visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing

In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

Interesting comment: what would YOU call it when the fabric on the upper
wing surface wants to pull away from the ribs?
Air pressure from inside the wing pushing up on it more than the air
above is pushing down...


Let me take a wild guess he you did physics for an uundergraduate
degree. Is that right?

Brian W

No. But it doesn't matter.

If the fabric is moving upward, it can only be because there is more
pressure on its bottom surface than there is on its top surface.


I'm kind of curious about how that higher pressure got on the bottom
of that wing though...

If the curvature of the upper surface lowers the pressure, then even if
the pressure on the lower surface is just the ambient pressure, it will
be *higher* than the upper surface.

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

In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
brian whatcott wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

Interesting comment: what would YOU call it when the fabric on the upper
wing surface wants to pull away from the ribs?
Air pressure from inside the wing pushing up on it more than the air
above is pushing down...


Let me take a wild guess he you did physics for an uundergraduate
degree. Is that right?

Brian W

No. But it doesn't matter.

If the fabric is moving upward, it can only be because there is more
pressure on its bottom surface than there is on its top surface.


It seems that you are uncomfortable with the entire concept of suction.
For example, how do you suppose suction cups work?

The pressure outside the cup keeps it in place.

Or how about a suction pump that happens to be limited to a 30 ft lift?

Because a vacuum cannot do any actual pulling, you can only lift water
as far as the pressure allows, right.


Well duh, it's also atmospheric pressure that enables suction pumps and
suction cups etc., etc. Yes indeed , but it's an academic issue at
the junior high level, isn't it?

Yup.

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

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote

Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.

I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening around
it.

Point made.

Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.

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

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Beryl" wrote

He looked inside the wing, at the entire upper surface, at the lower
surface... that pretty much covers most of it. Air can't be in tension.

Yes, but the person that observed that the pressure on the bottom was one
third responsible (for lift) and the low pressure on top was responsible for
two thirds of the lift is also correct, when you look at the wing as a whole
system, even if those fractions are approximate.

Which I correctly identified if the OP meant it in the appropriate terms.


I think his view of individual points of observations are splitting
toadstools.

But that is my opinion, and like everyone, we all have but-holes and
opinions.

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

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening around
it.

Point made.

Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.



Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.

In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)

But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?

In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening around
it.

Point made.

Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.



Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.

Disagree all you want, it won't make the upper surface of the wing
experience anything but a downward force.


In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)

Bernoulli.


But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?

Which I never disagreed with.

But anyone who thinks the upper surface of the wing is experiencing
anything but a downward force is just sadly misinformed.

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

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening around
it.

Point made.
Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.


Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.

Disagree all you want, it won't make the upper surface of the wing
experience anything but a downward force.

In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)

Bernoulli.

But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?

Which I never disagreed with.

But anyone who thinks the upper surface of the wing is experiencing
anything but a downward force is just sadly misinformed.


Ok, be that way.

I actually see what you are trying to say.
And, have no real issues with it.

Myopic, but not technically incorrect.

Richard

(That's just my own opinion, but it works for me)

In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening
around
it.

Point made.
Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.


Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.

Disagree all you want, it won't make the upper surface of the wing
experience anything but a downward force.

In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)

Bernoulli.

But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the
wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?

Which I never disagreed with.

But anyone who thinks the upper surface of the wing is experiencing
anything but a downward force is just sadly misinformed.


Ok, be that way.

Be what way: accurate? Thanks, I think I will.


I actually see what you are trying to say.
And, have no real issues with it.

Then why say: "I find I must disagree".


Myopic, but not technically incorrect.

Not myopic: accurate. Understand the world AS IT IS.


Richard

(That's just my own opinion, but it works for me)

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

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening
around
it.

Point made.
Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.

Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.
Disagree all you want, it won't make the upper surface of the wing
experience anything but a downward force.

In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)
Bernoulli.

But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the
wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?
Which I never disagreed with.

But anyone who thinks the upper surface of the wing is experiencing
anything but a downward force is just sadly misinformed.

Ok, be that way.

Be what way: accurate? Thanks, I think I will.

I actually see what you are trying to say.
And, have no real issues with it.

Then why say: "I find I must disagree".

Myopic, but not technically incorrect.

Not myopic: accurate. Understand the world AS IT IS.

Richard

(That's just my own opinion, but it works for me)


Einstein's greatest gift what that of Relativity.
Each has his own unique perception based on location
relative to an event.

Each sees something different - but ALL can understand
the other's perceptions.

And here you are claiming all truth...

In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
cavelamb wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

"Alan Baker" wrote
Anyone who thinks that the pressure of a fluid on a surface can act in
any direction but towards the surface is simply wrong.
I see. You are not lookng at the wing as a system, but taking an
observation at one point only, without reguard to what is happening
around
it.

Point made.
Nope.

I'm making the point that the upper surface contributes absolutely *no*
lifting force.

None.

Zero.

In fact, it provides a downward force. Every time.

Sorry, Alan, old boy, I find must disagree.
Disagree all you want, it won't make the upper surface of the wing
experience anything but a downward force.

In actuality, BOTH surfaces are below ambient pressure.
('splain why?)
Bernoulli.

But without that reduction of the pressure across the top curve of the
wing,
the pressure below it can't do much at all, can it?
Which I never disagreed with.

But anyone who thinks the upper surface of the wing is experiencing
anything but a downward force is just sadly misinformed.

Ok, be that way.

Be what way: accurate? Thanks, I think I will.

I actually see what you are trying to say.
And, have no real issues with it.

Then why say: "I find I must disagree".

Myopic, but not technically incorrect.

Not myopic: accurate. Understand the world AS IT IS.

Richard

(That's just my own opinion, but it works for me)


Einstein's greatest gift what that of Relativity.
Each has his own unique perception based on location
relative to an event.

Each sees something different - but ALL can understand
the other's perceptions.

And here you are claiming all truth...

Nope. Not *all* truth. One truth:

The top of a wing doesn't *pull* an aircraft up, it just pushes down
less than the bottom surface pushes up.

And that is the truth. Period. Full stop.

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