PDA

View Full Version : i dont see the point for half rain drop shape on wings unless it produces free energy



raaaid
07-05-2007, 04:13 PM
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, now the plane wants to go 100 m higher, it lost speed

it must be the same for a normal wing if it lifts it goes slower so it has exactly the same behaviour that a flat wing, why to use normal wings if with flat wings you can lift as high by pitching up?

the only advantage can be that normal wings lift without losing speed, free energy

but what would be of this world if plumb could turn into gold, petrol was useless and you could irrigate africa turning it into what it once was, no wonder that bull on subpressions that everybody say they understand but actually nobody does

Urufu_Shinjiro
07-05-2007, 04:17 PM
W....T....F...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-05-2007, 04:20 PM
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, now the plane wants to go 100 m higher, it lost speed

it must be the same for a normal wing if it lifts it goes slower so it has exactly the same behaviour that a flat wing, why to use normal wings if with flat wings you can lift as high by pitching up?

the only advantage can be that normal wings lift without losing speed, free energy

but what would be of this world if plumb could turn into gold, petrol was useless and you could irrigate africa turning it into what it once was, no wonder that bull on subpressions that everybody say they understand but actually nobody does

The reason you don't see the point is probably also why you're not an aeronautical engineer. Just because something isn't innately obvious to you, that doesn't mean it's wrong

Seriously raaaid, I've been in your corner a long time and I have repeatedly reminded people to treat you with the same consideration they show others. But you need to start making sense occasionally or you're gonna lose me. This babble about wings creating lift in a perfect fluid, and turning lead into gold [this is what he meant by "plumb", folks, "plumbum" means lead, it's the Latin root-Chris] is just a little too tinfoil-hat-esque for me today. Think before you post

boxduty
07-05-2007, 04:21 PM
If that 'ideal fluid' is beer, I'm willing to experiment with the concept,wings or no wings...

Whirlin_merlin
07-05-2007, 04:28 PM
'plumbum' is one of the most pleasing words to say, I put it right up with 'pudding' and 'trowel'.

Go on say em out loud a few times and get really stuck in.

Loverly.

Divine-Wind
07-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Bernoulli's principle, anyone?

major_setback
07-05-2007, 05:18 PM
Why would the plane in the first instance keep it's altitude without any lift? Gravity is acting on it!!

Wings are shaped to create lift to counter gravity. This is so obvious that I can't believe it escapes you Raaaid, so you must be trolling.

For others who don't know:

The curved upper surface of the wing has a larger surface area the the underside, The air passing over it must therefore move a further distance in the same time. Therefore it must be thinner (less dense) than the air below the wing. The wing is drawn to the area of low pressure over the wing. ie. Suction/lift!

Why would you make a wing without the benefit of lift????

And what do you mean that the ONLY advantage is lift i(n your example). Surely that is the whole point of an aeroplane!


THINK! and stop this stupid trolling. I know you are not that supid, and pretending to be stupid for the sake of feeling superior to those who will bash you (you have said as much in earlier posts) is infantile!

WhtBoy
07-05-2007, 08:41 PM
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, now the plane wants to go 100 m higher, it lost speed

it must be the same for a normal wing if it lifts it goes slower so it has exactly the same behaviour that a flat wing, why to use normal wings if with flat wings you can lift as high by pitching up?

the only advantage can be that normal wings lift without losing speed, free energy

but what would be of this world if plumb could turn into gold, petrol was useless and you could irrigate africa turning it into what it once was, no wonder that bull on subpressions that everybody say they understand but actually nobody does

raaaid, why do you refuse to post any of your calculations? Being the superior intellect that you are surely you can easily prove why the accepted theory of aerodynamics is wrong, can't you?

--Outlaw.

LStarosta
07-05-2007, 08:47 PM
Raid is gnarly he knows what he's sayin.

Keep up the dream, bro.

xTHRUDx
07-05-2007, 09:00 PM
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/whut-ian.jpg

dangerlaef
07-05-2007, 09:32 PM
The curved upper surface of the wing has a larger surface area the the underside, The air passing over it must therefore move a further distance in the same time. Therefore it must be thinner (less dense) than the air below the wing. The wing is drawn to the area of low pressure over the wing. ie. Suction/lift!


You should read the Wiki entry:
"One misconception encountered in a number of explanations of lift is the "equal transit time" fallacy. This fallacy states that the parcels of air which are divided by an airfoil must rejoin again; because of the greater curvature (and hence longer path) of the upper surface of an airfoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29#Physical_explanation


Inverted wings make lift too.

heywooood
07-05-2007, 09:50 PM
ahhh the Spitfire's well documented anti-gravity uberness at last explained in a nutshell, by the man inside - our inside guy - the mighty Raaaiiid

M_Gunz
07-05-2007, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
W....T....F...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

One of your first Raaid posts, huh? Or just this one beats the others that much?

LOL!

SeaVee
07-06-2007, 02:43 AM
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.

zardozid
07-06-2007, 03:31 AM
LMAO thanks I needed that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jatro13th
07-06-2007, 05:34 AM
...Conveyor belt... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

raaaid
07-06-2007, 06:14 AM
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?

raaaid
07-06-2007, 06:19 AM
and by the way how can that guy call me a troll with that picture in the sig, goatse would be proud of him

EURO_Snoopy
07-06-2007, 06:22 AM
Originally 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?

Build it, fly it off a cliff, then we'll believe you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hawgdog
07-06-2007, 06:41 AM
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 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.

Part two: you illustrate that point brilliantly, again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Cajun76
07-06-2007, 06:48 AM
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

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/RaisingCane/RosieKhalidODonnell3.jpg

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.

Whirlin_merlin
07-06-2007, 06:51 AM
Time someone gave you the simple truth.

The reason you 'don't see the point of etc' or understand modern physical explinations is because you are an idiot.

Sorry if you find this offensive but as a member of the reality based community I have to say if it's covered in feathers and goes quack, it is most likely a duck.

When someone keeps posting stupid, iodiotic things e.g Darwin was a Nazi, free energy. Well the duck is quacking.

But dont feel bad lots of people are idiots, idiots are essential to the world economy. Heck I have strong idiot tendancies myself and many on this board can at least be concidered idiot curious.

So I beg you recognise that you are an idiot and learn to live with it. When you don't understand something think to yourself 'which is more likely, that I'm too stupid to understand or that all modern physics is wrong?'.

Jaste07
07-06-2007, 07:50 AM
if a normal wing exchange speed into altitude, doesnt do the same a flat wing just by pitching up, then wheres the extra lift?
Edit: Wrote mine while before I saw your post come up Cajun. Same info, but yours is much more detailed.

Yes it does do the same, but a flat wing pitched up produces a larger front profile to produce the same amount of lift than a normal wing. So a normal wing produces lift with less drag than a flat wing pitched up.

Try looking these things up first.

It's been awhile since the last raaaid post, I was starting to get concerned...

SeaFireLIV
07-06-2007, 08:14 AM
The expression on my face is just like the kitten`s in xTHRUDx`s post, except I`m also sat back with a box of popcorn and fries!

x6BL_Brando
07-06-2007, 08:29 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v458/brando6BL/glashan_chicco.jpg

neural_dream
07-06-2007, 08:41 AM
The fact that Raaaid was not lucky enough to receive the expensive education in top schools that some of us had, doesn't mean he is an idiot and doesn't deserve to be called like that. He doesn't know physics well enough. This, together with his self-admitted need for attention, make him post in this forum to read your opinions about scientific matters that he doesn't understand as well. 1 out of 3 replies to his thread are useful for him. So, he is not the idiot. The idiots are ourselves who insult him and give him free physics crash courses as a reward.

LStarosta
07-06-2007, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
The fact that Raaaid was not lucky enough to receive the expensive education in top schools that some of us had, doesn't mean he is an idiot and doesn't deserve to be called like that. He doesn't know physics well enough. This, together with his self-admitted need for attention, make him post in this forum to read your opinions about scientific matters that he doesn't understand as well. 1 out of 3 replies to his thread are useful for him. So, he is not the idiot. The idiots are ourselves who insult him and give him free physics crash courses as a reward.


I think raaaid is rad. A free spirit, man.

Some good mind expanding stuff, this stuff is, man.

Cajun76
07-06-2007, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
The fact that Raaaid was not lucky enough to receive the expensive education in top schools that some of us had, doesn't mean he is an idiot and doesn't deserve to be called like that. He doesn't know physics well enough. This, together with his self-admitted need for attention, make him post in this forum to read your opinions about scientific matters that he doesn't understand as well. 1 out of 3 replies to his thread are useful for him. So, he is not the idiot. The idiots are ourselves who insult him and give him free physics crash courses as a reward.

That doesn't hold a lot of water. I'm mostly self-taught. If I have a question, I research it. If I don't understand something, I ask questions. I don't assume everyone else is a moron or doesn't' know whats going on because I fail to grasp something.

Raaaid, for one reason or another, has been introduced to penny bottle rockets, and then decided to build a Saturn V with a paper clip and bent screwdriver, without writing, testing or research.

He utterly refuses to stand on the shoulders of physics giants, scorning the well established building blocks of physics. If he was into quantum mechanics, he might have some leeway. Instead, minor things like "friction" and "conservation of energy" are casually disregarded in the quest to bypass physical laws and arrive at crackpot ideas like free energy.

A simple difference in efficiency between a flat panel and a chambered shape leads him to conclude that free energy is at work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Whirlin_merlin
07-06-2007, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
The fact that Raaaid was not lucky enough to receive the expensive education in top schools that some of us had, doesn't mean he is an idiot and doesn't deserve to be called like that. He doesn't know physics well enough. This, together with his self-admitted need for attention, make him post in this forum to read your opinions about scientific matters that he doesn't understand as well. 1 out of 3 replies to his thread are useful for him. So, he is not the idiot. The idiots are ourselves who insult him and give him free physics crash courses as a reward.


I used to feel the same as you but then he keeps on doing the same thing over and over again. Surly someone refuses to learn from their mistakes is an idiot.
Also read his posts he doesn't just say 'oh I don't get this.'. Instead there is an undertone of 'I know better than the rest of the world.'.
It's not about lack of education it's all about an over blown sense of his own 'insight'. The sooner he stops believing this the sooner he can move on and develop.

Were he simply wrong I would never have called him an idiot but when someone is deliberatly ignorant, well that's different.

So yes I was harsh........but fair.

MEGILE
07-06-2007, 09:49 AM
Raid hauls in another load

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9074/raysgsuh2.jpg

LStarosta
07-06-2007, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
Raid hauls in another load

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9074/raysgsuh2.jpg

Not me. I'm down with this dope, man. Good quality stuff this is, man. The waves, man, you can really feel em. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

raaaid
07-06-2007, 10:39 AM
so i dont have the right to get my own conclusions

if i were a muslin id have been stoned long ago for disagreeing, you are taking my believe that free energy is posible as a muslin would take my though that allah is evil if he exists, just look at the world

im not breaking the rules giving my opinion on lift but others do calling me idiot

one of the things i enjoy most of this forum is fighting so you wont get me upset on the contrary i have fun holding my points

a flat wing with a certain pitch that travels horizontal if is aerodinamical will lift but this is no advantage since youd have the same outcome pitching up more so i conclude there must be something more

curved wings let you go horizontal with less angle of attack but still they exchange speed for altitude so theres no difference with a flat wing that does the same

so i proved undiscusibly that a curved wing cant get you higher ideally than a flat wing, only the angle of attack is reduced, why does it save fuel then, because it produces lift, but this lift is exchanged with speed so works the same than a flat wing

the only valid answer was that one that says that causes less drag because less angle of attack, so actually curved wings arent better for creating lift but by bein less draggy

well half pinpong ball has maximum lift and maximum drag with respect to a blade

so my point remains unanswered some prefer to call me names

then you wont answer this either if the plane is pulled up why the air isnt pushed down as reaction states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg

yeah i know you see the air going down but i bet youd see the naked emperor nicely dreesed as well

keep calling me names but doing that instead of giving valid points makes me the winner

my opinion is that curved wings generate vortices that according to schauberger generate antigravity and free energy or lift and fuel saving

btw cid im studying for engineer so i should have my opinion on lift i dont see why i should buy general opinion if i disagree with it, im just being honest with myself

raaaid
07-06-2007, 10:52 AM
i got banned from the physics forums for holding that this balance would work:
http://www.court.ecowas.int/images/balance.gif

the said that remaining the center of gravity always in the same position it wouldnt balance

my argument was that i built it and it worked, again free energy, gravity moves the balance when leaned without lowering the center of gravity, guys maybe is not wrong to take off your beard though books say its wrong to, maybe you are cheated by books that talk of conservation of energy, oh wait we havent changed from the medievo all energy was in a diminutive spot and guess who made this spot, hint: he has a beard

raaaid
07-06-2007, 11:20 AM
maybe youve seen this on tv:

an eagle stationary on a spot without moving the wings gaining altitude

if its stationary it has wind speed constantly

if it raises without moving on the spot it means is not exchanging speed for altitude

conclusion its gaining altitude without losing speed nor using energy, free energy

this is so obvious and irrebatible that i dont expect from most but to call me things

i was about to leave i made this post to see what happened i guess i better start a real social life, i have so many friends that i dont know why i dont go out more

Whirlin_merlin
07-06-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i got banned from the physics forums for holding that this balance would work:
http://www.court.ecowas.int/images/balance.gif

the said that remaining the center of gravity always in the same position it wouldnt balance

my argument was that i built it and it worked, again free energy, gravity moves the balance when leaned without lowering the center of gravity, guys maybe is not wrong to take off your beard though books say its wrong to, maybe you are cheated by books that talk of conservation of energy, oh wait we havent changed from the medievo all energy was in a diminutive spot and guess who made this spot, hint: he has a beard

Noel Edmonds?

Whirlin_merlin
07-06-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
maybe youve seen this on tv:

an eagle stationary on a spot without moving the wings gaining altitude

if its stationary it has wind speed constantly

if it raises without moving on the spot it means is not exchanging speed for altitude

conclusion its gaining altitude without losing speed nor using energy, free energy




Wrong. I've seen vultures doing this whilst out climbing. There is always an upward flow of air wind, thermal rising air etc. This rising air looses enegy as the bird gains it (as it were), no free energy. Since the wind or thermal gets energy from solar radiation all you have proven is that birds are nuclear powered!

LStarosta
07-06-2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
maybe youve seen this on tv:

an eagle stationary on a spot without moving the wings gaining altitude

if its stationary it has wind speed constantly

if it raises without moving on the spot it means is not exchanging speed for altitude

conclusion its gaining altitude without losing speed nor using energy, free energy

this is so obvious and irrebatible that i dont expect from most but to call me things

i was about to leave i made this post to see what happened i guess i better start a real social life, i have so many friends that i dont know why i dont go out more

Hey man, remember when we smoked all that weed on the beach and all the smoke kept going up. Some dude told me it was like... thermal energy, and the sea gulls were doing the same thing, it was soooo far out and rad, man, except they were using thermals from like.... hot sand heated by the sun. Yeah, man, I remember now. Not free energy, man. Thermals. Totally.

raaaid
07-06-2007, 02:30 PM
yeah i admit it eagle one was a bad example

but you are admitting curved wings dont let you go higher than flat wings always exchange of speed for altitude at work

therefore it doesnt lift you higher with which classical explanation that the curved wings produces more lift than a flat one is wrong

seems then that my point is no so offshore

then what is its advantage if curved wings generate more drag than flat ones and dont lift you higher either

WhtBoy
07-06-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
if its stationary it has wind speed constantly


The above statement is a total load of garbage.

What makes you assume that the wind speed is constant and/or that the eagle is perfectly stationary?

A TV show is not a scientific experiment. The eagle can maintain or change altitude against the wind simply by changning the geometry of it's wings. There is NOTHING in the observation alone that would make anyone with any sense believe that the wind speed is constant or that the eagle does not move at all.

What is obvious is that in the above case, when the wind speed increases the eagle climbs and moves backwards a bit.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-06-2007, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
then what is its advantage if curved wings generate more drag than flat ones and dont lift you higher either

raaaid, why don't you just put to use the vast amount of knowledge you gained from all of you physics and aerodynamics classes? Simply pick the cambered airfoil of your choice (there is a wealth of aerodynamic data available on the web for many hundreds of airfoil shapes) along with a symmetrical airfoil, and calculate a few performance values such as take-off roll, stall speed, landing roll, best climb speed, best rate of climb, etc. Shouldn't this be easy for someone with your technical background?

Doing the above will show you the DIFFERENCES between a cambered airfoil versus a symmetrical one. Note that I use DIFFERENCE instead of ADVANTAGE b/c it all depends on what you want the aircraft to do.

If you won't do the above, why won't you?

--Outlaw.

SeaFireLIV
07-06-2007, 06:46 PM
I`m quote this more often...

`If one walks with the lame he soon learns how to limp.`

Cajun76
07-06-2007, 08:33 PM
"The wise man learns more from the fool than the fool learns from the wise man.": after dinner wisdom from a fortune cookie.

LStarosta
07-06-2007, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
"The wise man learns more from the fool than the fool learns from the wise man.": after dinner wisdom from a fortune cookie.

Like duuuude that's like... such a mad coincidence. Yo, you betta buy a lottery ticket or somethin... that's f*ckin nuts!

Cajun76
07-06-2007, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
"The wise man learns more from the fool than the fool learns from the wise man.": after dinner wisdom from a fortune cookie.

Like duuuude that's like... such a mad coincidence. Yo, you betta buy a lottery ticket or somethin... that's f*ckin nuts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see the training isn't going to waste. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just remember this after you pin on: your SSgt's and TSgt's know what's actually going on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's the difference between who's in charge, and who has a clue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LStarosta
07-06-2007, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
"The wise man learns more from the fool than the fool learns from the wise man.": after dinner wisdom from a fortune cookie.

Like duuuude that's like... such a mad coincidence. Yo, you betta buy a lottery ticket or somethin... that's f*ckin nuts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I see the training isn't going to waste. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just remember this after you pin on: your SSgt's and TSgt's know what's actually going on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's the difference between who's in charge, and who has a clue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the thing is, I'll know neither, cause I'll have a bunch of Chiefs running around telling me what to do, what not to do, and how to do it and issuing me forms (oh God, please let it be a 341) for my tie being in a half windsor and not a full windsor or double windsor or whatever the gay reg says (I sh*t you not, it's already happened, and I don't know how he could tell, but it looked IDENTICAL to his... he said that "discipline is a matter of national security"). Just once, as a 2Lt, do I want to pull rank on a Chief and make him drop and do 50 "because national security demands discipline". Hell, I'd lead by example and do it with him for sh*ts and giggles. I mean, I understand discipline, and maybe it's just the anality of the training environment, but my half windsor knots look way frickin better than when I tie a full windsor, which is highly unsymmetrical and looks like sh*t deep fried with a side of cole slaw.

Speaking of leading by example, I heard a lot of enlisted folks get really pissed off whenever Lt's (2 and 1) don't salute each other because it's disrespectful in their view that the Lt's don't respect the ranks that they have to salute or whatever. Is that true? I'm just trying to figure this out now than having to make a ****** out of myself, because honestly, training is " by the book ", and nobody mentions these folkways of military culture. I've had a Captain tell me that nobody calls the room to attention for CGO's, and also the Lt's saluting thing. Does it really piss people off though?

Cajun76
07-07-2007, 01:32 AM
I was always more nervous around unknown Lt's without their leash (SNCO) than Colonels. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I spent 5 years in AETC. It's extremely anal, even in "operational" units. In our shops, we did the same work as the AMC guys across the way, but we had ghey rules imposed on us because of the way AETC is set up. They don't take into account that your not in training status, like brand new guys at tech school.

As for Lt's saluting each other, I'd have had to work my azz off to maintain my composure if I saw that. Never heard of E getting pissed about it. Most of the maintenance troops I know would find it comical to see Lt's rushing around, saluting each other. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif However, if they demand it in training, do it.

As for CGO's, it's situational. Some find a reason (electrical hazard is a favorite) to exempt the building from it. I remember standing for the Major in Yokota when nobody else did (only regular staffers present at desks), him slightly smiling and waving me to sit down. I'd say, when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Some get annoyed if you do, others pissed if you don't. Tough call sometimes.

Full Birds and above are different animals. But even then, working on a plane I wouldn't call Attention for safety reasons, although I'd stop what I was doing if I could, and indicate to others to find a stopping point for a moment to see what the big dogs wanted.

Bro, to be honest, the thing that caused the most trouble for me was trying to reconcile the way things were {i}supposed[/i] to be and how they were. Several incidents of me trying to lead by example, and hold others to a high standard got me in trouble by my bosses relatively early on in my career. Apparently I was outworking the rest of the crew on one hand, and "causing waves" as well. Of course, there's always two sides, but it was a source of bitterness for me that affected the rest of my career.

I'm not smart and too honest to work the system, and it worked me for the worse. I consider myself lucky (relatively speaking) that I got a medical retirement instead of them eventually finding a reason to get me out. My initial rating by the VA has me 90% disabled, so I don't know if the alternitive (100% healthy, and out after 9 years) is better than having poor health, but lots of benefits. My family is better off with the benefits, so that's what I'm thankful for.

Anyway, any questions or ideas you need to bounce off me or just unload to someone who's been there and done it (sort of), give me a shout. I'll do my best to help.

woofiedog
07-07-2007, 02:06 AM
QUOTE... I have never seen this mythical proof either. Someone must have produced
some sort of story many years ago, long before anyone could understand
insect flight, based on aircraft wing theory. The aerodynamics of 4
flapping wings is very complex. Lighthill did some work on insect
aerodynamics 30 or 40 years ago that showed it was quite different to
conventional aircraft aerodynamics. He showed that, by bringing two
wings flat against each other and then moving them apart, very strong
vortices were produced which could generate unexpectedly large lift. I
think this was enough to explain Bumblebee flight. I expect others have
added to this since then but I am not up with the field.

Bobario
07-07-2007, 03:51 AM
I am laugh!

SeaFireLIV
07-07-2007, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Cajun76:
"The wise man learns more from the fool than the fool learns from the wise man.": after dinner wisdom from a fortune cookie.

That saying actually makes sense. Good fortune cookie!

raaaid
07-07-2007, 05:48 AM
interesting link:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/28/MNGIKFV3FI1.DTL

A bumblebee study was conducted in 1934 by the European scientists Antoine Magnan and Andre Saint-Lague. They applied mathematical analysis and known principles of flight to calculate that bee flight was "impossible


Also in the 1990s, experimenters using sensitive observational equipment and high-speed cameras discovered that a beating insect wing forms a swirling funnel of air -- technically known as the leading-edge vortex, a kind of micro-tornado -- just above, and clinging to, the upper part of the wing. Air pressure inside the vortex is lower than surrounding air, just as air pressure inside a tornado is lower than in surrounding air. Thus higher-pressure air beneath the bug wing pushes it upward, providing lift to the insect

interesting shame it doesnt mention robotic insects to spy

raaaid
07-07-2007, 06:08 AM
notice that in this picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Airplane_vortex_edit.jpg

the eye of the vortex is exactly above the wing

the vortex eye is the lowest pressure

woofiedog
07-07-2007, 06:47 AM
http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6848-4.jpg

Quote... Picture a wire spring with very small diameter at one end and gradually increasing in diameter towards the other end (cone shaped). Now place this over the head of the salmon. The head of the fish is now pointing at the center of the vortex (spring) and will be sucked towards it. But remember, this is not just fluidic action, gravitational nodes are also being drawn towards the centre enabling the salmon to 'fall' forward. When leaping up waterfalls the salmon would create the vortex with the small diameter end upwards towards the surface of the water.

raaaid
07-07-2007, 07:03 AM
are you getting that from schauberger?

im trying to develope an engine that behaves like a looping yoyo (like electrons around the nucleus), a mechanical vortex

i exposed my theory to my father a phisicist and to my physics tacher and both agree it should generate thrust

my work is identical to schauberger just he used fluids and i use mechanics but we both work on vortice thrust

im afraid though that this antigravity is known but kept secret since it can lead to time travel

time and gravity are closely syncronized if you reverse gravity you may be able to reverse time

raaaid
07-07-2007, 07:13 AM
Therefore rate of wing beat can be very high, effortlessly. Not only this but the quantum action requires no energy from solid or chemical fuels. We know from quantum theory that every point in space is virtually an infinite supply of energy. This has been called cosmic, universal energy, or academically, zero-point energy---it is free.

There is no current (orthodox) science of the centripetal force, though the great pioneer Schauberger demonstrated practical applications of this knowledge, which has been suppressed. Such information is now the property of the One World Government which has developed the 'cosmospheres' (antigravity spacecrafts). Victor Schauberger invented antigravity generators during the 1940s for the Germans.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~noelh/Insect_flight.htm (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/%7Enoelh/Insect_flight.htm)

take a looping yoyo, divide the ellipse in two halfs along the longest axe

the tension of the string on the extending half is much lower that in the winding half

this means youll be pulled towards the winding half because the centrifugal force, the tension in the string is bigger being inwards than outwards

imagine the yoyo is a cannonball it will be easy to hold on the outwards part of the spiral but imposible to hold on the inwards half youll be pulled as hell in the inwards half of the loop and hardly pulled in the outwards half of the loop

woofiedog
07-07-2007, 07:33 AM
Quote... In order to power its machines, today's science gives priority to an oxidizing or metabolic process, wherein oxygen (atmospheric oxygen)- the natural stuff of breath - consumes the lower oxide or pro-toxide (a type of metallic calc or calx) which contains valuable growth-factors and which is a geo-spherical formative substance. This interchange of substance (metabolism) is referred to as the 'normal' combustion process and people are of the mistaken opinion, that it gives rise to those carrying, shifting and orienting forces that move and animate our bodies. This 'normal' process of combustion, whose dynamic product Nature uses to break down, decompose and eliminate the evolutionary unfit, is triggered in such a way that at about +40 degrees Celsius (+104 degrees Fahrenheit ) through the application of heat or fire, the oxygen becomes aggressive and belligerent. If it is heated further, then it becomes even freer and more dangerous, leading to the decomposition of blood, water and sap.

woofiedog
07-07-2007, 07:36 AM
Should also add...

We present a method for extracting spatially resolved water content profiles θ(x) from a two-wire time domain reflectometry (TDR) probe. The profile θ(x) is represented in terms of the dielectric ɛr(x) and ohmic σ(x) properties in the longitudinal direction of the TDR probe. We solve the inverse problem iteratively by combining a one-dimensional time domain solution of the transmission line equations and a genetic optimization method. The method is capable of finding the global optimum in a complicated error landscape without initial assumptions, except physically reasonable limits. The method utilizes both the position and the magnitude of the TDR signal. We analyze water content profiles from laboratory measurements and demonstrate that the achievable spatial resolution can be made as low as 2 cm and even smaller. The present implementation of the numerical code demonstrates the practical feasibility of spatially resolved water content profiles.

WhtBoy
07-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Hey raaaid, are you ever going to do the calcs on a symmetrical vs cambered airfoil?

--Outlaw.

heywooood
07-07-2007, 08:56 AM
time and gravity are closely syncronized if you reverse gravity you may be able to reverse time


...the strings draw the answer nearer, keep pulling on them raaaaiiid

WhtBoy
07-07-2007, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
imagine the yoyo is a cannonball it will be easy to hold on the outwards part of the spiral but imposible to hold on the inwards half youll be pulled as hell in the inwards half of the loop and hardly pulled in the outwards half of the loop


You won't be pulled as hard but you will be pulled for a longer amount of time b/c the rotational speed will decrease as the radius does. The net effect will be you will go up by some amount and then come down the same amount. Of course this assumes that you are far enough away from large bodies. It also assummes that you ignore friction AND torque. Friction will slowly bring your oscillating to a halt and torque will twist your machine about the vertical axis unless you use one of your magic energy sources to allow the masses to pass through each other.


Originally posted by raaaid:
A bumblebee study was conducted in 1934 by the European scientists Antoine Magnan and Andre Saint-Lague. They applied mathematical analysis and known principles of flight to calculate that bee flight was "impossible

Are you saying that, due to a study in 1934 where they applied KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF FLIGHT, insects generate magical free energy sources?



Originally posted by raaaid:
the eye of the vortex is exactly above the wing

the vortex eye is the lowest pressure


Please show the flight dynamics of the aircraft in question when the photo was taken. If you don't know what the aircraft was doing (ie ascending/descending/at the bottom of a snap roll/etc.) then you can't determine ANYTHING meaningful from the photograph.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-07-2007, 09:57 AM
You won't be pulled as hard but you will be pulled for a longer amount of time b/c the rotational speed will decrease as the radius does. The net effect will be you will go up by some amount and then come down the same amount. Of course this assumes that you are far enough away from large bodies. It also assummes that you ignore friction AND torque. Friction will slowly bring your oscillating to a halt and torque will twist your machine about the vertical axis unless you use one of your magic energy sources to allow the masses to pass through each other.


both halfs of the ellipse are symetrical so both have same speed in every oposite point

you would have a counterrotating yoyo

neglecting friction it would keep pulling you up with no extra energy i guess

woofiedog
07-07-2007, 12:04 PM
"True" antigravity propels in only one direction (presumably) - straight upward. The Podkletnov apparatus and De Aquino apparatus designs would satisfy this requirement. The Lifter has directional propulsion in a line up through the center axis of the triangle - tilt the triangle sideways, it flies sideways. Therefore, while it may be interacting with gravity, it still has weight and mass.


The conventional ion-wind theory is that air-molecules carry high voltage charges from the emitter wire to the foil and hence satisfy the F=MA equation. However, there are many side effects associated with the high voltages - and indeed the Lifter itself - that seem to suggest something more or perhaps different than this very simple explanation.

The Lifters are very lightweight in construction. Once again, this is a proof-of-concept idea and not a finished product by any means. The typical single-cell Lifters weight approximately 2 to 3 grams; the larger Lifters might weight up to 55 grams (Russell Anderson's 6-foot beamship design). In terms of a comparison, we are getting perhaps a maximum of three times the efficiency of Deseversky's ionocraft from the 1950s, or perhaps one-third the efficiency of a helicopter. The efficiency ratio is perhaps between 1 and 2 pounds of lift per horsepower at this point, maximum.

Once again, the peak efficiency is currently between 1 and 2 pounds per horsepower.

http://monsterden.net/madden/images/maxspread-antigravity400.png

Zeus-cat
07-07-2007, 12:26 PM
this means youll be pulled towards the winding half because the centrifugal force...

Your theory falls apart right here raaaid. No such thing as centrifugal force. Any compotent physicist should know that. Ask your father about it. If he tells you there is such a thing then one of two things is true:
1) He is part of the world-wide conspiracy you are always hinting about, and you should never trust him; or
2) He is a really bad physicist.

DuxCorvan
07-07-2007, 12:36 PM
i dont see the point for half rain drop shape on wings

When I saw this in an aircraft-related forum, wished I had plucked off my eyes. Raaaaid, that's the most ignorant statement I ever saw in an adult forum, and makes me doubt about you finishing elementary school at all.

A completely flat wing doesn't produce lift. Without lift, planes don't fly. Pause.

Go on, maybe you'll discover the square wheel someday.

KrasniyYastreb
07-07-2007, 12:54 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Raaid what engineering discipline are you studying ? This way I can avoid whatever product it is you might participate in creating.

Zeus-cat
07-07-2007, 01:49 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

raaaid
07-07-2007, 07:39 PM
i started sutdying nautic engineering in 2000 i pass 3 subjects every years , its 30 subjects so by 2010 ill be finished

Daiichidoku
07-07-2007, 07:47 PM
i havent read much beyond the first post....

check this, raaaid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_wing

Charos
07-07-2007, 08:51 PM
Your idea may not be all that new Raaaid.

Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (http://www.open.org/davidc/)

Targ
07-08-2007, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by woofiedog:
"True" antigravity propels in only one direction (presumably) - straight upward. The Podkletnov apparatus and De Aquino apparatus designs would satisfy this requirement. The Lifter has directional propulsion in a line up through the center axis of the triangle - tilt the triangle sideways, it flies sideways. Therefore, while it may be interacting with gravity, it still has weight and mass.


The conventional ion-wind theory is that air-molecules carry high voltage charges from the emitter wire to the foil and hence satisfy the F=MA equation. However, there are many side effects associated with the high voltages - and indeed the Lifter itself - that seem to suggest something more or perhaps different than this very simple explanation.

The Lifters are very lightweight in construction. Once again, this is a proof-of-concept idea and not a finished product by any means. The typical single-cell Lifters weight approximately 2 to 3 grams; the larger Lifters might weight up to 55 grams (Russell Anderson's 6-foot beamship design). In terms of a comparison, we are getting perhaps a maximum of three times the efficiency of Deseversky's ionocraft from the 1950s, or perhaps one-third the efficiency of a helicopter. The efficiency ratio is perhaps between 1 and 2 pounds of lift per horsepower at this point, maximum.

Once again, the peak efficiency is currently between 1 and 2 pounds per horsepower.

http://monsterden.net/madden/images/maxspread-antigravity400.png

I was having a hard time following your post when suddenly it occurred to me, the math that is..
42! 36! 55! Hut! Hut! Hut!

woofiedog
07-08-2007, 12:30 AM
Quote... I was having a hard time following your post when suddenly it occurred to me, the math that is..
42! 36! 55! Hut! Hut! Hut!


It does look a bit like a Football game plan! LoL

K_Freddie
07-08-2007, 12:35 AM
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, now the plane wants to go 100 m higher, it lost speed...
This is currently called empty space, out there somewhere. OR for want of another word DARK MATTER -> the 'missing mass' of the universe


Originally posted by raaaid:
...it must be the same for a normal wing if it lifts it goes slower so it has exactly the same behaviour that a flat wing, why to use normal wings if with flat wings you can lift as high by pitching up?
This was tried with the F104 Starfighter, you know the 'rocket with wings'. It didn't work well in an imperfect fluid (our atmosphere), so the chances in a perfect fluid... not much


Originally posted by raaaid:
the only advantage can be that normal wings lift without losing speed, free energy
Around and around the mulberry bush we go... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by raaaid:
but what would be of this world if plumb could turn into gold, petrol was useless and you could irrigate africa turning it into what it once was, no wonder that bull on subpressions that everybody say they understand but actually nobody does
Speak for yourself, sport.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now some real comment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Raaaid is doing the right thing in questioning our education system which is totally 'one dimensional', but one has to think a bit more about what 'papers' you post as you will get the normal response from the 'uneducated'. But I see this has not deterred him. Keep it going..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
both halfs of the ellipse are symetrical so both have same speed in every oposite point

you would have a counterrotating yoyo

neglecting friction it would keep pulling you up with no extra energy i guess

If the ellipse is symmetrical about both axes then there is no propulsion at all, just oscillation, followed by your masses colliding.



Originally posted by raaaid:
i started sutdying nautic engineering in 2000 i pass 3 subjects every years , its 30 subjects so by 2010 ill be finished

There is no real university on the planet that will allow you to take any engineering classes before passing physics. By your own admission you have not passed a physics class in the last 18 years and the one you did pass was, "self-taught". Therefore you have not taken a single engineering class nor passed any real physics class. Furthermore you are incapable of drawing a free body diagram or deriving the equations of motion of your system, both of which are FUNDAMENTAL TO ANY DYNAMIC ANALYSIS.

Given the above truths, why should anyone believe anything you say?

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-09-2007, 07:39 AM
you can ask dux corban if here in spain you can take advance mechanics without passing basic physics

if you take a looping yoyo made of a cannonball that makes an ellipse of 100 m the longest axe and 1 m the shortest axe its obvious that the tension on the string is much greater in the winding half than in the unwinding half remaining besides the cannonball the same time in each half

theres no ortodox physics for this, cons of angular momentum states wrongly that tension will be the same in both halfs

Feathered_IV
07-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i dont see the point for half rain drop shape on wings

When I saw this in an aircraft-related forum, wished I had plucked off my eyes. Raaaaid, that's the most ignorant statement I ever saw in an adult forum, and makes me doubt about you finishing elementary school at all.

A completely flat wing doesn't produce lift. Without lift, planes don't fly. Pause.

Go on, maybe you'll discover the square wheel someday. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think (hope) raaid was referring to a wing plan shape, rather than cross section.

raaaid
07-09-2007, 07:46 AM
A completely flat wing doesn't produce lift. Without lift, planes don't fly. Pause


have you tried paper planes?

you can picture my point as you woul be able to hold a cannonball in a very open outwards spiral but will be imposible to hold in an inwards one

take half of each you have closed a cycle being more centrifugal force in one half than another

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 08:25 AM
raaid, in your first example of a plane with flat frictionless wings, suppose the plane never wished to climb any higher. It was just content to fly along happily at the same altitude. Because then you could just eliminate the wings altogether. And airspeed would be unnecessary.

Invent a frictionless fuselage and maybe it can be eliminated next.

danjama
07-09-2007, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
raaid, in your first example of a plane with flat frictionless wings, suppose the plane never wished to climb any higher. It was just content to fly along happily at the same altitude. Because then you could just eliminate the wings altogether. And airspeed would be unnecessary.

Invent a frictionless fuselage and maybe it can be eliminated next.

the invention of the invisible (non existant) plane! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

How many passengers does it hold?

Cajun76
07-09-2007, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you can ask dux corban if here in spain you can take advance mechanics without passing basic physics

if you take a looping yoyo made of a cannonball that makes an ellipse of 100 m the longest axe and 1 m the shortest axe its obvious that the tension on the string is much greater in the winding half than in the unwinding half remaining besides the cannonball the same time in each half

theres no ortodox physics for this, cons of angular momentum states wrongly that tension will be the same in both halfs

I'm pretty ignorant about these equations. First, energy has to be applied constantly to produce a constant acceleration, the cannonball going around a point. Now, to wind and unwind, more energy is used, to wind, and extra energy is needed to speed the rotation up when unwinding and to slow down when winding. Winding without slowing the cannonball down would result in the CB speeding up, and would inviolate your stipulation that the CB spends equal time at 1m and 100m.

Now, there are some major changes in speed and acceleration if the cannonball spends the same amount of time at 1m and 100m, in a single rotation, because of the angle difference. To cover a much larger distance in the same amount of time, the long arc is going to have to be much, much faster, with lots of energy involved to both speed up, slow down and wind itself to make the 1m half of the circuit.

Since, in your example, the CB has to complete an ellipse and spend equal time (averaged, I guess) at 1m and 100m, the CB must be affected by an external source, not just the point of rotation. A large vector must be added to the CB as it expands it's arc to cover 100 times? the distance in the same amount of time. At the same time, the CB must be decelerated independent of the winding action to conform to equal time at both states.

It's my uneducated opinion that the tension would be equal.

raaaid
07-09-2007, 10:06 AM
if you use a tetherball system linear speed of the cannonbal remains equal to keep true conservation of energy so it would remain the same time in both halfs of the ellipse

this is interesting because in the case there was more pull in the inwards half than in the outwards it would be free

even if you want to aply energy for winding and unwinding as planets do think that half year passes in half elliptical orbit

this is classical physics, my point of disagreement is that tension will be much greater in the inwards pull than in the outwards

this can be proven by thinking that a very open outwards spiral is almost a straight line that will have 0 tension on the string so a spiral of great eccentricity, very open, will have the minimum tension because is the closest to the cannonball going straight

the tension to make the radius 0 would get to infinite as when you half the radius it doubles the speeds and cuadruplets the centrifugal force and you can keep halving the radius forever

so you could have a tension close to 0 in one half and close to infinite in the other

of course this only proves of thrust no way to prove free energy, youd probably need loads of energy for this thrust

-HH-Quazi
07-09-2007, 10:46 AM
OK. I have seen these words put together twice since the start of this thread. So answer this question please, What is an example of an "ideal fluid"? Some might say beer. Some might say hard liquor. Some might just say water. But I know it is deeper than that with raaaid referring to it. An example of an "ideal fluid" raaaid?

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
How many passengers does it hold?

Infinite. As long as they are frictionless. But, of course, they could be eliminated too.

raaaid
07-09-2007, 11:08 AM
theres no ideal fluid, its a way to neglect friction which is imposible

-HH-Quazi
07-09-2007, 11:17 AM
You are a trip raaaid! HEHE Carry on!

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
theres no ideal fluid, its a way to neglect friction which is imposible

There's no lift produced from a flat wing in level flight either. Why worry about the impossible?

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you can ask dux corban if here in spain you can take advance mechanics without passing basic physics

Call it what you like, if it doesn't require physics first, it's not an advanced class. Regardless, didn't you say you had taken an aerodynamics class also?


Originally posted by raaaid:
if you take a looping yoyo made of a cannonball that makes an ellipse of 100 m the longest axe and 1 m the shortest axe its obvious that the tension on the string is much greater in the winding half than in the unwinding half remaining besides the cannonball the same time in each half

theres no ortodox physics for this, cons of angular momentum states wrongly that tension will be the same in both halfs

You are wrong. "Orthodox" physics accurately predicts the tension and the time involved.

If you want to prove you're right, just show your free body diagram and the equations of motion.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
theres no ideal fluid, its a way to neglect friction which is imposible

There's no lift produced from a flat wing in level flight either. Why worry about the impossible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. Level flight does not mean 0 AoA.

--Outlaw.

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by raaaid:
theres no ideal fluid, its a way to neglect friction which is imposible

There's no lift produced from a flat wing in level flight either. Why worry about the impossible? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. Level flight does not mean 0 AoA.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If AoA isn't zero then it's not a flat frictionless wing, now is it? And yes, I didn't repeat that it was frictionless. That was established the original post. What wasn't established is how that theoretical aircraft maintains level flight against gravity.

And raaaid, regarding paper airplanes, have you ever seen one that can actually fly (or glide) that doesn't have a wing created by a fold or folds that makes an aifoil shape? If you have, please describe it.

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
If AoA isn't zero then it's not a flat frictionless wing, now is it?


Yes, it is. Flat refers to it's shape. AoA does not change the shape of the airfoil. A flat wing at 45 degrees AoA is still flat.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-09-2007, 02:57 PM
my point is a flat wing like a plane made of paper vs a half rain drop wing shape like birds

of course with a flat wing you need certain pitch to keep level flight

my point is both wings must exchange speed for altitude

then whats the advantage of cambered wings if they cant get you higher and in normal air it gets more drag

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
then whats the advantage of cambered wings if they cant get you higher and in normal air it gets more drag

Why won't you just do the simple comparison I told you to do raaaid????

That will answer your question 100%.

--Outlaw.

LStarosta
07-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Just the opposite, bro, cambered wings provide lift with less drag in practical speed envelopes. A perfectly flat airfoil will theoretically provide lift at low speeds but only with a high AoA and enormously impractical amounts of thrust to combat the extremely low lift to drag ratio. Case in point, F-104. Keep it up, though. Good sh*t this thread is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
A flat wing at 45 degrees AoA is still flat.

Would you consider it frictionless?

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
A flat wing at 45 degrees AoA is still flat.

Would you consider it frictionless? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it was, you're confusin' me with raaaid.

--Outlaw.

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
A flat wing at 45 degrees AoA is still flat.

Would you consider it frictionless? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it was, you're confusin' me with raaaid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure you did.


Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
If AoA isn't zero then it's not a flat frictionless wing, now is it?


Yes, it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WhtBoy
07-09-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
A flat wing at 45 degrees AoA is still flat.

Would you consider it frictionless? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said it was, you're confusin' me with raaaid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure you did.


Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
If AoA isn't zero then it's not a flat frictionless wing, now is it?


Yes, it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're going to get stupid and nitpick quotes, then you are correct, but, only insofar as I quoted your statement. Any smacktard can see that my post was referring to the shape. In fact, I specifically mentioned the shape of the wing and ONLY the shape in my post, of which you quoted only the first sentence to come to your conclusion. If you look at my original statement ...


Originally posted by WhtBoy:
Not true. Level flight does not mean 0 AoA.

It made no mention of friction. Furthermore, my statement is correct, whereas your statement...


Originally posted by GOYA_551st:
There's no lift produced from a flat wing in level flight either.

Is totally incorrect. Level flight means no altitude change, not 0 AoA. To maintain level flight under constant gravity, isothermal, zero wind conditions with a fixed geometry wing and no thrust vectoring, as speed increases, AoA must decrease.

--Outlaw.

GOYA_551st
07-09-2007, 10:46 PM
Ask a yes/no question, get a yes answer, quote both question and answer, and I'm getting stupid and nitpicking.

THE ZOO LIVES!

Speaking of any smacktard, did you see the part of my post where I said I chose not to repeat that this theoretical wing was frictionless because raaaid had already established that fact in his first post?

Whirlin_merlin
07-10-2007, 12:54 AM
Er boys you're arguing with each other over frictionless wings in a Raaaid thread, er hello.

Alloy007P
07-10-2007, 01:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

OD_
07-10-2007, 02:56 AM
I have one question...If a plane is 'flying' on an ideal liquid...isn't it floating? In which case how can it go higher and surely the top of the liquid is as high as it gets...and if it is under the liquid then it must be a submarine!!!

It's this 'free energy' it's all going to my head!

raaaid
07-10-2007, 03:56 AM
thats an interesting point, the faster you go the more dense the liquid appears so may be buoyancy should increase i sse a similutude between planes and sharks

i still believe that cambered wings are better for producing vortices

i asked here about centripetal forces on spinning masses of varying radius, a vortice, but no answer:

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8226

but consider a spinning cannonball that goes from a radius of 1m to 1000 m in one half and from 1000 to 1 m in the other half hold on a spool

to make the outwards half of the spiral the slight friction of the spool will be enough so tension on the cable is minimal, on the contrary to make the inwards spiral you have to wind the spool hard so tension increases a lot

if the cannonball is the same time in both halves but pulls more in one than the other the result is obvious

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i sse a similutude between planes and sharks

Gee, do you think so? You ARE a rocket scientist after all! OF COURSE THERE IS SIMILITUDE!! They are both aerodynamic bodies moving through a fluid.



Originally posted by raaaid:
if the cannonball is the same time in both halves but pulls more in one than the other the result is obvious

You are wrong. The time is not the same.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Er boys you're arguing with each other over frictionless wings in a Raaaid thread, er hello.

No, we're not. My statement was clearly limited to the shape of the wing. Being wrong about a flat wing producing no lift in level flight, Goya diverted the discussion to friction. Once again, my original statement said NOTHING about friction.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 06:10 AM
Originally posted by OD_:
I have one question...If a plane is 'flying' on an ideal liquid...isn't it floating? In which case how can it go higher and surely the top of the liquid is as high as it gets...and if it is under the liquid then it must be a submarine!!!

raaaid didn't say "ideal liquid", he said "ideal fluid." Air is a fluid.


--Outlaw.

OD_
07-10-2007, 06:27 AM
You had to spoil it! lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Only thing is...on a serious note...it's a what if, but how about what if there was no ideal fluid? (Why you're insisting on calling it that I don't know, could just call it a gas so we'd all know what you're talking about!) Surely the ideal fluid is a vacuum...but then there would be no fluid and no lift...so where would all the free energy go?

Don't fish swim south for the winter?!?

raaaid
07-10-2007, 08:43 AM
You are wrong. The time is not the same

i disagree take the earth for example it makes half ellipse in half year and the other half in the other half of the year

both halfs last exactly the same

an ellipse in fact is half outwards spiral an half inwards from the focus

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You are wrong. The time is not the same

i disagree... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't matter if you agree or not. You are still wrong.

If your equations of motion show differently, then post them. Until then, you are wrong.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-10-2007, 09:21 AM
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/kepler.html

II. The line joining the planet to the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times as the planet travels around the ellipse

being areas divided by the major axe equal times are equal

do you think kepler is wrong?

at least you see my point on tension on the cable being minor in the outwards spiral than in the inwards

thats easy to understand thinking that for the outwards spiral spool slight friction is enough to shape the spiral

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
do you think kepler is wrong?


No, Kepler is right, you are wrong.

You are incapable of analyzing the system correctly. You cannot derive the equations of motion. You cannot draw the free body diagram. You are wrong.

Why do you continue to post links to various, sometimes related, websites when all you need to do to convince anyone is show your work? You claim to have spent thousands of hours studying these things yet you show nothing.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-10-2007, 10:07 AM
i cant make a free force diagram since for every force you have to draw the reaction

my point is you can have a big action with a small reaction

i try to prove it as i see it

the looping yoyo makes an ellipse, conservation of angular momentum states that equal areas are swept in equal times, being both half areas divided by the longest axe equal times are equal

whats wrong about this this is classic physics

my only point of disagreement with classic phisics is that the tension of the string is minor in an outwards spiral than in and inwards one

this only i can prove it with the thought experiment of a spinning cannonbal where the slight friction of the spool will make the cannonball follow a spiral so tension must be minimal

i dont have a doubt that even being right i wont get this trough, people believe to much what they study and this is against it and do you think a guy like me would be allowed to change all known creationist physics without counting if it lead to 0 point energy

talking back on wings if you consider a plane floats due to an increase of density of the fluid due to speed just by going faster you should float more without a need of losing speed on an ideal case

GOYA_551st
07-10-2007, 10:23 AM
raaaid, first prove that a looping yoyo forms an ellipse. And come up with some sort of an idea of how much energy must be input to begin the loop and to maintain the loop.

Secondly, the terms you have been needing to better describe equal times are perigee and apogee.

Thirdly, the Kepler law you quotes shows equality in areas not time.

DuxCorvan
07-10-2007, 10:26 AM
Raaaid, it's not Kepler who is wrong. It's you.

Earth moves faster in its aphelion than in its perihelion. The reasons why areas are the same for the same time, is because the distance to the sun is much longer when the earth is slower, and faster when that distance is shorter. In fact, Earth spends most time of the year in the outer part of the ellipse, and the time it spends near the sun (aphelion) is much shorter.

You should know that, for the gravity acceleration increases inversely to distance. That's Newton, not Kepler.

So, are half ellipses equal in the time Earth takes to complete them? Well, if you take the two halves longitudinally (from aphelion to perihelion), yes, they are. But if you compare the side where the Sun is the focus, and the other one, this latter takes much longer.

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i try to prove it as i see it...


You are still wrong. All it takes is the math. Why won't you do the math?



Originally posted by raaaid:
talking back on wings if you consider a plane floats due to an increase of density of the fluid due to speed just by going faster you should float more without a need of losing speed on an ideal case

Planes don't float due to an increase in air density, thus, the above consideration is useless.

--Outlaw.

SeaFireLIV
07-10-2007, 10:49 AM
You guys need to step back and look at this whole thread from an outside view...

It looks like a loony bin!

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
You guys need to step back and look at this whole thread from an outside view...

It looks like a loony bin!

Of course it does, it's one of raaaid's threads!

--Outlaw.

raaaid
07-10-2007, 11:22 AM
of course im talking of the two halves divided longitudinally from aphelium to perihelium otherwise id be wrong

it doesnt need to be a perfect ellipse if it starts with an initial radius of 1 m at 1000 m/s and ends with a radius of 1000 m at 1 m/s it will take the same time going from 1 m to 1000 m than from 1000 m to 1 m

this is due to conservation of angular momentum

i cant believe you are discussing in which i agree with physics but not discussing the different tension in each half in which i disagree with physics

i suppose my example of the outer spiral being shaped by the slight friction of the spool being quite convincing

WhtBoy
07-10-2007, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
of course im talking of the two halves divided longitudinally from aphelium to perihelium otherwise id be wrong

it doesnt need to be a perfect ellipse if it starts with an initial radius of 1 m at 1000 m/s and ends with a radius of 1000 m at 1 m/s it will take the same time going from 1 m to 1000 m than from 1000 m to 1 m

this is due to conservation of angular momentum

i cant believe you are discussing in which i agree with physics but not discussing the different tension in each half in which i disagree with physics

i suppose my example of the outer spiral being shaped by the slight friction of the spool being quite convincing

Still wrong.

--Outlaw

WhtBoy
07-11-2007, 12:42 PM
Can you believe it, raaaid gave up on yet another thread rather than post the "results" of his years of study?

--Outlaw.

Jambock_Dolfo
07-11-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
...
In fact, Earth spends most time of the year in
Earth moves faster in its aphelion than in its perihelion. The reasons why areas are the same for the same time, is because the distance to the sun is much longer when the earth is slower, and faster when that distance is shorter. the outer part of the ellipse, and the time it spends near the sun (aphelion) is much shorter.
...

PERIhelion is close to the sun. APhelion is away from the sun.
Will not change anything anyway, just not to get people (more) confused.

-dolfo

DuxCorvan
07-11-2007, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Jambock_Dolfo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
...
In fact, Earth spends most time of the year in
Earth moves faster in its aphelion than in its perihelion. The reasons why areas are the same for the same time, is because the distance to the sun is much longer when the earth is slower, and faster when that distance is shorter. the outer part of the ellipse, and the time it spends near the sun (aphelion) is much shorter.
...

PERIhelion is close to the sun. APhelion is away from the sun.
Will not change anything anyway, just not to get people (more) confused.

-dolfo </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. I just was a victim of etymology. (Peri=outside). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif