My first and last reply to one of these posts.
This just about covers it.....
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrollDefinition
Usage of the word is various. In some usage, a troll is a communication such as a usenet post, and a troller is the author of such communication. In media where communication isn't discrete, a troll is the creator of such communication.
A troll is deliberately crafted to provoke others with the intention of wasting their time and energy. A troll is a time thief. To troll is to steal from people. That is what makes trolling heinous.
Trolls can be identified by their disengagement from a conversation or argument. They do not believe what they say, but merely say it for effect.
Trolls are motivated by a desire for attention by people and can't or won't acquire it in a productive manner.
Someone may be insufferable, infuriating, fanatical, and an ignorant idiot to boot without being a troll.
Also note that a troll isn't necessarily insulting, snide, or even impolite. Only the crudest, most obvious, forms of trolling can be identified so easily.
If you find yourself patiently explaining, at length and in great detail, some obscure point to someone who isn't even being polite to you, then you are probably being trolled.
Noteworthy candidate definitions for Troll and their defects:
Someone who makes deliberately inflammatory remarks with the malicious aim of creating unconstructive argument.
Follows from definition above, but is less general.
Somebody who states their viewpoint over and over.
May follow from definition above, but isn't automatically a troll since it could merely be a very dominating personality.
Somebody looking to start an argument.
Follows from the FOLDOC definition. But isn't consistent with the consensus that trolling is bad since someone could be looking to start a productive argument.
One who deliberately seeks to denigrate, belittle, provoke, harass, or irritate. An instance of communication constructed to denigrate, belittle, provoke, harass or irritate.
im serious about this, aerodinamical wings make you go higher, i studied it
but whats the point of this if you can go as high by just pitching up
if you get higher with a half tear drop wing than with a flat wing thats free energy
classical explanation says wing generate lift, which means that can go higher but if it goes higher it loses speed, just as a flat wing, then whats the advantage
i believe what i say and nobody has been able to answer this:
if a normal wing exchange speed into altitude, doesnt do the same a flat wing just by pitching up, then wheres the extra lift?
Build it, fly it off a cliff, then we'll believe youOriginally posted by raaaid:
im serious about this, aerodinamical wings make you go higher, i studied it
but whats the point of this if you can go as high by just pitching up
if you get higher with a half tear drop wing than with a flat wing thats free energy
classical explanation says wing generate lift, which means that can go higher but if it goes higher it loses speed, just as a flat wing, then whats the advantage
i believe what i say and nobody has been able to answer this:
if a normal wing exchange speed into altitude, doesnt do the same a flat wing just by pitching up, then wheres the extra lift?![]()
Part one: You'll always have friction. If we pretend there is no friction in another one your whatifs, then lets pretend a square box wing flies as well as a razor thin one.Originally posted by raaaid:
take a plane with flat wings flying on an ideal fluid, theres no friction so the plane has no propulsion but keeps a constant altitude an speed,
that everybody say they understand but actually nobody does
Part two: you illustrate that point brilliantly, again.![]()
Originally posted by raaaid:
and by the way how can that guy call me a troll with that picture in the sig, goatse would be proud of him![]()
That pic is 100% accurate.
And after reading the definition of a troll, I'm still going to type this. I'm an idiot.
Raaaid, you do know that a curved wing produces most of it's lift from the curved surface, but a certain percentage is also generated by deflection, like a flat wing.
A higher angle of attack will give a greater percentage of deflection, and this is where the efficiency of the wing to maintain smooth airflow over the top of the wing can make a big difference.
Planes can fly inverted in special circumstances. I won't mention modern fighters, since thier super-critical wings and movable leading/trailing edges effectively allow them to change the shape of the airfoil at will.
Generally, they must fly faster, with a greater angle of attack. Planes doing it frequently, like acrobatic planes, have a nearly symmetrical wing, meaning the the chamber (curve) of the wing is nearly the same above and below the chord (middle) of the wing.
A flat wing would rely solely on deflection, with nothing to maintain smooth airflow over the top. Very draggy.
Short answer, a curved wing is more efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil
Introduction, second paragraph:
Any object with an angle of attack in a moving fluid, such as a flat plate, a building, or the deck of a bridge, will generate an aerodynamic force perpendicular to the flow called lift. Airfoils are more efficient lifting shapes, generating more lift (up to a point), but at the cost of higher drag, at higher angles of attack.