schlackoff, knock it off. you gibber worse than a gas station attendant trying
to claim degree from MIT.


Derek, you may be able to show a "force" being exerted on the rudder in this
way.
However, connect that rudder to a boat, and although this "force" may be
sufficient to pull that rudder further over (seen that), it will, EG almost
always, never be sufficient to act as a steering force for the boat to any
degree that is useable.
My apologies if I don't launch into some longwinded scientific dissertation.

Shen

Subject: push vs pull vis a vis rudders
From: (JAXAshby)


So, Jax, from this, I see you didn't understand another simple, concise comment
on the subject.
Shame you don't have any practical experience to back up and explain your
typical pontificating.
EG wanna try the inboard/outboard turning prop subject ..... didn't think so

Shen
schlackoff, knock it off. you gibber worse than a gas station attendant
trying
to claim degree from MIT.

[snip all but the important stuff from schlackoff's post]

On 28 Mar 2004 02:40:34 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

[snip all but the important stuff from schlackoff's post]

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

Time to give it up Jax, you're busted.

Fact is Feynman was right, BUT,

[Sprinkler Heads] [not equal] [Rudders]

Prop flow over rudder in reverse is small but it's there.

As a result It exerts a force against the rudder, but the effect is
small enough to be negligible for all intents and purposes.

[Small Negligible Force] [not equal] [No Force] however.

wayne, are you really saying that while Feynman was right regarding the forces
involved in water flow, he wasn't right when water flowed over a rudder?

Interesting. Should you be able to show that you can beat sher to the next
Nobel prize in physics. Hurry.

Time to give it up Jax, you're busted.

Fact is Feynman was right, BUT,

[Sprinkler Heads] [not equal] [Rudders]

Prop flow over rudder in reverse is small but it's there.

Fact is Feynman was right, BUT,

Prop flow over rudder in reverse is small but it's there.


nobody said there was no flow -- there is -- but it is stated that the total of
the forces on the rudder are zero. that's a fact of physics. accept it or
not. your choice. look like intelligent or a Luddite. your choice.

It exerts a force against the rudder,

why is that? Please explain in detail, as the physicists disagree with you.
If you are right, you stand to make a fortune on the Nobel prize money alone.

On 29 Mar 2004 03:27:38 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

It exerts a force against the rudder,

why is that? Please explain in detail, as the physicists disagree with you.
If you are right, you stand to make a fortune on the Nobel prize money alone.

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

If flow deflection takes place (rudder at angle to flow), a force is
exerted. Old news to everyone, Nobel prize not likely.

******************If****************** flow deflection takes place (rudder at
angle to flow), a force is
exerted.

*IF* is the operative word. The question is why do *you* believe there is
deflection? The physicists don't believe that. Why do you?

Wayne.B wrote in message
...
On 29 Mar 2004 03:27:38 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

It exerts a force against the rudder,

why is that? Please explain in detail, as the physicists
disagree with you.
If you are right, you stand to make a fortune on the Nobel
prize money alone.

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

If flow deflection takes place (rudder at angle to flow), a
force is
exerted. Old news to everyone, Nobel prize not likely.

Wayne,

I can imagine a description of flow over the rudder which would
meet Jax's flat (and rather unhelpful) statements, and also
square with the obvious deflection that must occur just before
entering the prop. Whether it's realistic or not is another
matter.

Perhaps water approaches the propeller via the deflected rudder
through an Ess bend. ie, water approaches a point about a third
of the way from the tip of the deflected rudder (lets call it the
stagnation point). From one side of this point, water idles off
at a steep angle to round the rudder tip, doing a hairpin bend to
run back to the prop. From the other side the water moves quickly
along the rudder surface to the prop.

Well, it's a thought. I'm off to play with bits of card and wire
to repeat Derek Rowells experiment, so perhaps I should add a few
burning fag ends to the picture?

JimB