Jan 26, When I want to know a subject well I just read a Russian expert. Not perfect but generally they have a more grounded, understandable description of the dynamics. They are not particularly interested in what information other people are learning. They are more interested in what there peers are up to, so that they do not fall behind. And also they are pretty focused on their current research. Cold Fusion doesant work Was it Creationism, flat Earth theory, the theory that Fox news is a source of truth?
On the other hand when a scientist does decide that people are learning something the wrong way - it may be a case of oversimplifying in the opposite direction and cause more confusion than they solve. Clearly in this case the scientist or engineer in question did not make a very clear case for his argument and has therefore added little of any worth for the layman. The second unsymmetry comes from the highest point of the wing that is more in front than in just middle.
The Wings That Fly Us Home
The wing creates higher pressure to the front upper part, but lower pressure to the back upper part. That's of course if one assumes that the over pressure in the front has same magnitude than the underpressure at the back upper part. Maybe we should put the matter to a vote. Reading the article and comments did not really help me understand why a plane fly. For every comment, there is a counter comment so the question of who is right is still out there for people, like me, who are not physicists. All I know is that airplane wings look more like birds wings shape of feathers and we know that birds can fly.
So here's my final answer. Airplane can fly because they have wings that resembles birds' wings and we know birds can fly and they don't even bother solving aerodynamics equations to tell them what to do. Don't know if anyone noticed, but it looks like the velocity of air over the top of the wing increased as a result of the narrower passage between the wing and the wall of the tunnel. Not a very good demonstration. For those who espouse the pressure under the wing theory, take for example ground effects.
Winged craft are considerably more efficient when flying a short distance from the ground because of the pressure buildup between the wing and the ground. I concur. How interesting, jsa09's observation that "scientists" "are not particularly interested in what pother people are learing". So much for dedication to knowledge! But, if it's the case that they "don't read educational texts", why, as the article suggests, did the "myth" about how wings work "frustrate" aerodynamics experts? And if, as Deathclock agrees, "scientists" don't read or care what textbooks say, why does Deathclock say "scientists" " were too busy raising a ruckus about" creationism being taught in schools?
And, were aerodynamicists complaining about creationism? Why weren't they complaining loudly about the "myth" about how wings work? For that matte, Babinsky is as much a "professor" as a "scientist", so why didn't other "professors" who apparently were just as devoted to "science" complaining widely before this? From wikipedia "The lift on an airfoil is primarily the result of its angle of attack and shape. When oriented at a suitable angle, the airfoil deflects the oncoming air, resulting in a force on the airfoil in the direction opposite to the deflection.
This force is known as aerodynamic force and can be resolved into two components: Lift and drag. Most foil shapes require a positive angle of attack to generate lift, but cambered airfoils can generate lift at zero angle of attack. This "turning" of the air in the vicinity of the airfoil creates curved streamlines which results in lower pressure on one side and higher pressure on the other.
Angle of Attack is everything to make a wing fly. Jan 27, Nigel Milligan's wiki entry is the best explanation listed so far. A complete flat wing will generate lift so long as there is an angle of attack, as theDuke says. So why are wing surfaces curved?
Recommended for you
To reduce drag, to increase the range of angle of attack where lift it generated, and to control the pitch moment twisting moment on the wing. That's it, nothing else is involved. No curvature necessary, Prof. How can these be thought of as different things? Surely you don't suggest the air pressure on the top of the wing is the same as the pressure on the bottom; I don't think that makes sense but perhaps that's not what you were saying. Jan 28, Everyone wants to be a Scientist. Sanescience has it.
Something flies when an equal amount of airmass momentum is directed to counteract the forces of gravity on that something. The same explanation applies to propellors; it's just that the blast of air behind a turning propellor is much more easily observed than the downwash that occurs behind wings producing lift. As also observed, a flat board will produce lift if given an angle of attack.
Measuring airspeeds across this board will also reveal faster air moving across the top and slowed down air moving on the underside.
- Schools In-Boston, Middlesex County.
- JMP Design of Experiments, Release 7?
- Navigation menu.
- Alaska Department of Fish and Game?
Jan 29, I got banned from the physics forums on this site for suggesting the gravity is the ultimate cause of lift. Nobody even bothered to say "well its not the direct cause of lift dur durdribble dribble" I was simply banned.
Thanks mods, way to be educational. More presurre up than down. Same as for the boyancy of a ship in water. A lot of what I was taught over the years about physical effects are actually wrong. Boyancy is NOT due to the amount of water displaced. It is pressure differential. Rockets do NOT work by throwing stuff out the back.
Again it is a pressure diferential with the stuff going out the back as a result which conserves momentem. You can look at either way as the math works the same BUT the proximate cause is a pressure diferential. Odd that loneislander was downranked when he got it right. Curvature is involved of course but he has the essentials spot on. Air can't pull. It CAN push up harder than it pushes down. The rest was right. It is the pressure differential between the top and bottom no matter how that differential is created.
Feynman wrote about, or rather told a story about, the time he worked on a school text commitee. He was the only scientist on the commitee and the only person that read all the books. The only one that was annoyed by some of the bad examples. I have a sneaking suspicion that it hasn't changed much in the years since then.
Its often said that this happens because the airflow moving over the top, curved surface has a longer distance to travel and needs to go faster to have the same transit time as the air traveling along the lower, flat surface. Isn't it how Bernoulli's paradox is supposed to work? The faster flow of air makes a suction at the upper side of wing, which results into uplift force.
IMO this description is not wrong, it's just another perspective of the same problem. Well its wrong but I wouldn't ban you for it myself unless you were posting it as much as Zephir does his silly nonsense. Except it isn't. Pressure is the cause. Yes gravity is the reason there is a planet, with air, a Sun and a place to fly the plane but that is rather a long way to go to avoid the proximate cause of lift.
Such a comment is a sign of creative, consequential thinking. No wonder, the superficially thinking people those, who are relying on the intersubjectively accepted memorized truths feel so upset with it. Because the gravity is the primary reason of why planes CANNOT fly, it brings the question of how the explanation can remain general for still being considered as an explanation at all.
Apparently, we have to do with Hamiltonian geometry of intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives here: the relevant explanation is such an explanation, which enables to derive the theorem in more straightforward way i. Gravitational explanation apparently belongs into extrinsic perspective, as it enables to explain a much more, than just uplift force.
A Martian Sends a Postcard Home | yrunysyzymuk.ml
But what the people are usually expect here is the intrinsic explanation, which is relevant just to the closest category of subjects explained. The strictly deterministic explanation is the formal description of phenomena, only relevant to subject explained. Such an description is not considered as an explanation too, because it cannot be generalized to other subject at all. But the flatness of paper sheet doesn't imply the flatness of air streamlines, does it?
It's evident, the air cannot move along straight path even at the case of flat wings. Actually, the above simulation did a poor job in demonstration just of it - Babinsky should use a flat wing in his wind tunnel to demonstrate his stance. Just keep lying about others Zephir. Its a your good for. In Czech we have a proverb "A shot goose is always the first one to squawk", which roughly means "If the cap fits, wear it". The text book explanation of lift always left me confused, and while I don't support creationist, this makes science look bad.
I'd like to see someone run a atomic scale simulation of a wing and show that atoms impart more momentum on the bottom of the wing than the top. And despite not understanding this, airplanes by the hundreds of thousands have flown just fine for decades. At the hypothetical planet without gravity the planes with wings couldn't fly at all. It depends on what one means by "fly". If one simply means controlled movement by manipulation of air flowing past a wing due to motion caused by a propeller, it would seem that flight is possible even without gravity assuming the air remains at the same density.
After all, the propeller would still pull the plane along, and the aerodynamic forces would still act to move the plane in the direction opposite to the underside of the plane for ordinary wing shapes. Of course, if by "fly" one means oppose the force of gravity via aerodynamic forces, absence of gravity would logically imply absence of flight. Jan 30, If this were the case, then why does a flat surface also race upwards when introduced into an airflow?
This can be easily tested by holding a thin, flat object into an airflow and tilting it upward. It will be lifted very quickly. There is no curvature there. How does that work? The same effect works in water. Answer the question because I have no idea. I think so-called 'lift' has more to do with effects at the molecular level, such as is the case when water is miraculously "pumped" up a huge tree.
The effect there has been proven to be "molecular climbing", which is a purely mechanical effect. Since air is also composed of molecules, could this be the case also?
- Gender and Development: The Japanese Experience in Comparative Perspective!
- Sue Monk Kidd Interview - The Invention of Wings;
- Related Topics?
We already know that air is composed of molecules, and so are 'wings'. No one, as far as I know, has studied the intimate effects of molecular movement in this way, as it applies to wing lift in a medium such as air. They simply use a wind tunnel and study the effects at the macroscopic scale, ignoring the microscopic mechanics of the systems. I don't know , any thoughts on that? Jan 31, If the Crank lies it is still a lie and not a cap. Sign in. Forgot Password Registration. What do you think about this particular story?
Ok More Information. E-mail newsletter. It appears that you are currently using Ad Blocking software. Read an in-depth analysis of Pelayo. Elisenda convinces Pelayo to charge villagers to see the old man but later considers him to be a nuisance. A practical woman, she primarily concerns herself with the welfare of Pelayo and their child and is therefore relieved when the old man finally leaves. Read an in-depth analysis of Elisenda.
As an authority figure in the community, Father Gonzaga takes it upon himself to discern whether the old man is an angel as the townsfolk believe or just a mortal who just happens to have wings. Father Gonzaga is skeptical that the dirty old man could really be a messenger from heaven, but he dutifully reports the event to his superiors in the church. The supposedly wise neighbor woman actually seems more like a silly know-it-all than a true counselor and is the first to suggest that the old man is a crippled angel. Punished for the sin of disobeying her parents, the spider woman now has the body of an enormous spider and the head of a sad young woman.
Previous Next The Old Man.