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

Groups > sci.physics > #533205 > unrolled thread

The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2015-11-14 21:45 -0600
Last post2015-11-15 20:49 +0000
Articles 14 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 21:45 -0600
    Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 04:22 +0000
      Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 05:40 +0000
        Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 04:02 -0500
          Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 19:48 +0000
          Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 14:16 -0600
        Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 08:07 -0600
          Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 19:59 +0000
            Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 14:17 -0600
        Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-15 14:15 -0600
        Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:30 +0000
          Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-11-15 21:12 +0000
            Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 21:36 +0000
    Re: The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-15 20:49 +0000

#533205 — The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-14 21:45 -0600
SubjectThe Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence
Message-ID<JpidnWHUINJbYtrLnZ2dnUU7-XcAAAAA@giganews.com>
The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence
> http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-physics-of-why-airplane-wings-oscillate-in-turbulence/

> There are two questions I think of looking at this oscillation.
> First, how large is the amplitude of oscillation? Second, why do the
> wings oscillate? Here are the answers.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#533214

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-15 04:22 +0000
Message-ID<3tdlhc-3k7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533205
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence
>> http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-physics-of-why-airplane-wings-oscillate-in-turbulence/
> 
>> There are two questions I think of looking at this oscillation.
>> First, how large is the amplitude of oscillation? Second, why do the
>> wings oscillate? Here are the answers.
 
Airplane wings do not oscillate; if they did they would fall off.

Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
impulse; that is not oscillation.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#533217

FromFabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
Date2015-11-15 05:40 +0000
Message-ID<pan.2015.11.15.05.40.20@localhost.localdomain>
In reply to#533214
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:22:27 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
> impulse; that is not oscillation.
>

I did not read the article, but any kind of turbulence should
impart a repetitive series of impulses to a wing, and thus,
although damped, the system becomes a DRIVEN OSCILLATOR.

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

#533244

Frombenj <nobody@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-15 04:02 -0500
Message-ID<cSX1y.34441$dL.22031@fx18.iad>
In reply to#533217
On 11/15/2015 12:40 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:22:27 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>>
>> Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
>> impulse; that is not oscillation.
>>
>
> I did not read the article, but any kind of turbulence should
> impart a repetitive series of impulses to a wing, and thus,
> although damped, the system becomes a DRIVEN OSCILLATOR.

Of course you didn't read anything. You prefer to remain ignorant.

A heavily damped system driven by random impulses is not a "driven 
oscillator".



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#533320

FromFabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
Date2015-11-15 19:48 +0000
Message-ID<pan.2015.11.15.19.48.32@localhost.localdomain>
In reply to#533244
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:02:00 -0500, benj wrote:

> 
> A heavily damped system driven by random impulses is not a "driven 
> oscillator".
>

You believe in ESP, telepathy, and ghosts.  Therefore, your credibility
on any matter is less than zero.

You have contagion, worse than the plague.

You are effectively covered in shit, and no one of any sensibility
would go near you.

If any others, besides this pariah, would like to chime in
then please do so.  Otherwise, the above response remains invalid.

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

#533329

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-11-15 14:16 -0600
Message-ID<n2ap6q$lth$3@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#533244
On 11/15/2015 3:02 AM, benj wrote:
> On 11/15/2015 12:40 AM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:22:27 +0000, jimp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
>>> impulse; that is not oscillation.
>>>
>>
>> I did not read the article, but any kind of turbulence should
>> impart a repetitive series of impulses to a wing, and thus,
>> although damped, the system becomes a DRIVEN OSCILLATOR.
>
> Of course you didn't read anything. You prefer to remain ignorant.
>
> A heavily damped system driven by random impulses is not a "driven
> oscillator".
>

that is true.

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

#533270

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-11-15 08:07 -0600
Message-ID<Vb2dnbx049gTDNXLnZ2dnUU7-L8AAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#533217
On 11/14/15 11:40 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> I did not read the article

   Why not?


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#533322

FromFabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
Date2015-11-15 19:59 +0000
Message-ID<pan.2015.11.15.19.59.04@localhost.localdomain>
In reply to#533270
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:07:10 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 11/14/15 11:40 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>> I did not read the article
> 
>    Why not?
>

So I could sit back and watch the dumb-fsck technical-grade puppets
give me hell for it.

Predictable lot they are.

Note: the underlying cause of predictability is stupidity.

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

#533330

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-11-15 14:17 -0600
Message-ID<n2ap8v$lth$4@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#533322
On 11/15/2015 1:59 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 08:07:10 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/15 11:40 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
>>> I did not read the article
>>
>>     Why not?
>>
>
> So I could sit back and watch the dumb-fsck technical-grade puppets
> give me hell for it.
>
> Predictable lot they are.
>
> Note: the underlying cause of predictability is stupidity.
>

so, you still have nothing of value to say about the OP.
You remain dumbass.

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

#533328

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-11-15 14:15 -0600
Message-ID<n2ap53$lth$2@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#533217
On 11/14/2015 11:40 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:22:27 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>>
>> Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
>> impulse; that is not oscillation.
>>
>
> I did not read the article, but any kind of turbulence should
> impart a repetitive series of impulses to a wing, and thus,
> although damped, the system becomes a DRIVEN OSCILLATOR.
>
>

nope, try again.

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

#533341

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-15 20:30 +0000
Message-ID<uk6nhc-40e.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533217
Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 04:22:27 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Airplane wings have very heavily damped ringing in response to an
>> impulse; that is not oscillation.
>>
> 
> I did not read the article, but any kind of turbulence should
> impart a repetitive series of impulses to a wing, and thus,
> although damped, the system becomes a DRIVEN OSCILLATOR.
 
Nope.

Yet again you have no clue.

If an airplane's wings could oscilate, that would mean they have a
resonant frequency, and if they did and if the turbulance was anywhere
near the resonant frequency, the wings would flap wildly until they
fell apart.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#533362

FromFabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
Date2015-11-15 21:12 +0000
Message-ID<pan.2015.11.15.21.12.37@localhost.localdomain>
In reply to#533341
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:30:54 +0000, jimp wrote:

> 
> If an airplane's wings could oscilate, that would mean they have a
> resonant frequency,
>

Yes, yes.  It's like the famous example of the Tacoma bridge collapse.

The Mackinac bridge, built afterwards, included sufficient damping
to prevent resonance.

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

#533372

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-15 21:36 +0000
Message-ID<0fanhc-lbe.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533362
Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 20:30:54 +0000, jimp wrote:
> 
>> 
>> If an airplane's wings could oscilate, that would mean they have a
>> resonant frequency,
>>
> 
> Yes, yes.  It's like the famous example of the Tacoma bridge collapse.
> 
> The Mackinac bridge, built afterwards, included sufficient damping
> to prevent resonance.

Must have bought a mitt as you finally caught a clue. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#533353

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-11-15 20:49 +0000
Message-ID<rn7nhc-h4e.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#533205
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Physics of Why Airplane Wings Oscillate in Turbulence
>> http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-physics-of-why-airplane-wings-oscillate-in-turbulence/
> 
>> There are two questions I think of looking at this oscillation.
>> First, how large is the amplitude of oscillation? Second, why do the
>> wings oscillate? Here are the answers.
 
The whole article is utter nonsense.

First, airplane wings are nothing like a mass and a rubber band.

The meter stick with a weight on the end is close to reality, but the
author doesn't bother to put the weight on the end then knock it off
and see how little a stiff meter stick flap about. Most will not as 
the meter stick, like an airplane wing is stiff, which means it is 
a highly damped system. Than means knocking off the weight causes
the meter stick to return to the orignal position with little to
no overshoot.

If an airplane wing were to go into oscillation, or even overshoot
much, it would soon fall apart, which is why wings are in fact a
very heavily damped system to an applied impulse.

Second, turbulance has nothing to do with localized air density 
changing the lift of the wing.

Turbulance is air with vertical movement. 

If the air is rising, the entire aircraft is accelerated upward and
the wings are momentarily unloaded, so they tend to move down.

Conversely, if the air is falling, the entire aircraft is accelerated
down and the wing loading is momentarily increase, so they tend to
move up. 

The frequency observed by this idiot has nothing to do with the
airplane wings and everything to do with the distance between
air columns and the speed of the aircraft.

This entire article is a steaming pile of shit.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web