Re: John Travolta sues his home airport

On Aug 3, 10:34 >
What's so hard to understand that the camber of the upper side of a
wing accelerates the air on that side to a velocity that is faster
than that on the lower side?


If you took a four by eight *** of ply wood and nailed a two four
sideways down its length a foot from the leading edge and moved it
thru the air you will have accelerated air on that side to a velocity
that is faster than that on the lower side. If you wanted more
accelerated air on top nail another two by four on top of the other
one. You will have accelerated air on top and pressure differentials
on top and bottom but not much lift. Why is it so hard to understand
that the camber on top of a wing accelerates the air downward
generating lift in an upward direction?

And because there is nothing like a cambered surface for turning a
flow why don't we put a cambered surface on the bottom of a wing and
turn more flow. Why do you think an under cambered wing generates more
lift at zero degrees angle of attack when the distance the air travels
over the top of the wing is closer to the distance it travels under
the bottom compared to a flat bottom wing. The pressure differentials
are also less because the air is pulled up into the concave in the
wings bottom as well as being pulled down by the top.

Want to have some fun while you learn something. Get an air hose and a
golf ball. Its fun to suspend the ball in the upward airflow. Why does
the ball tend to stay in the airflow? Very knowledgeable, degreed,
math based logic spewing authorities tells us that the low pressure
pulls the ball into the flow. You can also think of it as the higher
atmospheric pressure pushing the ball in to the area of low pressure.
You will be surprise at how some people are stupid enough to believe
this nonsense.
There is an easy way to determine the lift caused by pressure
differentials and the lift caused by turning the flow as a result of
an objects shape.

Cut a square piece of wood and try to suspend it in the flow. Try all
kinds of shapes, some don't seem to know they are supposed to be
pulled in to the flow. Take a plastic spoon and hold it parallel to
the flow while letting the back of the spoon contact the flow. The
spoon is dramatically pulled into the flow now take a plastic knife
and hold it to the flow at zero degrees angle of attack. The result is
very little if any noticeable pull into the flow. If the objects are
pulled into the flow by low pressure why is the spoon pulled into the
flow and not the knife despite the fact they are influenced by the
same pressure differentials from the same flow? The answer is that
objects can turn a relative airflow as a result of their shape alone.

By the way the balls weight is being supported by an upward
aerodynamic force called drag. The way you can tell is because of the
high pressure on bottom and the low pressure on top. TIC

What's so hard to understand about
Bernoulli's principle that pressure is inversly proportional to the
velocity of a flow?

Its like gravity I do not know how it works only that it does. This
has nothing to do with an airplane in flight because it is influenced
by that part of the relative airflow that is not influenced by the
airplane (free stream). The low pressure is not caused by the flow of
air the low pressure causes the flow of air


What's so hard to understand that the "downwash"
you are talking about is a contributer todragand notlift(hint: I


Drag is the influence relative airflow has on all objects in it. Lift
is the unique influence relative airflow has on some objects in it.
While downwash is influenced air as a result of the production of
lift. It also a result of the production of induced drag.


already pointed you in the right direction with respect to the
components ofliftcoeeficients anddragcoeeficients.) You probably
wouldn't believe me, but the same principles of pressure differentials
cause a fastball to rise and a curveball to curve.

You are correct I do not believe you. Pressure differentials are also
a characterization of drag.
The drag that causes a spinning ball to curve is not characterized by
pressure differentials. Calling it lift is bases on the false primus
that the ball is not spinning.



You attempted to "prove" your theory by watching the air distrubances
(turbulances) *AFTER* a wing has passed through it. What you don't
seem to understand is that is a contribution toDRAG. The *LIFT* is
produced ON THE WING ITSELF.

Here's an experiment for you. Build a wind tunnel and affix a wing
inside that has a zero angle of attack to the airflow. Start the wind
and use a smoke trail to make observations BELOW the wing, AT the
underside surface, AT the top surface, and ABOVE the wing. What are
your observations? Take pressure measurements at the underside
surface of the wing and on the top of the wing. What are your
observations? Do you think that the smoke will be forced downward at
any point along the wing? Measure the velocities of the air at those
points. Do you think they will be different? Will either of them be
different than the speed of the airflow? How do you think they
relate? And, finally, do you think that you could understand that
given the wing's dimensions and the origin speed of the flow, that I
could give you the pressure measurements that you were reading without
taking the measurements? And the velocities of the airflow. In
addition to predicting how the smoke trail would behave at various
points in the tunnel? And that I can predict what changing the angle
of attack of the wing to the flow will do to the pressures,
velocities, and smoke trails?



I could waste my time and try to prove it to you with the math ...

You can't prove anything with math alone.

Yet again an overgeneralization that is incorrect. Given specific
axioms (postulates) within a specific reference space, we can prove
mathematically theorems in that reference space. For example, in
newtonian mechanics, F=ma is an axiom, one that cannot be "proven".
However, from that formula, and other axioms of newtonian mechanics,
it is easy to prove that v=f'(t) and a=f'(v). It is by proving these
derivations that allows us to state with certainty things about the
world in that reference space.

I can prove (using math) that 1 + 1 = 1. I can also prove to you
(using math) that 1 + 1 = 10 and also 1 + 1 = 2. There is one
important piece of information lacking, can you identify it? I can
also prove to you that 0.9999...=1 using math. I can't prove (using
math) that 1 + 1 = Chartreuse.

We did satellite orbit characterizations (using math) to predict the
location of satellites over a specific point on earth at a specific
time. Lo and behold, those satellites showed up just as we predicted
each and every time (well, one didn't but that's because it got hit by
an ETB) <g>

However, it surely would be more
productive to discuss the topic at hand--even in mathematical terms--than it
is to resort to personal attacks out of frustration.

Why? You don't listen, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Like I said, I could try to show you the math of how it works, but
you'd read it as "1+1=Chartreuse" and then try to argue that
Chartreuse is not a color. It's frustrating because of that, and it's
scary that 1) you have this way of thinking, and 2) you claim to be a
teacher.

Regardless, I am not discussing this further. It's time to just throw
my hands up in the air and give up.


.