Talk:3090: Sail Physics

After the last step, the sailors would then need to ground the boat to avoid being pushed in a circle, wouldn't they? Sophon (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that for eastward wind, the boat will be propelled upwards, while the opposite is true for westward winds. This provides a basis for the functioning of airships and planes (Helicopters are more complicated, and additionally rely on their own magnetic fields) 162.158.217.45 21:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hence why you should always touch an earthing rod before approaching a helicopter, to avoid the magnetism pulling you into their rotors. Kev (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually wrong? Wouldn't it still be a force on a sailboat, even if it's not the strongest? Smurfton (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I added some explaination on direction and magnitude of the lorentz force, maybe that will help - sga 172.68.234.227 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The explanation states that of the four forces, only the electromagnetic force operates at the macro level. This is incorrect, as gravity is also directly observable by humans. There should also probably be a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfoil to provide an explanation for how sails actually allow a boat to sail upwind. I recommend removing the remark about the poles potentially flipping in the future, as this is irrelevant. 172.68.55.124 23:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

What i meant was, for 2 objects at scales of humans =, maybe did not prase it well. In this case, it is the wind and the sail. Wind does not have a "mass" (the atoms most certainly do, but) we essentially have a pressure force, or momentum of wind, where instead of using the energy of atoms (and hence the mass) as given by kinetic theory is not used (that is random (as given by boltzman maxwell statistics)) and uniform (in the sense that for any direction, number of particles going against and towards is equal) and what we have is just pressure applied by a effective "group velocity" of the wind atoms. The gravity interaction between wind and boat, or the local waves and boat is negligible, and planetary gravity is not considered because that is not relavant for in plane motion. the pole fillping was added just for future proofing the article. I am sorry for the puns. I have rewwritten some parts, and reduced the part about pole flipping, and also added the average case scenario for the force, hope it is better now. - sga 172.70.143.75 (talk) 02:37+, 17 May 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

That is one huge rambling paragraph, if it's (mostly) yours. I'm no stranger to writing huge rambling paragraphs, myself, but I gave up only a little way in on trying to make it read better. Grammatically, prosaically and with relevence.

May I suggest that each 'frame' is treated to its own (shorter) paragraph, explaining what effect it tries to convey, what logic it individually tries to follow, but where it fails and what actual forces dominate a true example. (e.g. the hull-shape, including keel, helping convert roughly lateral sideways forces into forward ones against the water; those lateral ones having already been a conversion of largely head-on winds in the first place, thus two "almost up to 90 degree" redirections of force allow very nearly a 180-degree reversal of wind-blown movement. Feel free to discuss the comparisons and differences between 'flappy sail', though blown taught by the air, and an 'upright aircraft wing' solid design. ...See, told you I could ramble, but someone can surely do better at segmenting and summarising the basics of this.) 172.71.178.32 08:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

This is super embarrassing to admit, but I came here to verify whether this was a serious thing or not. I had no idea how a sailboat sails against the wind. Catgofire (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

You aren't alone - I think I was an adult before I understood tacking in the sailboat sense of the word. 162.158.174.127 02:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm wanting to add in some wisdom about "science-y" explanations that appear to be sensible but are completely wrong, segueing into how generative language models appear to be far more reliable than they are. However this margin is too narrow Kev (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

hello 162.158.42.97 03:58, 17 May 2025

Any chance we can add an explanation of how it *actually* works? 162.158.216.174 10:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The joke is that the most commonly used explanation for why flow over a foil generates lift - particles going one way have a longer way to travel than the other, which generates a difference in speed and therefore a pressure differential - is wrong.