long wire antenna

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.

An airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from
flat sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpbef2.o0t.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.

Lift is still lift, whether it comes from the shape of the device or the
angle of attack. When you change the angle you increase the pressure on the
bottom. With a difference in pressure you have lift. As has been said
before, not very efficient, and not straight up, and therefore difficult to
create controlled flight.

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:07:42 -0500, Leonard Caillouet <nospam_at_noway.com> wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpbef2.o0t.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.



Lift is still lift, whether it comes from the shape of the device or the
angle of attack. When you change the angle you increase the pressure on the
bottom. With a difference in pressure you have lift. As has been said
before, not very efficient, and not straight up, and therefore difficult to
create controlled flight.

Go build an airplane using just a fin sometime. Video tape and it can
be added to all the other hilarious video footage pre wright brothers
flying machines.

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:07:42 -0500, Leonard Caillouet <nospam_at_noway.com
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpbef2.o0t.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.



Lift is still lift, whether it comes from the shape of the device or the
angle of attack. When you change the angle you increase the pressure on
the
bottom. With a difference in pressure you have lift. As has been said
before, not very efficient, and not straight up, and therefore difficult
to
create controlled flight.

Go build an airplane using just a fin sometime. Video tape and it can
be added to all the other hilarious video footage pre wright brothers
flying machines.

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpco1s.8kk.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:07:42 -0500, Leonard Caillouet <nospam_at_noway.com
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpbef2.o0t.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.



Lift is still lift, whether it comes from the shape of the device or the
angle of attack. When you change the angle you increase the pressure on
the
bottom. With a difference in pressure you have lift. As has been said
before, not very efficient, and not straight up, and therefore difficult
to
create controlled flight.

Go build an airplane using just a fin sometime. Video tape and it can
be added to all the other hilarious video footage pre wright brothers
flying machines.

I never suggested doing so. I simply pointed out that lift is a
differential in air pressure. It is often assumed to apply only to wing
shaped objects, but this is just an assumption. I don't think anyone here
seriously thinks that a straight fin in a good idea for an airplane wing.

Don't try to make an argument were there is none.

"Phil Allison"<phil_a_at_tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1_at_mid.individual.net...

"Arfa Daily"

It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and curved
on the top can produce lift.


So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
:-)



** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.

Stumps them all the time.

Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.



..... Phil



I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies. I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing, which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
believe it did say that the air actually does travel faster over the curved
face of the wing, and that the fact that it does, does produce a reduction
in pressure. However, this reduction is small, and only contributes a very
limited amount of lift, compared to the main mechanism that's at work.

Arfa

On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:33:43 -0500, Leonard Caillouet <nospam_at_noway.com
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpco1s.8kk.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 06:07:42 -0500, Leonard Caillouet <nospam_at_noway.com
wrote:
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhpbef2.o0t.aznomad.3_at_ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:47:35 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten
wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:29:02 -0600, AZ Nomad
aznomad.3_at_PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:12:26 -0500, Rich Webb
bbew.ar_at_mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily_at_ntlworld.com> wrote:

I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing
flies.

It's not really that complex. Didn't you ever, as a kid, hold your
arm
out the car window with your hand flat and "fly" it up and down as
you
changed the angle of attack? That's really all that's necessary. An
airplane could fly (if not very efficiently) with wings made from
flat
sheets of plywood.

All you've got there is an inclined plane. You aren't creating lift.

Try it without the car.

The saying goes something like: with enough power, you could fly a
brick. The lift comes from the angle of attack.

Nope. You're just describing a fin.

Lift comes from turbulance on the upper edge causing a vacuum.
Without the airfoil, what you have is pre wright brothers technology
which didn't fly.



Lift is still lift, whether it comes from the shape of the device or the
angle of attack. When you change the angle you increase the pressure on
the
bottom. With a difference in pressure you have lift. As has been said
before, not very efficient, and not straight up, and therefore difficult
to
create controlled flight.

Go build an airplane using just a fin sometime. Video tape and it can
be added to all the other hilarious video footage pre wright brothers
flying machines.

I never suggested doing so. I simply pointed out that lift is a
differential in air pressure. It is often assumed to apply only to wing
shaped objects, but this is just an assumption. I don't think anyone here
seriously thinks that a straight fin in a good idea for an airplane wing.

Don't try to make an argument were there is none.

I wasn't the idiot who suggested that waving your hand around from
a car window was an example of lift.