Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #545771 > unrolled thread

Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn)

Started byJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
First post2016-01-15 18:10 -0800
Last post2016-01-31 22:28 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 53 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-15 18:10 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-01-16 09:59 +0100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 01:35 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 09:14 -0800
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:17 -0600
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:02 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:39 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:26 -0600
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 18:41 -0800
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:26 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:41 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:52 -0800
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 23:44 -0800
                    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 00:43 -0800
                      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:16 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 08:54 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:18 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 16:35 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:18 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 11:43 +1100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 19:19 -0600
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 17:46 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 20:13 -0600
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 15:47 +1100
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 21:04 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-16 23:27 -0600
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 16:57 +1100
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:21 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:21 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-17 06:32 +0000
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-16 22:43 -0800
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 10:23 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-17 23:50 +1100
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 11:05 -0800
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 14:29 -0600
        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-18 11:52 +1100
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-18 00:59 +0000
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-01-18 13:18 +1100
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 18:39 -0800
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 00:32 -0600
                Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-18 13:17 -0600
                  Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-20 10:02 -0800
                    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-20 12:58 -0600
                      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 16:38 -0800
                        Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-22 19:14 -0600
              Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-18 13:44 +0000
          Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-17 17:50 -0800
            Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-18 00:34 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-01-17 13:33 -0600
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:14 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-01-26 14:14 -0800
      Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-28 22:29 -0800
    Re: Why Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift (by James McGinn) James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-01-31 22:28 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#545971

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-16 19:19 -0600
Message-ID<n7eq8l$nn7$4@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#545958
On 1/16/2016 6:43 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
>> The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it.
>> Nobody ever has.
>
> That's a bizarre claim. How can you possibly know that?
>
> Anyway, it's not true, as you would have discovered if you'd bothered to
> look.
>
> http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf
>
> Sylvia.

he does not understand "density", nor wants too.



Uh.  There's more drag because it's wet.

You are confusing lift with traction,
where there is more traction when it's dry.


Water is a most interesting substance, and
has matter of factly many, many phases,
besides our usual water, ice, and steam.

These are usually at extremely high and
low temperature regimes, as of the super
cooled water, and live steam.

There are many an engineering and steam-
fitter's handbook with quite the few many
charts as to the behavior of water under
temperature and pressure.

In the biological realm, hydrophilicity
and the ubiquity of water as the universal
solvent is a critical component as the
medium of most molecular reactions and
molecular mechanics in respiratory cycles
and the structural folding mechanics of
proteins.

The hydrogen bond as under van der Waal's
is a weak agglomeration as of liquids, vis-
a-vis, gases, where it is a usual course
that stochastic motion as imparted by the
energy or heat of the particles leaves
them variously set and jostled.

These bonds aren't as strong as molecular
bonds as usually define molecules and thusly
their molecular or chemical properties, in
terms of the chemical elements.  They are
moreso simply the establishment of phase
(material phase) in terms of settings of
uniform media, and various aggregates,
solutions, mixes, dispersions, and such.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545981

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-16 17:46 -0800
Message-ID<d8e2fc68-da3b-4787-86c5-95eb0c2b4702@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#545958
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 4:43:50 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it.
> > Nobody ever has.
> 
> That's a bizarre claim. How can you possibly know that?
> 
> Anyway, it's not true, as you would have discovered if you'd bothered to 
> look.
> 
> http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf
> 
> Sylvia.

That's density.  Pay attention.

 Meteorologists measure the relative humidity and think that that also indicates the weight/volume. And that simply ain't so. (Meteorologist look at things very differently than real scientist. They have their narrative that they hide from the public. They are more concerned about looking scientific than they are being factual.) If you measure you know.  If you guess based on indirect evidence you are just guessing.  Reality is too complex.  People are gullible.  People are easily fooled.  People miss details and the devil is in the details.  People tend to be easily convinced by anecdote and experts. And they don't realize that very often the experts are using the same flawed methods to come to the same flawed conclusion. When meteorologists are talking about "density," you never know when they are talking about 1) the ratio of water to air or 2) the weight of air per volume.  These are two very different concepts that they employ interchangeably.  Sometimes they use them interchangeably in the same paragraph or the same sentence. And if you try to get them to clarify they throw a hissy fit and stamp off.  Meteorology is, in many respects, a belief system and not a real science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#545988

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-16 20:13 -0600
Message-ID<n7etdc$u2t$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#545981
On 1/16/2016 7:46 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 4:43:50 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
<snip troll poo>


> Those are the updates currently provided by
> Microsoft. Microsoft notes that users should not remove or block the
> updates 3044374 and 2990214 as they are used for Windows Update
> functionality and not only to upgrade to Windows 10.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546009

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-17 15:47 +1100
Message-ID<dg0kmoFf0stU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#545981
On 17/01/2016 12:46 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 4:43:50 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>
>>> The best way to know the weight/volume of moist air is to measure it.
>>> Nobody ever has.
>>
>> That's a bizarre claim. How can you possibly know that?
>>
>> Anyway, it's not true, as you would have discovered if you'd bothered to
>> look.
>>
>> http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Density_of_moist_air.pdf
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> That's density.  Pay attention.
>

They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546011

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-16 21:04 -0800
Message-ID<ddaac5a7-fdfc-447f-b5ab-20c78f022ff2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#546009
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> > That's density.  Pay attention.
> >
> 
> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
> 
> Sylvia.

Address the issue explicity, you vague nitwit.  They are not measuring 
the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight per 
volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for all other 
factors).

What did you think I meant when I stated, "Pay attention?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546014

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-16 23:27 -0600
Message-ID<n7f8po$1nnj$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546011
On 1/16/2016 11:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> That's density.  Pay attention.
>>>
>>
>> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Address the issue explicity, you vague nitwit.  They are not measuring
> the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight per
> volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for all other
> factors).
>
> What did you think I meant when I stated, "Pay attention?"
>

because you are Troll and like insulting people, and put down that pipe 
you meth head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546024

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-17 16:57 +1100
Message-ID<dg0oq7FftecU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#546011
On 17/01/2016 4:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>>> That's density.  Pay attention.
>>>
>>
>> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Address the issue explicity, you vague nitwit.  They are not measuring
> the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight per
> volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for all other
> factors).
>
> What did you think I meant when I stated, "Pay attention?"
>

Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule? Wrong discipline. 
Go into politics.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546025

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-16 22:21 -0800
Message-ID<e736304c-1162-4c95-9998-9463f0961ca2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#546024
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule? 

This misconception persists because of dimwits like yourself. Any 
evidence that remotely resembles what you have chosen you are going 
to believe is all that is needed to confirm it.  I've dealt with 
people like you over and  frickin over again.  Even after this you 
will continue believing what you want to believe because you are a 
brain dead believer who has no business in a scientific forum.

WAKE THE FUCK UP.  WHEN SOMEBODY TELL YOU TO PAY ATTENTION PAY 
FUCKIN ATTENTION.

Sylvia, do  you recognize yourself in this video:
Brawndo's got electrolytes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBML3VpbuYQ

Go off and pout.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546063

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-17 10:21 -0600
Message-ID<n7gf3o$1b32$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546025
On 1/17/2016 12:21 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 9:57:35 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule?
>
> This misconception persists because of dimwits like yourself. Any
> evidence that remotely resembles what you have chosen you are going
> to believe is all that is needed to confirm it.  I've dealt with
> people like you over and  frickin over again.  Even after this you
> will continue believing what you want to believe because you are a
> brain dead believer who has no business in a scientific forum.

James, Google "physiological projection". you are a mean troll, that is 
all, and without any scientific knowledge, nor math, nor density.

>
> WAKE THE FUCK UP.  WHEN SOMEBODY TELL YOU TO PAY ATTENTION PAY
> FUCKIN ATTENTION.

are you repeating what your mama said to you, when you poop your diaper? 
  are you drunk again ?


>
> Sylvia, do  I recognize myself in this video:
> Brawndo's got electrolytes:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBs3VpbuYQ
>
> Go off and pout.
>

troll, esad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546027

FromR Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
Date2016-01-17 06:32 +0000
Message-ID<n7fchd$1ms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546024
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 17/01/2016 4:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> That's density.  Pay attention.
>>> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
>>> Sylvia.
>> Address the issue explicity, you vague nitwit.  They are not measuring
>> the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight per
>> volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for all other
>> factors).
>> What did you think I meant when I stated, "Pay attention?"
> Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule? Wrong discipline. 
> Go into politics.
> Sylvia.

I'm confused.

Solving Tornadoes Retweeted
JABRIUM TM #@JABRIUM 13 Nov 2015
My @Quora answer to Why is moist air less dense than dry air at the same 
temperature? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-moist-air-less-dense-than-dry-air-
at-the-same-temperature/answer/Jabrium-Tm?share=1 #


-- 
Go on writing plays, my boy.  One of these days a London producer will go 
into his office and say to his secretary, `Is there a play from Shaw this 
morning?' and when she says `No,' he will say, `Well, then we'll have to 
start on the rubbish.' And that's your chance, my boy.
-- G B Shaw to William Douglas Home

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546030

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-16 22:43 -0800
Message-ID<7cd11669-7d80-4f0b-8833-d621d658f4ee@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#546027
On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:32:19 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> > On 17/01/2016 4:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> >> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> That's density.  Pay attention.
> >>> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
> >>> Sylvia.
> >> Address the issue explicity, you vague nitwit.  They are not measuring
> >> the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight per
> >> volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for all other
> >> factors).
> >> What did you think I meant when I stated, "Pay attention?"
> > Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule? Wrong discipline. 
> > Go into politics.
> > Sylvia.
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> Solving Tornadoes Retweeted
> JABRIUM TM #@JABRIUM 13 Nov 2015
> My @Quora answer to Why is moist air less dense than dry air at the same 
> temperature? https://www.quora.com/Why-is-moist-air-less-dense-than-dry-air-
> at-the-same-temperature/answer/Jabrium-Tm?share=1 #

Another perfect example of how scientific facts been relegated to popular sentiment on the internet.  More brain-dead consensus science from the imbeciles that have brought us the wonderful science of global warming.

Brawndo has electrolytes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBML3VpbuYQ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546064

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-17 10:23 -0600
Message-ID<n7gf7m$1b32$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546030
On 1/17/2016 12:43 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 10:32:19 PM UTC-8, Kym Horsell
> wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>> On 17/01/2016 4:04 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 8:47:24 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> That's density.  Pay attention.
>>>>> They're measuring weight. They're then calculating density.
>>>>> Sylvia.

>>>> the weight/volume of the air. Nor are they comparing the weight
>>>> per volume of moist air with that of dry air (controlling for
>>>> all other factors). What did you think I meant when I stated,
>>>> "Pay attention?"
>>> Is that how you do your science? Abuse and ridicule? Wrong
>>> discipline. Go into politics. Sylvia.
>>
>> I'm confused.
>>
>> Solving Tornadoes Retweeted JABRIUM TM #@JABRIUM 13 Nov 2015 My
>> @Quora answer to Why is moist air less dense than dry air at the
>> same temperature?
>> https://www.quora.com/Why-is-moist-air-less-dense-than-dry-air-
>> at-the-same-temperature/answer/Jabrium-Tm?share=1 #
>


you have lost jamie-boy,

you played your hand,

now everyone knows that you do not know any science at all

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546050

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-17 23:50 +1100
Message-ID<dg1h08FlqaoU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#545771
On 16/01/2016 1:10 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>
> Before we can answer that question there are two other truths about
> aerodynamics that we need to clarify: 1) The energy that causes lift
> in an airplane doesn't come from the engine of the airplane. The
> energy that comes from the engine of the airplane is used to overcome
> drag. The energy that causes lift comes from air pressure--it comes
> from the atmosphere itself; And, 2) there is a finite amount of
> energy per volume of air. And, therefore, there is a finite amount of
> energy that can be efficiently extracted from a volume of air. This
> is why flying faster increases lift.  flying faster allows you to use
> more air and, thereby, extract more energy from it.  But flying
> faster doesn't increase the amount of energy per volume that an
> airplane gets out of the air.

If this nonsense were correct, one would expect lift to increase 
linearly with speed. But it doesn't. It increases with the square of the 
speed.

And it is nonsense. An aircraft does not extract energy from the air. 
The lift arises from the difference in pressure above and below the 
wing. The net result is an upwards (and slightly backwards) force on the 
aircraft, and a downwards force on the air (which accelerates downwards 
in response).

>
> The reason lift is reduced in in moist air is because liquid H2O has
> a very high heat capacity, which is just a fancy way of saying that
> it absorbs energy. Specifically, it is harder to extract the energy
> from air pressure because so much of it is soaked up by the liquid
> water that is in the air. So, stating that you know moist air is
> lighter because it reduces lift is scientifically invalid. It is an
> ignorance based assertion.

How much of your life are you spending constructing this gibberish?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546097

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-17 11:05 -0800
Message-ID<5df8dabd-872c-4e4f-abb6-f6092656c5d9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#546050
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 4:50:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> If this nonsense were correct, one would expect lift to increase 
> linearly with speed. But it doesn't. It increases with the square of the 
> speed.

Energy is linear, which is what I claimed.  Being a force vector (acceleration) lift will increase is exponentially.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546110

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-17 14:29 -0600
Message-ID<n7gtka$o81$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546097
On 1/17/2016 1:05 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 4:50:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>

> Energy is linear, which is what I claimed.  Being a force vector
> (acceleration) lift will increase is exponentially.
>

continued bullshit and lies to get attention.

trolls die horrible deaths.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546168

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-18 11:52 +1100
Message-ID<dg2r9rF234fU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#546097
On 18/01/2016 6:05 AM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 4:50:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> If this nonsense were correct, one would expect lift to increase
>> linearly with speed. But it doesn't. It increases with the square of the
>> speed.
>
> Energy is linear, which is what I claimed.  Being a force vector (acceleration) lift will increase is exponentially.
>

Have you the remotest idea how ridiculous your gibberish makes you 
appear? Do you have some strange notion that what you're saying makes 
any sense?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546169

FromR Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com>
Date2016-01-18 00:59 +0000
Message-ID<n7hdd7$29l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546168
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> On 18/01/2016 6:05 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 4:50:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> If this nonsense were correct, one would expect lift to increase
>>> linearly with speed. But it doesn't. It increases with the square of the
>>> speed.
>> Energy is linear, which is what I claimed.  Being a force vector (acceleration) lift will increase is exponentially.
> Have you the remotest idea how ridiculous your gibberish makes you 
> appear? Do you have some strange notion that what you're saying makes 
> any sense?
> Sylvia.

Be the first to tell him. :)

-- 
[McGinn's theory that water vapor is nanoparticles of 10-20 molecules:]
Below it's boiling point not only is H2O not an ideal gas 
it's not a gas at all.
[...]
When water evaporates it evaporates in little clusters/droplet that 
are suspended in air due to electrostatic forces.
-- Jim McGinn aka SolvingTornadoes aka Claudius Denk, 17 Nov 2014

Specifically, I demonstrated -- definitively -- that the classical
meteorological notion that warm, moist air is lighter than cool, dry air
is false. Warm moist air is heavier, always.
In my email to meteorologists I explained the methodologies of my
experiment, which was not so much an experiment as much as it was simply
the measurement something [sic] that, curiously, had never been measured
before: the weight/volume of different bodies of air
delineated by moisture content. The procedures involved capturing
samples of different bodies of air in mason jars and measuring their
difference in weight on highly sensitive scales.
-- Jim McGinn, his book on alternative meteorology, 19 Nov 2014

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546179

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-01-18 13:18 +1100
Message-ID<dg30caF363cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#546169
On 18/01/2016 11:59 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 18/01/2016 6:05 AM, James McGinn wrote:
>>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 4:50:21 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> If this nonsense were correct, one would expect lift to increase
>>>> linearly with speed. But it doesn't. It increases with the square of the
>>>> speed.
>>> Energy is linear, which is what I claimed.  Being a force vector (acceleration) lift will increase is exponentially.
>> Have you the remotest idea how ridiculous your gibberish makes you
>> appear? Do you have some strange notion that what you're saying makes
>> any sense?
>> Sylvia.
>
> Be the first to tell him. :)
>

Oh, I doubt that that's going to be possible, and not only because he 
won't be told.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546182

FromSolving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com>
Date2016-01-17 18:39 -0800
Message-ID<6ba3a2d2-799e-465b-9aad-ebc80892b60f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#546179
On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:18:54 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Oh, I doubt that that's going to be possible, and not only because he 
> won't be told.

It's not that I don't value your opinion. It's that I don't value anybody's opinion. It's that simple. Honestly.  

Intellectually, humans are sheep.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#546201

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-01-18 00:32 -0600
Message-ID<n7i0v5$knl$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#546182
On 1/17/2016 8:39 PM, Solving Tornadoes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 at 6:18:54 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> Oh, I doubt that that's going to be possible, and not only because he
>> won't be told.
>
> It's not that I don't value your opinion. It's that I don't value anybody's opinion. It's that simple. Honestly.
>
> Intellectually, humans are sheep.
>

we can't compete with your imagination.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web