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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
"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. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
"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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
more confusion on cessna performance chart
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Confusion | Jon Woellhaf | Instrument Flight Rules | 85 | December 28th 07 11:45 PM |
Confusion Plus | Kevin Berlyn | Home Built | 1 | March 6th 05 06:40 AM |
Cessna 150 with 150hp engine performance | The Ponderosa | Owning | 0 | September 18th 04 06:14 AM |
confusion | G.A. Seguin | Soaring | 0 | July 14th 04 12:08 AM |
Complex / High Performance / Low Performance | R.T. | Owning | 22 | July 6th 04 08:04 AM |