OT: Tianjin explosion

Flat wings work. The lift to drag ratio isn't great. Look at classical windmills.

Word salad.

In reality, the compression below the wing provides about 40% of the upward force, and rarefaction above the wing the other 60%, or it did in the example that I remember from my miss-spent youth.

A helicopter rotor is just a rotating wing (admittedly with a varying angle of attack as it rotates).

In the sort of proof that AlwaysWrong can comprehend.

Air doesn't "spill off" anything, and the increased air-pressure under a moving wing contributes to lift in the same way as the decreased pressure above it.

Typos aren't evidence of intellectual incompetence (otherwise you'd make a lot more of them). In this care you are still AlwaysWrong and Jason Betts happens to be right.

But a gas is a fluid:

"Fluids are a subset of the phases of matter and include liquids, gases, plasmas and, to some extent, plastic solids."

My 1960 Physics book says that glass is a super-cooled liquid.

Have you looked at a symmetrical airfoil? I have flown aircraft and models which have such airfoils. They perform equally well whether inverted or not. Where is the lift?

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:10:09 -0500, John S Gave us:

No, gas is" fluidic" up to a point and at certain velocities.

Howard Hughes proved that liquids are compressible, but he also proved that the matrix compresses very little.

Gasses, however, are HUGELY compressible.

That is why a wing produces LIFT, and the spill beneath the wing is NOT what takes the thing upward through the stream it travels through.

Flow of a gas over (and under) a wing and flow of a liquid over (and under) a wing behave differently.

That is the very nature of my contention that fluid dynamic analysis of an aerodynamic wing structure properties is the wrong path.

It works for submarine dive planes. In air, LIFT does the 'work'.

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 05:50:40 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno w rote:

AlwaysWrong being typically daft.

And how did he do that? We'd like to know what it is that you are misunders tanding.

Not entirely true, and based on a very poor cognitive model of what's actua lly going on.

Sure. Liquids are largely incompressible, but the lift-generating behaviour is - in fact - much the same.

So it's obvious nonsense.

Capitalising a concept doesn't make it any more valid or useful."Lift" is j ust the useful part of the force acting on a structure moving through a flu id. "Drag" is the force that you normally want to minimise, though every ti me I sit in plane as it lands - and can see the wings - I can see structure s folding up out of the wings to maximise drag and minimise lift.

I think he meant that ramjets have been used but it's still wrong.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman Gave us:

It was actually a quite famous event. I am not surprised that you are unaware of it.

That is true - there is a significant difference between a gas and a liquid (except in cases of extreme pressure or temperature points, where the distinction breaks down). I don't think anyone is arguing that.

The key point of contention is the word "fluid" - there is absolutely no doubt that gases and liquids are fluids. You seem to be using the word "fluid" when you mean "liquid", and in this newsgroup people would rather get hung up on a minor detail than discuss the main issue.

If everyone stops saying "fluid", and sticks to "gas" and "liquid", then it is conceivable that progress will be made here before the thread descends into the inevitable kindergarten name-calling.

(I don't know the physics here well enough to comment on how lift works

- I am merely listening in in case I learn something interesting.)

Edited for brevity.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:07 -0400, JW Gave us:

Morphing post texts is your biggest problem (for years), and makes you a bigger putz than SlowBoy.

But neither of us is competition for AlwaysWrong, who knows everything there is to know about being a putz, and demonstrates his expertise more or less non-stop, as here.

Being AlwayWrong is *your* biggest problem (for years), and makes you a bigger putz than... well... err... Damn. Just about everyone. :)

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:10:25 -0400, JW Gave us:

Nice try, putz. You are worse than Donald Trump. With the exception that you could never make as much money, because you as dumb as a circus flea too.

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 23:28:30 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wr ote:

Donald Trump made a lot of money because he inherited a lot of money - not as much as he has now, but he could gamble on a larger scale than most of u s, and a couple of his bets paid off big. Others didn't, but if you've got a lot money to start with a few duff bets won't break you.