Richard Casady wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:31:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Putting wings on a plane increases aerodynamic drag acting on the plane,
yet it increases the speed, right?

Absolutely not. For the highest possible speed you use the smallest
wing you can get away with. You do have to land. A bigger wing is
favored for short takeoff and landing, for example. A bigger wing will
make for a steeper angle of climb, at a slower speed. To increase rate
of climb, more engine power is needed. No free lunch anywhere, a good
rule to remember. The only real way to increase performance in all
areas, is to make it lighter. You can have strong, light, or cheap.
Pick any two.

Getting the plane off the ground doesn't decrease it's resistance and
increase it's speed?

Stephen

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:40:23 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote this crap:


Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.


You people are ****ing nuts. You don't have any idea of physics.






I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:45:37 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote this crap:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:18:20 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Yes, the steam would make the water move in many directions but the
point is that it's not RUNNING uphill. It's being propelled uphill.

True. However steam, water vapor is less dense than air and tends to
rise, causing thunderstorms, where rising moist air can carry liquid
water upward. The steam runs uphill, like a balloon, but the liquid
water does not, it is carried.

Uh... hot air rises. How can water vapor be less dense than air?

You ****ing assholes have no idea of science.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:43:24 -0600, "Bill" wrote:

oscillation velocity of a photon in a gravitational free fall even though
its translational speed remains constant

Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the
frequency, the more energy a photon has.

Casady

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest...lens_math.html

"Photons climbing out of a gravitating object become less energetic. This
loss of energy is known as a "redshifting", as photons in the visible
spectrum would appear more red. Similarly, photons falling into a
gravitational field become more energetic and exhibit a blueshifting. The
observed energy E_observed at radius r_observed of a photon emitted at
radius r_emitted with energy E_emitted is [7] "

"Bloody Horvath" wrote in message
...

Uh... hot air rises. How can water vapor be less dense than air?

You ****ing assholes have no idea of science.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

"The addition of water vapor to air (making the air humid) reduces the
density of the air, which may at first appear contrary to logic.
This occurs because the molecular mass of water (18) is less than the
molecular mass of air (around 29). For any gas, at a given temperature and
pressure, the number of molecules present is constant for a particular
volume. So when water molecules (vapor) are introduced to the air, the
number of air molecules must reduce by the same number in a given volume,
without the pressure or temperature increasing. Hence the mass per unit
volume of the gas (its density) decreases."



Who is the one lacking in science knowledge?

On 16 Oct, 00:11, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:01:24 -0700, Ian
wrote:

On 15 Oct, 14:19, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:31:30 -0700, Ian
wrote:

What force do you think does work against gravity to allow aeroplanes
to ascend?

Thrust from the engine, of course.

Nope. How many aircraft do you think are capable of vertical takeoff?

Handwaving. The only possible source for the increase in the
gravitational potential energy is the engines. Wings impart no energy
that is not their function. There is drag that goes with lift, and
engines have to impart energy to overcome it. I have had a commercial
pilots license for more than forty years, if you want more handwaving.

The question was not "where does the energy come from?". The question
was "what force ... does work against gravity ...?" and (save for a
trivially small downwards component) that ain't thrust.

My own aircraft has a take off mass of 370kg and no thrust whatsoever,
and yet I can get it to go up.

Not in still air.

A glider can climb in still air. Not for very long, normally, but it
can certainly climb. No thrust.

Or do you have a balloon. Those burners suck fuel like an engine, the
chief concern is having a source of energy same as with an engine.

How do you think helium balloons work?

Ian

On 16 Oct, 00:00, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:55:38 -0700, Ian
wrote:

On 15 Oct, 14:27, (Richard Casady) wrote:

Why wouldn't it accellerate indefinitely with no friction anywhere in
the system.

Kelvin-Froude actuator disk theory is your friend.

Not needed. The assumption of no friction, remember. The energy has to
go somewhere. Do extremely simple arithmetic.

The momentum has to go somewhere consistently as well. "Simple" might
work, but "simplistic" won't. Sorry.

Ian

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:00:19 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Getting the plane off the ground doesn't decrease it's resistance and
increase it's speed?

Unless the landing gear retract, there is not really that much
difference.

Casady

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:13:56 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How do you think helium balloons work?

You have me there. However, how many do you think are in use? I would
guess somewhere between zero and none. For all practical purposes they
don't exist.

Myself, I like to fly small hydrogen balloons. Dry cleaner bags. You
dissolve aluminum chips in lye to get the hydrogen.

Casady

On 16 Oct, 14:32, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:13:56 -0700, Ian
wrote:

How do you think helium balloons work?

You have me there. However, how many do you think are in use? I would
guess somewhere between zero and none. For all practical purposes they
don't exist.

Doesn't mean they don't work.

Ian