PDA

View Full Version : the lift generated by an aerodinamic wing an example of reactionless thrust



raaaid
02-24-2006, 07:49 AM
im not satisfied with the explanation giving in college of why a wing generates lift, according to it being the surface in the top bigger than in the bottom the air goes faster in the top than in the bottom because it has to run a bigger distance what makes the air go faster in the top than in the botoom and therefore according to bernouilli the presure is lower in the top than in the bottom

but this arises two questions:

why as the wing pushes the air upwards is not this wing pushed downwards? maybe coanda effect?

and how comes that not sending away a mass of air downwards but horizontally the effect is an upwards force, wheres the eqivalent downwards force

think that the superior profile of a wing is that of a teardrop, the back edge of the wing is a sharp horizontal surface so the wind is sent away horizontally

so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong

if you like this stuff of antigravity and reactionless thrust i have my conclusions of 6 years investigation here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,706.0.html


is so simple even i child would understand it

NonWonderDog
02-24-2006, 07:58 AM
Air *IS* sent moving downwards by the wing.

Think of the wing as pressing the streamlines above it into a smaller vertical area (by pressing air into space occupied by other air), causing the air to accellerate in order to stay at the same density -- the path of least resistance is towards the rear of the plane. Faster air is at a lower pressure, and the wing is pushed upwards by the higher pressure air below it. The shape of the wing is inconsequential -- barn doors and paper airplanes can both fly perfectly well.

This is still fallacious, but it's closer to the way the horrible explanation you heard is supposed to be taught. I haven't slept for 3 days, though, so my words are probably gibberish. I am now going to bed, as it is finally spring break. Woo hooo!

Iridium_Layer
02-24-2006, 08:26 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Raaaid, bless your heart, you appear to repeatedly demonstrate an understanding of physics equivalent to that of my puppy. (i.e balls fly because they want to be caught, food appears magically in bowls, and hands exist solely to scratch ears and bellys...).

I am sure that aeronautical engineers the world over are panicked right now that you have discovered the true inefficiency of modern wing design and are probably terrified that aircraft will suddenly begin falling from the sky now that you have discovered the truth...


why as the wing pushes the air upwards is not this wing pushed downwards?
-in a very simplified sense, it does...it is called DRAG, but in a properly designed foil (wing), the effect of lift should ideally overcome this force.


and how comes that not sending away a mass of air downwards but horizontally the effect is an upwards force, wheres the eqivalent downwards force
-the "equivalent downwards force" is suction (vacuum) caused by the displacement of air flowing at a greater speed over the upper surface. If the "vacuum" (lift) is greater than than the "pushing down force" (drag), then the wing will rise.


so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong
-thank goodness for air travelers everywhere, Newton can still rest in peace.


...

is so simple even i child would understand it
-it is also a good thing that said child does not have access to two cannons, or said child would be in great pain... (see link)


IL

Waldo.Pepper
02-24-2006, 08:36 AM
Balls fly because they want to be caught
That is hysterical! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WB_Outlaw
02-24-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
is so simple even i child would understand it

That's why it's wrong.

raaaid,
Are you saying that the pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing is NOT produced by the Bernouli effect or are you saying that the pressure differential doesn't exist?

Are you saying that lift is NOT due to dynamic pressure, but instead due to surface tension and viscosity?

Where are you from and what is your primary language? I have in my head that you're from Australia but I don't know why I think that.


--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im not satisfied with the explanation giving in college of why a wing generates lift, according to it being the surface in the top bigger than in the bottom the air goes faster in the top than in the bottom because it has to run a bigger distance what makes the air go faster in the top than in the botoom and therefore according to bernouilli the presure is lower in the top than in the bottom

Hi raaid, just a few words and search terms for you to look up in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page), and then a very good link for you to explore:

Newton, Newton's laws, 3rd Newton's law, action-reaction principle, "Lift (force)"

John Denker's See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Cheers,
S.

P.S.: I would tell you 'check with KrashanTopolova for him to explain it to you', but that would be more cruel than fun, so don't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Also, whenever you're in doubt about almost anything, you'll be better off going to Wikipedia than asking in forums, believe me, it's good advice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Iridium_Layer:
(i.e balls fly because they want to be caught, food appears magically in bowls, and hands exist solely to scratch ears and bellys...

Great illustration of a particular paradigm, Iridium http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEBillfish
02-24-2006, 10:16 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You all REALLY need to check out the forum link in raaaid's post above. I'll repost a direct link....Um....interesting.</span>

http://www.overunity.com/index.php

raaaid
02-24-2006, 10:27 AM
im from spain so my english is not very good

my point is that the exact amount of lift should be equivalent to the mass of air sent donwn, but no air is sent down at all if you look at the profile of a wing

midgie
02-24-2006, 10:44 AM
Raaid, got to agree with you for once. The popular explanation of lift given in schools/colleges is poor to say the least.

Check out Lift Doesn't Suck (http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/183261-1.html) or A Physical Description of Flight (http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm) for a better description.

WB_Outlaw
02-24-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im from spain so my english is not very good

my point is that the exact amount of lift should be equivalent to the mass of air sent donwn, but no air is sent down at all if you look at the profile of a wing

No worries on the language, I was just wondering.

Your point is incorrect.

There is a pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing. This is a fact and can't be disputed. It is easily measured. This pressure differential is responsible for lift.

The explanation for the cause of this pressure differential is often simplified b/c it's pretty complex and that's probably why you are confused. Many of the simplifications are incorrect.


Originally posted by raaaid:
so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong

The above statement is incorrect and you are probably the only person who has ever said it. You might THINK you read this somewhere but you simply misunderstood what the author was stating.

There are no unexplained phenomenon in the generation of lift. It's a well understood concept and is calculated correctly and accurately on a daily basis. It's all explained in "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson Jr.

--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im from spain so my english is not very good
raaid:
En tu lugar, yo no me preocupar√¬*a por el nivel de ingl√©s que tienes, obviamente es suficiente para escribir aqu√¬* tus mensajes y entender lo que la gente te responde. Si es suficiente para eso, ser√° de sobras para que puedas entender un art√¬*culo t√©cnico en la Wikipedia. Ahorrar√°s esfuerzo yendo directamente a una buena fuente, en lugar de esperar encontrar las explicaciones m√°s v√°lidas en un foro de internet donde, como habr√°s visto de sobras, mucha gente no sabe mucho sobre aquello sobre lo que escribe, y mucha otra gente simplemente se lo toma a cachondeo (mea culpa, yo tambi√©n algunas veces http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Te repito el consejo de antes: Wikipedia. Es una buena fuente, y adem√°s, tambi√©n est√° en castellano (aunque con menor extensi√¬≥n). Por ejemplo, respecto a tu pregunta, mira este enlace: Sustentaci√¬≥n (Wikipedia) (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustentaci%C3%B3n)

Si per casualitat result√©s que la teva llengua √©s el catal√ , tamb√© trobar√ s la Viquip√¬®dia en la dol√ßa parla (tot i que amb menor extensi√¬≥ tamb√©) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Per exemple: Avi√¬≥ (http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avi%C3%B3).

Salut,
S.

Akronnick
02-24-2006, 06:08 PM
Raaaid, stay away from overunity.com. that place is bad. there is no such thing as free energy. As Wesley said in The Princess Bride, anyone who says otherwise is selling something

PF Forum is to Overunity.com as Science teacher is to drug pusher.

VW-IceFire
02-24-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im from spain so my english is not very good

my point is that the exact amount of lift should be equivalent to the mass of air sent donwn, but no air is sent down at all if you look at the profile of a wing
Air is sent down...or rather moves at a different speed/has different pressure. Its not that complicated....well to say its not that complicated once someone got up and figured it out. But I got it in public school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The fact that a plane flys is an old concept of just slightly over 100 years. If you want to get into complex physics and flight then you may want to look into the direction of supersonic or hypersonic. That'll maybe bend your mind a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

raaaid
02-25-2006, 05:55 AM
is great the wikipideia i checked bernuolilli and thats exactly how a wing generates lift

i have a teardrop wing in the water the laminates of fluid in the bottom go straight but at the top the laminates go first up then down and then go away horizontal

this is the process very simplified and no water at all has been sent down, in a perfectly designed wing the water would enter still and would come out still but a force of lift has been generated that has not only not have reaction but besides is "free"

by free i dont mean free but from an unknow place, i believe theres no time 0 and universe has always existed so i dont believe in the creation of energy or matter

but vacuum space is a difficult to grasp concept and according to quantum mechanics space is a field of energy the problem is to tap it

for example water engines of which two of my teachers say is a supressed reality would be based in obtaining energy from vibration of matter, you would make electrolisis of water by amplifying the vibration of the molecules of water electrically till they break, so even this water engines would have a limited amount of energy, that of course if you consider the universe finite which is not my case

DaimonSyrius
02-25-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
this is the process very simplified and no water at all has been sent down, in a perfectly designed wing the water would enter still and would come out still but a force of lift has been generated that has not only not have reaction but besides is "free"
I think you're getting that idea wrongly, raaid.

My suggestion: read this chapter about Airfoils and Airflow (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-airfoils)
Just a couple of excerpts:

Airflow at Various Angles of Attack:
http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/Airflow-profile.png

Airflow and Pressure Near Wings:
http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/pressure-profile-2.png

And those two short points from the summary at the end of the chapter:


A wing is very effective at changing the speed of the air. The air above is speeded up relative to the corresponding air below. Each air parcel gets a temporary change in speed and a permanent offset in position.

Bernoulli‚‚ā¨ôs principle asserts that a given parcel of air has high velocity when it has low pressure, and vice versa. This is an excellent approximation under a wide range of conditions. This can be seen as a consequence of Newton‚‚ā¨ôs laws.

But don't just believe me. Go there and read the full story, Denker explains things quite well.

Cheers,
S.

OldMan____
02-25-2006, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im not satisfied with the explanation giving in college of why a wing generates lift, according to it being the surface in the top bigger than in the bottom the air goes faster in the top than in the bottom because it has to run a bigger distance what makes the air go faster in the top than in the botoom and therefore according to bernouilli the presure is lower in the top than in the bottom

but this arises two questions:

why as the wing pushes the air upwards is not this wing pushed downwards? maybe coanda effect?

and how comes that not sending away a mass of air downwards but horizontally the effect is an upwards force, wheres the eqivalent downwards force

think that the superior profile of a wing is that of a teardrop, the back edge of the wing is a sharp horizontal surface so the wind is sent away horizontally

so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong

if you like this stuff of antigravity and reactionless thrust i have my conclusions of 6 years investigation here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,706.0.html


is so simple even i child would understand it

ernoulli effect is only a translation of the results of the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy pass from higher levels to lower levels, seeking balance. Energy cannot be cretaed or destroyed, only transformed.

So the air must go fastre on top of wing due to greater distance. It goes faster, but it cannot just create this speed from nowhere. It must transform other energy in speed. It transforms the pressure in speed. Pretty simple in fact and this are the most powerfull set of rules in physics.

WB_Outlaw
02-25-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
this is the process very simplified and no water at all has been sent down, in a perfectly designed wing the water would enter still and would come out still but a force of lift has been generated that has not only not have reaction but besides is "free"



raaaid,
Do you believe there is a pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing? Answer this question before answering anything else. It is a yes or no question.


WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THE REACTION IS FREE???? Energy was expended to move the water and/or air and/or the wing depending on the situation you are talking about. THERE IS NOTHING FREE ABOUT THIS ENERGY. Either a pump, fan, or aircraft engine (prop, turbojet, turbofan, pulse jet, rocket, ram jet, etc.) supplied the ENERGY you are talking about.

Just because you can't understand the concept of how a force in a particular direction was generated doesn't mean that it's free.





--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
02-25-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw
WHERE DO YOU GET THE IDEA THAT THE REACTION IS FREE????
You're right, and not only it isn't free, it also seems to be disrupting your arterial pressure regulation. Amazing what an idea can do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
02-25-2006, 02:44 PM
i have to admit that is the presure difference what produces lift you have convinced me but i can still prove theres an example of reactionless thrust:

take a spinning chair and start spinning using your feet, as newton explained you spin one sense because you are making the earth spin the opposite sense with your feet, action reaction

but if you use a spinning bycicle wheel in your hands precession will make you spin in the chair,you can control pretty much this spin depending on the position of the wheel

well you are spinning one sense but you are not spinning any mass the opposite sense, precesion is an example of reactionless force

my device works as precesion but instead of being of spin is linear

it is supresed technology, the nazis new about it and i dont think i invented it but remember it

DaimonSyrius
02-25-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
but if you use a spinning bycicle wheel in your hands precession will make you spin in the chair,you can control pretty much this spin depending on the position of the wheel

well you are spinning one sense but you are not spinning any mass the opposite sense, precesion is an example of reactionless force


That would be transferring momentum from the wheel to the chair, or conversely. Angular momentum. No energy creation. Besides, you would actually see the momentum decrease because of friction, frtiction in the wheel and in the chair axels.

Originally posted by raaaid:
im curious because i was born in 7-7-74
Are you really 31 years old, raaid? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Zeus-cat
02-25-2006, 04:25 PM
it is supresed technology, the nazis new about it and i dont think i invented it but remember it

If it was that easy to make "free" energy, it would be happening all over the planet. Even if you believe in conspiracies and people are supressing energy making devices, something so simple and so obvious as you have demonstrated can't be surpressed. As usual, you are ignoring a fundamental force.

A real scientist doesn't jump to a conclusion of free energy when he can't explain something he sees. He assumes he made a mistake and he examines it over and over until he finds the thing he overlooked. If he doesn't find the thing he overlooked, he asks another scientist to review his work. If they can't figure out the error, then more people are asked to look at it. If they can't figure it out, they develop a theory and test it over and over again. If it looks like it works, they present it to the entire scientific community and let people review it for errors. If no one finds an error, then, and only then, does it get considered as a possible theory for explaining some physical phenomenon. And it always remains open for discussion.

You always skip all the middle steps and jump to the end whenever you see something that doesn't fit your expectations. That makes you a very poor scientist.

WB_Outlaw
02-25-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
but if you use a spinning bycicle wheel in your hands precession will make you spin in the chair,you can control pretty much this spin depending on the position of the wheel

well you are spinning one sense but you are not spinning any mass the opposite sense, precesion is an example of reactionless force

Once again you are mistaken. The force that spins you in the chair comes from the energy you used to spin up the bicycle wheel. The bicycle wheel is an energy storage device and when you rotate the axis of rotation, a torque is induced perpindicular to the axis of spin AND THE BICYCLE WHEEL SLOWS DOWN. Yet again, no free or unknown source of energy.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
02-26-2006, 03:35 AM
i didnt say precesion produces free energy i said it produces reactionless spinning thrust

i was banned two times in the physicsforums.com because of holding this position

in fact the nasa uses gyros to hold still in space and be able to aquire a rotation without rotating anything the oposite sense

raaaid
02-26-2006, 04:00 AM
ill explain it again with a plane example:

you are on the runway and put full throtle, the plane will start turning left because of precesion but nothing is turned the oposite sense, just like my device it has no reaction

i used to think that when you were free falling there was no reaction but thats false the same force with wich you are being pulled down the earth is pulled up but again in the case of precesion theres an absence of reaction

of course i can be wrong so i just invite you to tell me wheres the reaction in plane gyroscopic precesion

Tully__
02-26-2006, 04:11 AM
raaaid, read this site (http://www.av8n.com/how/)

If you come back with anything from that site in less than two weeks, you haven't spent long enough at it. Read some more.

DaimonSyrius
02-26-2006, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
raaaid, read this site (http://www.av8n.com/how/)

Was pointed at in the first page of this thread, Tully, complete with illustrations and excerpts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, raaid seems to be extraordinarily refractory to good, sensible pointers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
02-26-2006, 09:08 AM
ill read it but somebody answers my question, wheres the reaction on a precesing gyro in this case the whole plane

the reaction in the force of lift would be in the air underneath it but where is it in a precesing gyro?

DaimonSyrius
02-26-2006, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
ill read it but somebody answers my question, wheres the reaction on a precesing gyro in this case the whole plane
In your "plane on runway + full throttle" example, it's not precession acting, it's torque.

For gyroscopes and precession, see, for instance: Wikipedia: Gyroscpope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope) and also Wikipedia: Precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession). It explains the matter quite well, IMO.

Let me just advance that Newton's laws (including action/reaction, etc) apply to gyroscopes as well, of course.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
02-26-2006, 10:12 AM
raaid,

Additionally, if for some reason (which escapes me) you must read explanations in these forums in order to actually benefit from them, check this post by Tully (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5111047273/r/5111047273#5111047273) about the several secondary forces introduced in IL2's physics model since versions 4.x. It explains the basics of the gyroscopic effect, a simple and good explanation IMO. And of course, gyroscope precession is related to angular momentum, and momentum transfer generally. Again, it's Newton.

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
02-26-2006, 10:15 AM
Just for reference...
Torque isn't the only forces that make the aircraft yaw on the ground. When you lift the tail there is a yawing moment due to gyroscopic precession. The torque really only acts to roll the aircraft. The yawing due to torque comes from increased resistance on one wheel. P-factor also causes the yaw and I believe it is the major overall component.


Originally posted by raaaid:
the reaction in the force of lift would be in the air underneath it but where is it in a precesing gyro?


In the case of the spinning bicycle wheel, there is a set of ball bearings pressed into the hub. Half of the bearing rotates with the wheel and the other half is fixed to the non-spinning axle. During precession, the rotating part of the bearing exerts a torque which is transferred to the non spinning part of the bearing through the balls in the bearing, to the non spinning part of the bearing which is fixed to the axle. The ACTION is at the spinning part of the bearing and the REACTION is at the non spinning part of the bearing.

In the case of the aircraft, the crankshaft and the prop are the wheel and the main bearings transmit the yawing force to the crankcase and then to the engine mounts and finally to the airframe.

There is your ACTION/REACTION. In case you didn't notice, you don't have to spin a mass in the opposite direction of another mass' spin for F=mA to be accurate.

In a spacecraft, the spacecraft itself is what spins in the opposite direction.

--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
02-26-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Just for reference...
Torque isn't the only forces that make the aircraft yaw on the ground. When you lift the tail there is a yawing moment due to gyroscopic precession. The torque really only acts to roll the aircraft. The yawing due to torque comes from increased resistance on one wheel. P-factor also causes the yaw and I believe it is the major overall component. Of course, Outlaw, I was just trying to keep it simple http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The several forces are actually looked at in Tully's post.

Cheers,
S.

OldMan____
02-26-2006, 11:07 AM
Thrust does not need to move other thing in other direction, is enough that it TRIES to move it.

All your examples show really nothing. A plane on runway won`t make earth move (in any measureable amount) in reverse direction. But pressure WILL be aplied to it, and the energy involved on this will be distributed and transformed on a rediculously high number of ways.

Zeus-cat
02-26-2006, 11:48 AM
All your examples show really nothing. A plane on runway won`t make earth move (in any measureable amount) in reverse direction.

I must politely disagree. I think this is the kind of statement that confuses the issue, especially with someone like raaaid. The earth does move as a result of the aircraft's action. The movement is very, very small, but it can't be ignored even if it can't be measured.

raaaid
02-26-2006, 01:41 PM
"The ACTION is at the spinning part of the bearing and the REACTION is at the non spinning part of the bearing."

that would account for the wheel itself but what i called action is the spinning of the chair not the spinning of the wheel

im not saying theres no reaction i say that i dont see it

take a simple gyro hold by its extreme, it will start precessing but the earth doesnt spin the opsosite sene because the string cant transmit any force to the earth because it is flexible

the gyro is precesing holding against empty space because the string only avoids it falls down but let it spin freely, on what does the gyro hold on to to have a precesion force, where is the oposite reaction to that precesion

raaaid
02-26-2006, 01:44 PM
he he im gonna play with my toy gyro

raaaid
02-26-2006, 01:54 PM
what i mean is that any acceleration on any object is finally transmitted to earth as an oposite force or reaction

but how is transmited to earth precesion on a gyro if it is hanging from a string?

bjparker
02-26-2006, 02:25 PM
There is a great deal of **** published about how aerofoils work and hence planes fly...

"there's a net circulation about the wing..."
"the air goes faster on the top..."
"the air has to join up at the back of the wing..."

Now all the above are true, but miss the point (and are usually the result of approximations used to calculate lift), the point is that molecules bounce of the inclined wing and go down, so the wing goes UP. Reaction.

So a completely flat wing could (potentially) fly. Most of the above explanations would not allow that. They do, however, make wings more efficient.

Now back to reaction. When you jump, the Earth moves away from you (slightly, it's big)! When you land things get back to square one. Same for a wing, the molecules bounced downwards impact on others and gradually transfer their momentum to the earth.

Ditto gyros, remember the string has to attached to something!

BJP

bjparker
02-26-2006, 02:42 PM
Let me re-post that without the typos, and a correction:

There is a great deal of **** published about how aerofoils work and hence planes fly...

"there's a net circulation about the wing..."
"the air goes faster on the top..."
"the air has to join up at the back of the wing..."

Now all the above are true, but miss the point (and are usually the result of approximations used to calculate lift), the point is that molecules bounce off the inclined wing and go down, so the wing goes UP. Reaction.

So a completely flat wing could (potentially) fly. Most of the above explanations would not allow that. They do, however, make wings more efficient.

Now back to reaction. When you jump, the Earth moves away from you (slightly, it's big)! As you fall back (under gravity) you and the earth move towards each other and when you land things get back to square one. Same for a wing, the molecules bounced downwards impact on others and gradually transfer their momentum to the earth - if you are climbing. Once you level off the reaction force cancels with gravity.

Ditto gyros, remember the string has to be attached to something!

BJP

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-26-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:

so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong


Wings are not designed to push air down. The air goes faster over the top of the wing (as you know) The wing does not get pushed upwards, as you would expect when airmass is sent down but, it is sucked up into the air.

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-26-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:

the reaction in the force of lift would be in the air underneath it but where is it in a precesing gyro?

The Precession IS the reaction. The action is the rotating bicycle wheel and the reaction is precession.

WB_Outlaw
02-26-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
what i mean is that any acceleration on any object is finally transmitted to earth as an oposite force or reaction

Incorrect. There is no need for a reaction to be "finally be transmitted to the earth". If that were the case no spacecraft would be able to accelerate in space.

If I were in orbit and fired a slug froma 12 gauge pump shotgun (let's say the stock is at my shoulder), an ACTION will be the expanding gasses in the barrel pushing against the bolt and the slug. The REACTION will be the slug going downrange and the bolt pusing against the frame which will push against the stock which will push against my shoulder. The net result on my body will be a translation backwards and a rotation. Nothing was transmitted to the Earth and does not need to be.

--Outlaw.

Z4K
02-27-2006, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by bjparker:
...Now all the above are true, but miss the point (and are usually the result of approximations used to calculate lift), the point is that molecules bounce off the inclined wing and go down, so the wing goes UP. Reaction...


That doesn't account for the lift generated by the upper surface of the (even flat) wing. It sounds a lot like the "bullet" explanation of lift.

Original image titled "the bullet fallacy":
http://www.av8n.com/how/img48/bullets.png

If you want to look at the force part of lift in a boring, fundamental way then it's more correct to say that the particles of air hitting the top surface hit it less hard than those hitting the bottom. ie. the pressure on top is lower than the pressure on the bottom. Woo.


"the air has to join up at the back of the wing..."

No. If you mean that adjacent particles at the leading edge meet at the trailing edge, you're simply wrong. They don't. The air passing over the top reaches the trailing edge well before the air passing below. This is well documented:

http://amasci.com/wing/smoke22.gif
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">

raaaid</span>:

A really good example of a real wing causing a noticeable downward movement of air is seen with a helicopter. The downwash is all the air moved down by the rotor blades (ie. standard wings):

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap10-s69-21036.jpg

More photos (the aircraft is flying above the clouds. The downwash is moving clear air into the cloud layer):

http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/gallery/Cessna_downwash.jpg
http://www.diam.unige.it/~irro/gallery/Bowen_downwash_tif.jpg

Z4K
02-27-2006, 01:38 AM
Also, pressure doesn't "suck" anything. It just "pushes less hard, or not at all".

It's the force or pressure on the other side that is not balanced that accelerates the object.

A guy at work (he fixes RB211s and CF6s for heaven's sake) trying to tell me a turbofan "sucks" an aeroplane along. Sheesh.

NonWonderDog
02-27-2006, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by bjparker:
Now all the above are true, but miss the point (and are usually the result of approximations used to calculate lift), the point is that molecules bounce of the inclined wing and go down, so the wing goes UP. Reaction.


This is actually true at about 200,000 ft altitude and up... but I'm definitely not qualified to say anything more than that. I don't think raaid is talking about Space Shuttle re-entries, anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No, it's best to think of a wing as causing the air in front of it to split along two paths -- above and below the wing. At a positive angle of attack, the stagnation line is below the chord of the wing -- otherwise you'd get a lot more air below the wing than above. Air from below the chord line has to move upwards to get around the wing, but there's already air there. This makes the overall airmass above the wing do one of two things: the air must either go faster or be compressed. Compression in front of the wing will be nearly zero at less than Mach 0.3 and still rather small up to about Mach 0.5-0.6, so we can safely ignore this at most speeds. What you get in the end is air circulating around the wing relative to the undisturbed flow.

Now Bernoulli's equation doesn't actually hold for compressible flow, but the principle is still valid in this case. The air above the wing is moving faster, and thus has less time to push on the top-suface of the wing, so there is less pressure above than below. The net force from the air pushes the wing upwards.

You actually end up with a goodly amount of airmass moving downwards... this can be equated to the force pushing upwards on the wing (after turbulence). It's a bit harder to explain things that way, though. Any volunteers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


I really wanted to use that smiley.

Tully__
02-27-2006, 03:45 AM
Edit: Going to go back and read the whole thread before I leave the removed stuff in public view http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

raaaid
02-27-2006, 04:56 AM
"The Precession IS the reaction. The action is the rotating bicycle wheel and the reaction is precession"

exactly thats my point,if you pay close attention to it youll notice that one to each other are not oposite but separated 90‚¬ļ

thats exactly what my reactionless engine is based on, the reaction to the upward thrust is not downwards but sidewards, so being a couple they nulify each other and only the upwards component remains

precesion of a gyro is a reactionless spin thrust, my device is a reactionless linear thrust

WB_Outlaw
02-27-2006, 05:33 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
that would account for the wheel itself but what i called action is the spinning of the chair not the spinning of the wheel


No, you are wrong and don't understand what I am saying, probably because of the language. The torque I'm talking about being transmitted through the bearings is the torque that causes the seat to rotate.

Just FYI, if you are sitting in a swiveling chair holding a spinning bicycle wheel by the axle, the chair does not rotate all the time. It only rotates if you rotate the bicycle wheel about an axis perpindicular to the wheel's axle.


Originally posted by raaaid:
precesion of a gyro is a reactionless spin thrust, my device is a reactionless linear thrust


There is no such thing in the English language as "reactionless" thrust. You need to describe what you are talking about with a different word.


Originally posted by raaaid:
im not saying theres no reaction i say that i dont see it


That's because you haven't drawn a free body diagram. Until you do that, there is no point in even trying to understand the forces in this system (gyroscope that is).

When you are REALLY ready to understand this problem, draw the free body diagram. If you like, I can provide you space to host it, just PM me. Until that time you are just wasting oxygen. If you don't know how to draw the free body diagram, learn how.

--Outlaw.

tonyt1960
02-27-2006, 07:31 AM
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html

Professor_06
02-27-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by tonyt1960:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html

or more aptly

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong2.html

I sure you realize that the original poster is not an acadamian. He/She is a time machine builder.

That, BTW that is a great website. I have had it bookmarked for a long time. I just wish that I had that website (and/or computers) when I first studied physics.

Cheers.

raaaid
02-27-2006, 10:46 AM
ha ha you are right i think my device might lead to a time machine though my intention is to achieve cheap sources of energy

i use to have dreams like myself flying among hundreds of planes or facing a spit or a back gunman blown into a bloody mass

i cant be sure but i have the feeling i had an active rol in wwii, but the thing is that i dont invented the device, i remembered it because i designed it perfectly well the first time 6 years prior to its understanding

in my mind there were this two counterotating cylinders, the only similar thing i found in this 6 years is a nazi time travell project called the time bell, i knew how it looked before having read about it

once trying to understand gravity i posted a theory in the physicsforums.com, i considered gravity the simultaneous expansion of all matter

to my amaze somebody named raaid mustafa had posted exactly the same thing the previous day, i just looked at the drawing of him now

the theory is that by using a reactionless force pulling in each side of an object will make it grow or shrink, if you grow you travel to the future if you shrink you travel to the past, if besides you are moving with a reactionless force on any of the 3 axes of space you are moving to a paralel space time

the odd thing is that i used to be a quite normal person and not the weirdo i am now but the very same week my patent got published i got a very bad nervous break down, one year later the very same week i tried again to recover the patent i had a second nervous break down, ive never been the same again

thats the main reason now to go on with my device, if it works it will mean ive been attacked to supress an invention, if not well just a coincidence

the thing is that i know for sure that the future is already written because at least twice a day my mind thinks a significant word and then bang somebody says it or i think something and the reason is something i see later

i mean just think about it if any government had a time machine dont you think it would be top secret? you could see the future and change it at your will

DaimonSyrius
02-27-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you could see the future and change it at your will

The recurring paradox that modifying tiny or large aspects of future/past reality might cause have been explored both in deep, philosophical/physical approaches, and in a more fictional, artistic way in the cinema (Terminator comes to mind, and so many others) and literature. Among the latter, I very much liked (years ago) The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov; he generally managed to add much food for thought, besides entertainment, into his fictions, and the story in that novel goes quite along the lines you were mentioning. For all I know, it still is pure fiction.

About your personal story, raaid, I can only wish you the best of lucks.

Cheers,
S.

xTHRUDx
02-27-2006, 02:28 PM
insanity = doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

elphifou
02-27-2006, 02:32 PM
hey raaaid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I gave you a link a week ago or so leading to the site of a very interesting author.
Take my word, reading some of his books will change the way you see the universe.

As I don't want anyone to think I'm advertising here (I'm not), I suggest you send me a PM and I'll give you the link again and some advice as to which books you should start with.

regards

WB_Outlaw
02-27-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i mean just think about it if any government had a time machine dont you think it would be top secret? you could see the future and change it at your will

Some time travel thoughts...

Let's say I have a crystal ball that let's me "see" the future. I look in and see my dog get hit by a car 8 hours from now. So I pack some stuff, throw the dog in the car and drive West on I-10 (from Houston, TX). 10 hours later and I'M STILL IN TEXAS, but the dog wasn't hit by a car. Did I "see" into the future? No, because the dog didn't get hit by the car. If it doesn't happen then it ain't the future so if you have such a crystal ball, don't even bother trying to change anything b/c you can't. If you have such a crystal ball, and can change things, then throw your device away b/c it doesn't predict anything.

Let's say I have a time travel device and go into the future 8 hours to see my dog get hit by a car and killed. So I go back in time to when I left, pack some stuff, throw the dog in the car and drive West on I-10. 10 hours later and I'M STILL IN TEXAS, but the dog wasn't hit by a car. Did I travel into the future? No, I didn't b/c the dog never got hit by a car. Where did I go?

It's 8:00pm and I'm looking at my time machine thinking to myself, "Self, I sure could use a pizza right now". So I decide that later tonight (let's say 9:30pm), I will go back in time to 15 minutes ago (7:45pm) and grab a pizza from Double Dave's (takes 10 minutes). I will then use my keys to get into the house and put the pizza downstairs in the kitchen. So great, the pizza should be there now right? I go downstairs and sure enough, there is the pizza. Now, it comes 9:30pm and I've got a really good streak going on the War Clouds server (now we know this is fiction) and I blow off going back in time for the pizza. Besides, who cares, I've already eaten the pizza so I don't even NEED to go back anymore right?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
02-27-2006, 03:58 PM
elphifou i know it sounds stupid but i dont know how to add you to friends so if you want you can pm, i appreciate it a lot

ill explain you why i believe time travel its posible and how it may work

the bigbang starts and the universe lasts for a long time but then collapses and another bigban starts, every time the big bang starts is called an eon

matter behaves totally deterministically so the first eon is identical to the second

i have the precognition that im gonna see someone 5 minutes from now because one eon ago minus 5 minutes i had seen that person so its not that i see the future but i remember the past

lets say i dont like that person and so i go other way to avoid him, now the past doesnt repeat any more, by taking a decision based on precognition im swithing to a paralel universe

the mind is tight to time( expansion of matter) but it can move freely with 6dof, so every time you make a choice you are choosing to flow in an universe that is farther than the initial one

so when you begin your life you are at 000 cordenates but when you end you are very far awy from this initial point

lets say i go 40 years to the past and my mother falls in love with me and ignores my father, truly i have gone 1 eon to the future minus 40 years so ihavent changed the past at all, i changed the future so no paradox at all

the problem is that is imposible to use a reactionless engine to shrink or expand an object reamining in the same spot it will move also along the space, so the farther you travel in time the more different the time line will be becaus the more you have moved from the initial spot

so it just isnt possible to go to the past you can only go to the future but if you go to the future one eon minus 20 years you apparantly have moved to the past although is not the case

thats the magic of free will and inmortality of the soul, the remembrance that teaches you the wrong decisions you have taken in previous eons and let you choose again knowing the consequences of your acts subcounciously

so the more you repeat eon after eon a bad choice the more your subcouncious tells you to take a better choice, the number of choices are infinite as you cand displace infinitly in the 6dof

so the future is written because the past was the same, but the great thing is that you can remember the future(past) consequences and change your acts for better

i know this is weird but i like to explain things like this precognitions of mine that lately are going wild

Professor_06
02-27-2006, 08:50 PM
will somebody pleas go to my past and tell me to invest all my money in Google as an IPO.....please

Tully__
02-27-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
insanity = doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
Nah that's not insane, it's just plain stubborn. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tonyt1960
02-28-2006, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
insanity = doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.


That kinda sounds like what i had to do to beat CoD2 in Veteran on the X360. Eventually i stopped counting hours of play trying to get through Silo, and started counting days.... but... i beat it.... eventually.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

awesome game single player... especially on HDTV. Multiplayer needs a patch which should be out soon.

Z4K
02-28-2006, 02:32 AM
I love raaaid's threads. Really I do. I particularly like the fact he refuses to take "because I said so" as an answer. Entirely too much of that goes on in schools (too many teachers not understanding the principles themselves, or not being able to articulate it) - which leads to misconceptions like the "both air particles need to meet at the trailing edge."

Sometimes, though, I'd like a particular thread to stay on the one track.

So far this one has gone:
- Generation of lift;
- Precession;
- "Conversion" of two moments into a linear force;
- Time travel;
- Prescience.

Speaking of prescience, if I had it I would know how useless this post will be and wouldn't bother.

If only the future me could travel back and tell me not to post it so I don't waste my time, but then how will futureMe (tm) know to come back to tell me because I won't have posted it, unless parallelUniverseMe (tm) who's seen both contradictory space-time threads play out in a transdimensional resonance comes and tells pastMe (tm) so futureMe (tm) remembers and can come back and let nowMe (tm) in on the whole thing.

Hang on, there's someone at the door...

DaimonSyrius
02-28-2006, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by Z4K:
Speaking of prescience, if I had it I would know how useless this post will be and wouldn't bother.

I had thought of hinting that very same point to raaid, but then I thought that he must (pre-)know that already, so... so pointing at this point would have been pointless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Anyhow, I agree on the stimulating nature of most of raaid's threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
S.

Tully__
02-28-2006, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Anyhow, I agree on the stimulating nature of most of raaid's threads http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers,
S.

Yes indeed, nothing solidifies and refreshes my own knowledge of a topic like trying to explain it to someone else. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

tonyt1960
02-28-2006, 06:55 AM
According to Einstein, time travel is possible. But only into the future. NOVA had an interesting program regarding the Theory of Relativity. Where objects in motion tend to pass through time at a slower rate than an object at rest. They used a Learjet Captain for the test. Sure enough, the results after flying for a week straight showed slower signs of aging compared to a week he didnt fly. Although the difference was so small to insignificant, it did prove the Theory of Relativity. They extrapolated the results if the pilot had been moving near the speed of light and the results were significant (i forget exactly what it was, but i believe he would have saved 1.5 days IIRC). Another theory that affects time travel is gravity. We know time to be linear and doesnt change. It just keeps pressing forward, 1 second after another. However, a strong enough gravity field could possibly bend or warp that linear timeline. If you get a strong enough field, the linear timeline could fold onto itself with each end being closer to each other than if time were not folded by gravity. To picture this, grab a piece of 8x11 paper. The paper laying flat represents time as we know it. Linear and continuous. Hold the paper at the ends with both hands and have someone drop a heavy led ball in the middle. The paper wants to fold into itself. With your left hand being the beginning of time, and your right hand being the end of time, the lead ball in the middle just brought both of them closer together where it is a shorter distance to jump from the beginning of time to the end of time without traveling the length of time (length of the paper). If the heavy lead ball is too heavy, it could tear the paper. Same goes for the theory. If the gravity is too strong, it could tear time and nothing can escape it... not even light... I introduce you to the black hole.

Disclaimer: I could have totally messed up that explaination, but those are the basics...lol

WB_Outlaw
02-28-2006, 08:55 AM
As you increase speed, time slows down for you. That's how you can travel "into the future". Go whizzing around space at the speed of light for 20 years (as measured by you) and more than 20 years has elapsed on earth (I forget the ratio). Of course, it's not really time travel but it seems to be. If you could put yourself in suspended animation for many years and then wake up the effect would be nearly the same.

The distance between two points decreases the faster you travel. That's why Han Solo noted the Millennium Falcon's speed in DISTANCE when he noted that it made the Kessel Run in 1.2 parsecs (1 parsec = 3.08568025 ”Ē 10^16 meters).

Your mass increases the faster you travel. When you reach the speed of light your mass becomes infinite.

By "folding" space you can shorten the distance you have to travel. Since time is based on the speed of light, if you take a different path between two points than light does, you can get there before the light arrives. So if you arrive 5 minutes before the light, and looked back towards your starting point you would be looking 5 minutes backwards in time.

--Outlaw.

DHC2Pilot
02-28-2006, 05:59 PM
Can you imagine Raaaids Physics teacher, and the nonstop torment that he goes through on a day to day basis? I sure Raaaid is asked continuously to stand in the corner with his nose to the wall just so he won't ask questions about gyros and pendulums and perpetual motion machines during class. "DON'T TALK, JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN!!!!!"

AKA_TAGERT
02-28-2006, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
im not satisfied with the explanation giving in college of why a wing generates lift, according to it being the surface in the top bigger than in the bottom the air goes faster in the top than in the bottom because it has to run a bigger distance what makes the air go faster in the top than in the botoom and therefore according to bernouilli the presure is lower in the top than in the bottom

but this arises two questions:

why as the wing pushes the air upwards is not this wing pushed downwards? maybe coanda effect?

and how comes that not sending away a mass of air downwards but horizontally the effect is an upwards force, wheres the eqivalent downwards force

think that the superior profile of a wing is that of a teardrop, the back edge of the wing is a sharp horizontal surface so the wind is sent away horizontally

so by sending away a mass horizontally you get an upwards thrust but again you are not sending any mass of air at all down, this should prove newton wrong

if you like this stuff of antigravity and reactionless thrust i have my conclusions of 6 years investigation here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,706.0.html


is so simple even i child would understand it Well.. check out the big brain on Brad!

raaaid
03-01-2006, 05:48 AM
ha ha i would be facing the wall all the time if i didnt bite my tongue

my physics teacher is a determinist person, he believes uncertainty of heisemberg is due to measure mistake and i agree with him, i believe like him in determinism of matter but i feel theres something free within each one of us, call it a soul

he investigates on magnetism so seeing he was a knowlegable person i asked him about my engine without telling him it was reactionless, just propulsion, after half hour he agreed it should work and was worth investing my time building it

if you try to imagine how my device works with the link i provided youll clearly see my device works, the guy will be propelled up, im as convinced that my device works for propulsion as logic can make you be convinced

raaaid
03-01-2006, 05:55 AM
back to the topic theres a picture i wont leave uncommented and is the one where a plane pass by the clouds leaving vortex trails behind

notice the air isnt sent down like in a helicopter but spinned in a vortex

according to schauberger,supressed science, vortices had the property of produce antigravity(lift) and free energy(less fuel consumption with a good designed aerodinamically wing which makes a vortex as it passes by)

Tully__
03-01-2006, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
back to the topic theres a picture i wont leave uncommented and is the one where a plane pass by the clouds leaving vortex trails behind

notice the air isnt sent down like in a helicopter but spinned in a vortex

according to schauberger,supressed science, vortices had the property of produce antigravity(lift) and free energy(less fuel consumption with a good designed aerodinamically wing which makes a vortex as it passes by)
Helicopter is a vortex too.

Vortex or not, the net movement of the air is down, the net reaction on the aircraft is an upwards force (lift). There's your action/reaction.

SnapdLikeAMutha
03-01-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i have to admit that is the presure difference what produces lift you have convinced me but i can still prove theres an example of reactionless thrust:

take a spinning chair and start spinning using your feet, as newton explained you spin one sense because you are making the earth spin the opposite sense with your feet, action reaction

but if you use a spinning bycicle wheel in your hands precession will make you spin in the chair,you can control pretty much this spin depending on the position of the wheel

well you are spinning one sense but you are not spinning any mass the opposite sense, precesion is an example of reactionless force

my device works as precesion but instead of being of spin is linear


I think I understand what you're trying to say, and my only answer is that you obviously haven't tried one of these

http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/basegear_1883_12365510

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WB_Outlaw
03-01-2006, 12:11 PM
raaaid,
Where is this picture you mentioned? I don't see a pic in that link to the <STRIKE>weareconfused.com</STRIKE> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...I mean overunity.com site.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
03-02-2006, 03:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3351051614/p/3

it was posted by z4k, page 3 of this thread

DaimonSyrius
03-02-2006, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
back to the topic theres a picture i wont leave uncommented and is the one where a plane pass by the clouds leaving vortex trails behind

notice the air isnt sent down like in a helicopter but spinned in a vortex
raaid,

I'm guessing that if you're saying this in p.4 of this thread, it must mean that you are not really very interested in looking at the information sources that were pointed at in p.1 of this very same thread, for instance here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3351051614/r/8701012614#8701012614), here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3351051614/r/6311063614#6311063614) and here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/3351051614/r/4231005614#4231005614), both in English and in your own language (I know because I did).

Despite that fact, I'll still point out to a good explanation about aircraft and air vortices, given by John Denker in the Lift Requires Circulation & Vortices (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-circulation-vortices) section of the (already mentioned) Airfoils and Airflow (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-airfoils) chapter of his comprehensive and excellent See How It Flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/) online textbook.

Here's a relevant excerpt:

Each wing forms a trailing vortex (also called wake vortex) that extends for miles behind the airplane. These trailing vortices constitute the continuation of the bound vortex. See figure 3.27. Far behind the airplane, possibly all the way back at the place where the plane left ground effect, the two trailing vortices join up to form an unbroken(note:16) vortex line.

http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/trailing-vortices.png
Fig. 3.27 Bound Vortex, Trailing Vortices

The air rotates around the vortex line in the direction indicated in the figure. We know that the airplane, in order to support its weight, has to yank down on the air. The air that has been visited by the airplane will have a descending motion relative to the rest of the air. The trailing vortices mark the boundary of this region of descending air.

I've stressed the bit that you might be interested in. As I told you on p.1, don't just believe me, you don't need to believe Denker either just because his name is Denker; but I'm sure if you actually care to read the whole thing, it should make quite good sense.

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-02-2006, 07:36 AM
raaaid,
You still haven't posted a single free body diagram and you just ignore any requests to do so. Why is that?



--Outlaw.

raaaid
03-02-2006, 07:45 AM
i like to understand things by myself better than being explained, i have fun wondering things and trying to find the answers, if im not able to find the answer by myself i know that i just wont find that answer anywhere, it took me 6 years of continuous thinking get to the cannonballs example to understand reactionless thrust by vortices as schauberger did, its not that im particularly smart but i know few people has thought so much on reactionless thrust like me since we are taught is imposible nobody bothers

i read all links you provided me but i just dont understand it or disagree

in the discussed picture you can clearly see that the air isnt sent donw but spinned in a vortex

who should i believe first, newton whom i confirm wrong with the counterotating cannonballs eaxample after 6 years investigation

or schauberger who said exactly happened with vortex what i predict with my cannonballs example

lift by sending air down(not seen in the picture) or lift by vortices(undiscussible in the picture)

believe the succesfull plagiarizer or the man who wouldnt work for the nazis

in any case i want to point that the aerodinamic design of the wings is not a brilliant idea from an engineer but a copy from birds wings

trouts when going up the river shape vortices when going against the stream and they can remain still without moving,something similar with the dolphins they use some secret to swing

birds shape vortices when flying and therefore also the copied wings of the planes

in airports this vortices lead to terrible accidents but the fact is the bigger the vortex you make with your wings the better so the only solution is wait a long time till their gone and the next palne can land

DaimonSyrius
03-02-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i like to understand things by myself better than being explained
Alright, but if that's true, why posting here and asking for explanations?

Originally posted by raaaid:
in the discussed picture you can clearly see that the air isnt sent donw but spinned in a vortex
Yes, a vortex, but the resultant of everything is downward movement of air after summing up all vectors.


Originally posted by raaaid:
who should i believe first, newton whom i confirm wrong with the counterotating cannonballs eaxample after 6 years investigation My apologies in that case, I'll try my best to make it to Stockholm for your Nobel award ceremony. If you really have disproved Newton, it shouldn't take too long. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

AKA_TAGERT
03-02-2006, 08:02 AM
Guys come on, if you have been here for at least a few mounths you would know that raaid post this dribble every month or so. Why? God knows, my guess is he needs more att than he gets in his real life.

DaimonSyrius
03-02-2006, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Guys come on, if you have been here for at least a few mounths you would know that raaid post this dribble every month or so. Why? God knows, my guess is he needs more att than he gets in his real life.
Not a problem for me, I enjoy good debate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And we get to talk about so many different things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

bjparker
03-02-2006, 01:11 PM
We'd have fun trying to explain the gravitational slingshot effect to raaaid! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


BTW, Z4K, I was trying to illustrate the weird ways people try to explain lift that usually result from the ways used to caluculate it like potential methods. I particularly agree with your kinetic explantion:


If you want to look at the force part of lift in a boring, fundamental way then it's more correct to say that the particles of air hitting the top surface hit it less hard than those hitting the bottom. ie. the pressure on top is lower than the pressure on the bottom. Woo.

Except that it's not boring!

I remember going to a scientific conference (a decade ago) where the calculated lift varied by a factor of 3 depending on the approximate methods used - though this was in transonic flow!

Aircraft still fly though...

BJP

elphifou
03-02-2006, 05:26 PM
Hey raaaid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I've sent you a PM. Have you read it ?

Wolkenbeisser
03-03-2006, 05:22 AM
Hi raaaid

Sit in a car (for ex. on the backseat) and tell the driver to go on a highway. Now open the window and hold your hand out of the (fast going) car with an angle of about 45‚? (leading edge of your hand towards the sky). The air is lifting your hand (and arm) - and voil√ , you have your own (simple) wing and you will understand, why a wing generates lift.

raaaid
03-03-2006, 05:42 AM
elphifou i read your mesage yesterday at late night, ill answer you in a moment

one concept is dynamic sustentation and a very different one is the magic lift

lift goes together with fuel consumption, the more lift the less fuel consumption

an airline pilot may confirm this: the vortices left by a landing plane( i dont know how they are called) sometimes affects the next landing plane and make it crash

if vortices are not the reason for lift(antigravity), and fuel saving(unknown energy)
why doesnt come an engineer who designs a wing that doesnt produce the dangerous vortices?

and why the better the design of the wing the stronger the vortex?

the answer in my opinion lies in shauberger, he said nature uses implosion(vortices) all the time, birds when flying would generate vortices to save energy and to go up, so if you want lift vortices are a must

raaaid
03-03-2006, 06:15 AM
imho bernuoilli explanation for lift has a flaw:

if you create a vacuum in the upper surface of the wing the mass of air sucked down will be equall to the mass of wing sucked up, net force=0

you just dont believe me because you trust the system is telling you the truth, but if what is true is schauberger theory(vortices transform gravity into more spin) do you think the system would make gravity powered cars so petrol is useless

well they might be telling the truth and we invade irak because of a bastard opressor, no no petrol had nothing to do

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the vortices left by a landing plane( i dont know how they are called) They're called trailing or wake vortices, as indicated in the illustration from Denker's, only a few posts back

if vortices are not the reason for lift(antigravity), and fuel saving(unknown energy)
why doesnt come an engineer who designs a wing that doesnt produce the dangerous vortices? Interesting question, but vortices actually are explaining lift (downwards resultant movement of air; action/reaction principle; see same post and reference).

An analogous way of reasoning would be:
If the Moon doesn't fall on the Earth, and the Sun keeps heating the Earth up, why doesn't come an engineer who designs a flame-thrower that doesn't produce the dangerous skin burns when you put your hand in the flame?

A suggestion: go to the beach, look at a speeding boat, watch the wake it leaves behind (or trailing vortices in the water).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
03-03-2006, 07:29 AM
i dont want to be annoying but i disagree with the air being sent down if you look at the trail vortices in the clouds at page number 3 youll see beyond discussion that the vortex starts with the air being sent up first

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont want to be annoying but i disagree with the air being sent down if you look at the trail vortices in the clouds at page number 3 youll see beyond discussion that the vortex starts with the air being sent up first
No annoyance at all, raaid, but you just cannot see how the air is moving in a still picture (photograph). Remember that we're talking about resultant movement after putting together all vectorial factors; i.e., final result, or in other words, ultimate consequences thereof.

However, you could (or should) (or might) understand how the thing works by reading a good explanation of it, like the much-pointed-at Denker's chapters (the full book should do no harm either).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

raaaid
03-03-2006, 07:40 AM
i think i understand how vortices are generated, on the left wing the air would be sent up(for the pressure difference) and to the left (because of the V shape of the wings)

as the air is sent up and left it winds and returns down and to the right in an inwards vortex but it starts going up

this two vortices at the wings simply generate antigravity therefore the lift

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i think i understand how vortices are generated
.../...
this two vortices at the wings simply generate antigravity
Well I agree that it's so simple to generate sentences by putting words together and a minimum grammar linking them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, the lack of physical sense in the sentences you put together makes me think you still don't understand the actual phenomenon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
That's the main reason for the suggested readings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 08:00 AM
raaid,

Here's an additional idea for you to consider, and this one comes, not from physics, but from logic (one of the main subjects in philosophy):

Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor), also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy. It's about a very basic rule-of-thumb in order to generate reasoned explanations about something not-yet well-known.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia article linked above:

In other words, given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
.../...
The principle of Occam's Razor has inspired numerous expressions including: "parsimony of postulates", the "principle of simplicity", the "KISS principle" (Keep It Simple, Stupid), and in some medical schools "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

WB_Outlaw
03-03-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont want to be annoying...

You're kidding right?

Anyway, you have yet to produce a SINGLE CORRECT bit of math to "prove" any point that you say is so simple. If it's so simple, just show it. Remember, if it's not moving, the sum of the forces=0, if it is moving, the sum of the forces=ma.


Originally posted by raaaid:
if you create a vacuum in the upper surface of the wing the mass of air sucked down will be equall to the mass of wing sucked up, net force=0

Show the math you did to reach this conclusion.


Originally posted by raaaid:
you just dont believe me because you trust the system is telling you the truth, but if what is true is schauberger theory(vortices transform gravity into more spin) do you think the system would make gravity powered cars so petrol is useless

The depth of stupidity on this one can't be expressed in words. What is this "system" you speak of? Do you really believe that the "American oil devils" are constantly roaming the world looking to squash "free energy"? Do you really believe that a country like Japan, with zero ability to provide it's own energy, would not produce a "free energy" device if it existed? If your "free energy" is so simple to create that "even a child could do it", the children WOULD be doing it in every country in the world. I guess when the former Politburo looked at the free energy device sitting on the big table they finally decided that they had better not use it to save the country because the "oil assassins" would soon be by to kill them if they did.

All you have to support anything you say is "your humble opinion". Do you seriously believe your opinion means anything to the air around you?

The only thing you have proven is that you can't back up anything you say.

--Outlaw.

DaimonSyrius
03-03-2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you just dont believe me because you trust the system is telling you the truth, but if what is true is .../...
I had overlooked this one...

That's (another example of) a flawed explanation, raaid. The reason I don't believe you is that physics is precisely NOT based on believing someone. For me, it's a matter of understanding an explanation and seeing how it fits well with the reality I see around me. And when it's about something I cannot actually see (or directly percieve somehow), like for instance atoms or subatomic particles or bacteria, I still rely on the coherence of the system of explanations and on the observations reported (and substantiated) by others.

Although I haven't personally checked that Antarctica is located around the South Pole, there is no need for me to provide antigravity- or free-energy-based explanations for that (or other) fact, and even less need to prove that wrong. The point is, when there is a sensible, and apparently well proven, explanation available... at least try to understand it (as in, read good sources about it), and work out a solid, empirically-based refutation before looking for more imaginative alternates 'just because'.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

Z4K
03-03-2006, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Remember, if it's not moving, the sum of the forces=0, if it is moving, the sum of the forces=ma.


You should replace "moving" with "accelerating".

Also, I don't think raaaid is trying to make assertions (usually - he does say he's proved Newton wrong a bit too frequently though). He's explaining the way he sees things, and discussing them to further his (mis)understanding of the world around him.

WB_Outlaw
03-03-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Z4K:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
Remember, if it's not moving, the sum of the forces=0, if it is moving, the sum of the forces=ma.


You should replace "moving" with "accelerating".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hang my head in shame and will continually berate myself over the next week while scuba diving off the coast of Honduras. I will not envy any of y'all.

--Outlaw.

EiZ0N
03-04-2006, 06:32 PM
raaaid, how can you be so pretentious?

I feel like banging my head against the wall after reading this thread.

I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to insult you for the sole purpose of doing so, but I just have to say...

You have absolutely no idea of physics. At the age of 32, you come onto a forum telling us about your years of 'research' and that Newton is disproved, etc.

It's all ridiculous.

Maybe if you're SO interested in physics, you should go and get an education in it.