Thrust vectoring
 

BG Jeff, you still wasting time on that imbecile? The odds on him
knowing anything about real world boat handling fall into the "minuscule
to none" category.

otn


Jeff Morris wrote:
You're absolutely wrong about this jaxie. Feynman would think you're a complete
fool for invoking his "sprinkler paradox" in this case. The boat is not turned
directly by the propeller, it is turned because a water flow is pressing against
the rudder. "Push" and "pull" are irrelevant, and the water flow could even
come from a current, or the wash from another boat. For a variety of reasons,
the affect is far more powerful in foreword, but it is still there in reverse.

USSailing, and Boat/US both describe this on their websites.
http://www.videos.sailingcourse.com/...pring_line.htm
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/swlines.asp
And the Coast Guard
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/cgaux/Pub...crew/ch10d.pdf



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just

take

Feynman's word for it.


It is a fact of physics that
you can NOT control using rudder by *pulling* water over it. you MUST

push.

===================

Absolutely not true.

If there is water moving past the rudder, regardless of direction or
cause, it can be used to create a directed thrust simply by angling
the rudder away from the flow direction.

The confusion arises because the prop in forward pushes a large flow
across the rudder, whereas the prop in reverse pulls only a relatively
small amount of water across the rudder. Small, but not zero.

You don't need a degree in physics to understand this, just a little
common sense. Richard Feynman would no doubt find the discussion
amusing however.

Thrust vectoring
 

Jax,

I may not be the brightest bulb in the box, and the last physics course
I took was well over twenty years ago (I still break out in a cold sweat
when I hear the words "Virial Theorem"), so if you can explain it to me
I'd appreciate it.

How does the rudder (or the rudder stock & pintles through which the
force is applied to the hull) know whether the water flowing past it is
being pushed or pulled?

Now if you want to argue that the water flow across the rudder is so
small that the effect of the rudder is overpowered by the prop walk,
that I can buy. But to say that the water flowing past the rudder (and
being deflected by it has no effect because it's motion was started by
some mysterious sucking force makes no sense.

Because the water column being pushed aft when in forward is of constant
diameter (at least in gross terms across the distances we are toaling
about), the velocity in the column is for practical purposes constant.
resulting in a high velocity stream being deflected by the rudder and a
large resultant lateral force.

In reverse, however, there is no such water column aft of the prop. The
water is being sucked in from all directions and thus it's velocity
falls off as the square of the distance from the prop (again, we are
taling in gross terms here). This results in a comparatively slow, but
non-zero velocity as it passes the rudder. Movement of the water
(regardless of it's cause) past the rudder, and its' being deflected by
it causes a lateral force.

JAXAshby wrote:
wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just take
Feynman's word for it.


It is a fact of physics that
you can NOT control using rudder by *pulling* water over it. you MUST

push.

===================

Absolutely not true.

If there is water moving past the rudder, regardless of direction or
cause, it can be used to create a directed thrust simply by angling
the rudder away from the flow direction.

The confusion arises because the prop in forward pushes a large flow
across the rudder, whereas the prop in reverse pulls only a relatively
small amount of water across the rudder. Small, but not zero.

You don't need a degree in physics to understand this, just a little
common sense. Richard Feynman would no doubt find the discussion
amusing however.










--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG

Thrust vectoring
 

otnmbrd wrote...
Thanks. In answer to your question, yes, but "torque steer" would not
work for me, as I would be apt to apply that to "prop walk".

Yep, much more appropriate; but that leaves me with no opinion. Hope
you derive something useful here. Have you asked your students if they
have any analogies or concepts to offer when you see the lightbulb of
understanding go off in their heads that first time?

Thrust trolling
 

Yea, but he always gets an "A" in the trolling category.

--


Keith
__
What did you forget?
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
.net...
BG Jeff, you still wasting time on that imbecile? The odds on him
knowing anything about real world boat handling fall into the "minuscule
to none" category.

otn

Thrust vectoring
 

I'm always learning.
Actually, most people I get into these discussions with (I'm not an
instructor in any sense of a formal course, though I've taught more than
one "newbie") are people with experience that have a problem or need to
figure out a reason for what they are seeing/experiencing. Frequently
the discussion revolves around "inboard" turning and "outboard" turning
props (no one here picked up on that difference, which I find
interesting, yet many were concerned with using rudders when going
astern, which I was not discussing).
I'm still hoping to see some other responses to my responses, since how
others see things, can be as educational as how I see things BG.

otn

Frank Maier wrote:
otnmbrd wrote...

Thanks. In answer to your question, yes, but "torque steer" would not
work for me, as I would be apt to apply that to "prop walk".


Yep, much more appropriate; but that leaves me with no opinion. Hope
you derive something useful here. Have you asked your students if they
have any analogies or concepts to offer when you see the lightbulb of
understanding go off in their heads that first time?

Thrust vectoring
 

Boat static in slip. Put in forward gear. move rudder port and
starboard, stern moves accordingly. Put in reverse gear, again same
result. 'splain dis to me,Luci?


On 25 Mar 2004 21:57:40 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

t can
also be applied to moving ahead,

no, it can not. water *pushed* over a rudder can cause a rudder to turn a
boat, while water "pulled" over a rudder can not.

Thrust vectoring
 

geesh, jeffies, you CLAIM to have a degree in physics, yet it is plainly
obvious you don't even begin to understand what is going on.

You're absolutely wrong about this jaxie. Feynman would think you're a
complete
fool for invoking his "sprinkler paradox" in this case. The boat is not
turned
directly by the propeller, it is turned because a water flow is pressing
against
the rudder. "Push" and "pull" are irrelevant, and the water flow could even
come from a current, or the wash from another boat. For a variety of
reasons,
the affect is far more powerful in foreword, but it is still there in
reverse.

USSailing, and Boat/US both describe this on their websites.
http://www.videos.sailingcourse.com/...pring_line.htm
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/swlines.asp
And the Coast Guard
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/cgaux/Pub...crew/ch10d.pdf



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just
take
Feynman's word for it.

It is a fact of physics that
you can NOT control using rudder by *pulling* water over it. you MUST
push.

===================

Absolutely not true.

If there is water moving past the rudder, regardless of direction or
cause, it can be used to create a directed thrust simply by angling
the rudder away from the flow direction.

The confusion arises because the prop in forward pushes a large flow
across the rudder, whereas the prop in reverse pulls only a relatively
small amount of water across the rudder. Small, but not zero.

You don't need a degree in physics to understand this, just a little
common sense. Richard Feynman would no doubt find the discussion
amusing however.

Thrust vectoring
 

over the nee, you be a stew pid as jeffies.

go ahead. TRY to back that thing up.

BG Jeff, you still wasting time on that imbecile? The odds on him
knowing anything about real world boat handling fall into the "minuscule
to none" category.

otn


Jeff Morris wrote:
You're absolutely wrong about this jaxie. Feynman would think you're a
complete
fool for invoking his "sprinkler paradox" in this case. The boat is not
turned
directly by the propeller, it is turned because a water flow is pressing
against
the rudder. "Push" and "pull" are irrelevant, and the water flow could
even
come from a current, or the wash from another boat. For a variety of
reasons,
the affect is far more powerful in foreword, but it is still there in
reverse.

USSailing, and Boat/US both describe this on their websites.
http://www.videos.sailingcourse.com/...pring_line.htm
http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/swlines.asp
And the Coast Guard
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/cgaux/Pub...crew/ch10d.pdf



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...

wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just

take

Feynman's word for it.


It is a fact of physics that
you can NOT control using rudder by *pulling* water over it. you MUST

push.

===================

Absolutely not true.

If there is water moving past the rudder, regardless of direction or
cause, it can be used to create a directed thrust simply by angling
the rudder away from the flow direction.

The confusion arises because the prop in forward pushes a large flow
across the rudder, whereas the prop in reverse pulls only a relatively
small amount of water across the rudder. Small, but not zero.

You don't need a degree in physics to understand this, just a little
common sense. Richard Feynman would no doubt find the discussion
amusing however.

Thrust vectoring
 

if you can explain it to me
I'd appreciate it.

Dan, will do. it is getting late tonight. will do tomorrow.

Thrust vectoring
 

shlackoff, you are lost to this universe. metaphor does not count for squat.

btw schlackoff, did you know that the climb rate/service ceiling on a Cessna
336/337 was greater single engine on the aft engine than the forward engine?

of course you knew that.

wayne, you are out of your league.

*push* is required under the laws of physics. If you can't see that, just
take
Feynman's word for it.

I have to agree with Jax on this one. Why else do you think all
airplanes have the propellor in the back.

Steve