's posts to understand what they are stating. The previous poster just said: "Let's talk about helicopters. We can replace that rotor with a squirrel cage fan. Air is drawn down into the fan as before, and most of the pressure differential is due to lowering pressure above the fan. As before... except that now the air is exhausted out the periphery of the centrifugal-flow squirrel cage fan, not down as it was with the old axial-flow rotor. Will it fly? Where's the downwash?" She ("Beryl"?) A mineral is clearly implying that such an hypothetical craft could remain airborne without downwash. No, I only asked. How else can it be read? Read it as a question. So what is your answer? Can the postulated craft fly if there is no downdraft? The inflow strikes the underside of the conventional rotor disk, but strikes the topside of the centrifugal fan disk. That's all! I'm betting you'll find a way to avoid answering... I did. No surprise there. So where are we? Your downward accelerated air might continue traveling until it's stopped by the earth's surface, which is the only thing that can stop it. But it isn't simply thrown down. Much of the finite energy put into to the air is "wasted" in spinning it. Kinetic energy becomes heat. And now you're just ducking. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pressure Distribution Charts | sisu1a | Soaring | 0 | September 21st 08 05:53 PM |
Soundwaves Boost Wing Lift | [email protected] | Home Built | 30 | September 5th 05 10:21 PM |
747 weight distribution | Robin | General Aviation | 25 | June 22nd 05 03:53 AM |
Distribution of armor on a B-52 | B2431 | Military Aviation | 12 | August 16th 04 09:07 PM |
Alternator load distribution in a Baron | Viperdoc | Owning | 7 | December 9th 03 10:27 PM |