On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:59:59 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:
this will just cause
disproportionate flow around the other side, increasing impact
pressure on that side, until an equilibrium is reached. Once past
the rudder, the flow resumes its 'along the centerline' flow, so
there is no net deflection, and all 'thrust' is parallel to the
centerline.

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

Point taken and understood. I was assuming a starting condition with
the rudder parallel to an established flow, and then turned at an
angle causing a deflection and small side force. Given the general
weakness of the flow and somewhat unfocused direction, it's quite
believable that an equilibrium could be reached. Until that happens
I'm still convinced that a small amount of deflection and force would
be produced, similar to what the good professor at MIT observed with
his fan.

similar to what the good professor at MIT observed with
his fan.

what the "good professor at MIT observed" was that starting with an an empty
tube there was a tiny movement until the tube filled.

wayne, you may have noticed in your travels that water surrounds a boat in the
water, so there is no waiting for the tube to fill.

you are trying to salavage an untenable position.

JAXAshby wrote in message
...
similar to what the good professor at MIT observed with
his fan.

what the "good professor at MIT observed" was that starting
with an an empty
tube there was a tiny movement until the tube filled.


I seem to remember you damned the professor for using a metaphor
.. . .

JimB

he is a yo-yo.

candidly, when I first saw his post and noted his email address, I figured some
yo-yo hijacked his address. He claimed professional expertise in fluid flow,
but his website make no mention of such, though it does promote his "expertise"
in control systems for things such as MRI's.

similar to what the good professor at MIT observed with
his fan.

what the "good professor at MIT observed" was that starting
with an an empty
tube there was a tiny movement until the tube filled.


I seem to remember you damned the professor for using a metaphor
. . .

JimB

JAXAshby wrote in message
...

Referring to Derek Rowell:

candidly, when I first saw his post and noted his email
address, I figured some
yo-yo hijacked his address. He claimed professional expertise
in fluid flow,
but his website make no mention of such, though it does promote
his "expertise"
in control systems for things such as MRI's.

It is sad, though, that you chose to libel him rather than argue
the case. Weakens your credibility.

JimB

Jim, I limited time for frauds. in this case rowell lied straight out to us,
saying that professionally he was an expert in fluid flow. Yet, even his own
website drumming up business for his consulting services fails to mention fluid
flow experience, let alone expertise.

He choice of words right from the get go indicated his fraudulant
underpinnings. In the end you reduced himself to arguing that friction in the
rudder bearings were the reason reverse flow showed no effects on lateral
movement of the rudder.

Referring to Derek Rowell:

candidly, when I first saw his post and noted his email
address, I figured some
yo-yo hijacked his address. He claimed professional expertise
in fluid flow,
but his website make no mention of such, though it does promote
his "expertise"
in control systems for things such as MRI's.

It is sad, though, that you chose to libel him rather than argue
the case. Weakens your credibility.

JimB

sorry about the mistyping.

In the end you reduced himself to arguing that friction in the
rudder bearings were the reason

should be "he reduced himself"

That's a blatant lie, jaxie, you should be ashamed of yourself. Its one thing
to be stupid, that is your right, one which you exercise quite frequently. But
to lie so blatantly after you libel someone in unconscionable. It was clear
that the last thing you wanted was a professor of mechanical engineering
criticizing you logic, so you chased him away.

Your behavior was tantamount to admitting that you really don't know what you're
talking and were terrified of a rational discussion.



"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
Jim, I limited time for frauds. in this case rowell lied straight out to us,
saying that professionally he was an expert in fluid flow. Yet, even his own
website drumming up business for his consulting services fails to mention
fluid
flow experience, let alone expertise.

He choice of words right from the get go indicated his fraudulant
underpinnings. In the end you reduced himself to arguing that friction in the
rudder bearings were the reason reverse flow showed no effects on lateral
movement of the rudder.

Referring to Derek Rowell:

candidly, when I first saw his post and noted his email
address, I figured some
yo-yo hijacked his address. He claimed professional expertise
in fluid flow,
but his website make no mention of such, though it does promote
his "expertise"
in control systems for things such as MRI's.

It is sad, though, that you chose to libel him rather than argue
the case. Weakens your credibility.

JimB

JAXAshby wrote in message
...
Jim, I limited time for frauds. in this case rowell lied
straight out to us,
saying that professionally he was an expert in fluid flow.

Expert is a relative term. Compared to the majority of this news
group, he is a profesional expert in fluid flow. Different types
of fluid flow compared to those you were thinking of, maybe. I
speculate; hydraulics perhaps? A mere tool to him?

Yet, even his own
website drumming up business for his consulting services fails
to mention fluid
flow experience, let alone expertise.

He choice of words right from the get go indicated his
fraudulant
underpinnings.

Tut tut, Jax. Never use emotive adjectives if you're trying to
make a point among thoughtful people. As I said, it reduces your
credibility. Just let the facts speak for themselves.

JimB

JAXAshby wrote in message
...
Jim, I limited time for frauds. in this case rowell lied
straight out to us,
saying that professionally he was an expert in fluid flow.

Expert is a relative term. Compared to the majority of this news
group, he is a profesional expert in fluid flow. Different types
of fluid flow compared to those you were thinking of, maybe. I
speculate; hydraulics perhaps? A mere tool to him?

Yet, even his own
website drumming up business for his consulting services fails
to mention fluid
flow experience, let alone expertise.

He choice of words right from the get go indicated his
fraudulant
underpinnings.

Tut tut, Jax. Never use emotive adjectives if you're trying to
make a point among thoughtful people. As I said, it reduces your
credibility. Just let the facts speak for themselves.

JimB