Editing Talk:2678: Wing Lift
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | : Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
::"Unrelated"? How so? The wing is an aeroplane, as you describe; the vehicle fitted with said aeroplanes is now referred to by the same name. They now mean different things, but, in as much as the one created the other and they are superficially identical, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for their being "totally unrelated". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 09:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC) | ::"Unrelated"? How so? The wing is an aeroplane, as you describe; the vehicle fitted with said aeroplanes is now referred to by the same name. They now mean different things, but, in as much as the one created the other and they are superficially identical, there doesn't seem to be much of a case for their being "totally unrelated". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.245|172.70.90.245]] 09:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | :There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
::You seem to be describing the "equal transit time fallacy". Air going over the top of a wing doesn't necessarily have to travel further (that depends on the shape of the airfoil), and even if it does that doesn't in itself imply anything about the pressure. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ::You seem to be describing the "equal transit time fallacy". Air going over the top of a wing doesn't necessarily have to travel further (that depends on the shape of the airfoil), and even if it does that doesn't in itself imply anything about the pressure. [[User:Zmatt|Zmatt]] ([[User talk:Zmatt|talk]]) 20:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though. | Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 27: | ||
::We usually do no make this kind of references, but just links to them. Also therefore I do not know how to make the ref section, and would also prefer it was just a link to something usefull. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ::We usually do no make this kind of references, but just links to them. Also therefore I do not know how to make the ref section, and would also prefer it was just a link to something usefull. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::I agree there must be a much better link for this than a half century old book, but I put a <tt><references/></tt> tag before the transcript. I'm not sure if you wanted it there exactly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC) | :::I agree there must be a much better link for this than a half century old book, but I put a <tt><references/></tt> tag before the transcript. I'm not sure if you wanted it there exactly. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.49|172.70.210.49]] 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
