http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x68s.htm
I find that today MIT still teach Bernouilli, no Newton.
10 or 15 years ago I found the new theory, Newton's Second Law, on the
www. It is now removed. 20 years ago the Smithsonian gave both theories, Bernouilli and Newton, hedging
their bets.
The next stage is to realise that Bernouilli and Newton are theory of lift in a
wind tunnel, not theory of flight. In the case of flight, the air is
stationary. I thought I had just thought of it, but then I found it on my
website 10 years or so ago.
It is extraordinary that all "experts" have confused the wind
tunnel case with theory of flight for so long. No wonder the electromagnetic
theory of such people is such a silly mess.
ivorcatt@gmail.com Ivor Catt 17 April 2016
The above has been on the www since
April. Why did I not hyperlink to where I previously said it 10 years ago?
Nobody has approached me over the third theory, which distinguishes between
theory of lift in a wind tunnel and theory of flight. Even if I am wrong, and
theory of lift in a wind tunnel does
give the best wing shape for flight, I should be told that I am wrong (or
right). My experience from my subject, electromagnetic theory, is that nobody
will tell me I am right, and nobody will tell me I am wrong. This will include
the authors of the second theory, who have written a book on their second
theory, which is also wrong. Will they condescend to tell me that I am wrong,
or that I am right? Will what I am saying come high in a Google search for
their names?
For a precedent to this, do a Google
search for “pepper frs”. Pepper has been
incommunicado for twenty years.
MIT still teaches Bernouilli, not their fellow Americans Anderson and Eberhardt http://www.ivorcatt.com/2606.htm
;
https://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/news/eberhardt.pdf
The late Hiram Caton taught me to
study, not just the Establishment, but also the behaviour of the whistle
blowers.
David Anderson
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Ret.
Dfa180@aol.gov
Scott Eberhardt
Dept. of Aeronautics and
Astronautics University of Washington
Seattle WA 91895-2400
scott@aa.washington.edu
How
will they react to their book being destroyed? Will they tell me I am wrong,
and their theory is indeed about flight, not merely about lift in a wind
tunnel?
Is
science gentlemanly, or ruthless, with no holds barred in the search for truth?
Is this now morphing into “no holds barred in the search for promotion, funding
and reputation? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x59b1.htm
Copy
sent to Dfa180@aol.gov
and scott@aa.washington.edu .
Of
course, MIT will teach social skills, not science. Social skill means talking
like everyone else, i.e. Bernouilli, and preferably
also thinking like everyone else. That is what makes it easier to survive in
society. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm
. MIT will tell its students how best to succeed in society, not in science.
Chomsky said that in order to publish, one cannot merely pretend to Political Correctness. One has to allow it to inhere in one's psyche. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/774b.htm
Ivor Catt 26 August 2016
There would be very big money saving if the right experiments were done, not in a wind tunnel, but carrying the proposed aerofoil a little distance in front of or above the wing of a plane in flight. Just imagine the loss of money and fuel if the wind tunnel design is wrong and increases fuel consumption by 1%. Or 5%. Anyway, are wind tunnel experiments full size, or scaled down? Perhaps someone will deign to tell me that I am wrong, and the wind tunnel correctly represents an aeroplane in flight. However, I doubt it. In electromagnetic theory, everyone (except for a few brave or foolish Italians ) is careful to not see the obvious, or to risk criticising either the fashionable or the alternative view, in case the one is wrong or the other is right. Does the same apply to the theory of flight? We shall see. – IC 26.8.16
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?id=1128662
Published on Friday, May 16, 2008
BA fuel bill to hit £3bn
in 2009
British Airways has predicted its fuel bill will rise to £3 billion in
2009, equating to a third of its overall costs.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
If the Bernoulli principle is only a small part of lift and is
only significant in limited situations, wouldn't it be a much better approach
to instead explain lift in terms of something that is always correct? For
example, Newton's principles embodied in his 3 laws are as accessible to kids
(actually much more so) than Bernoulli's principle, they are easily
demonstrated, and wing lift can always be explained in terms of these
principles. Pressure, force, lift, angle of attack, e.g., all make mores sense in light of Newton's 3 laws and is much more
teachable as well. As a teaching tool, I see little benefit in always pushing a
principle that, while applicable under certain circumstances, avoids the reals reasons why most airplanes fly. All one has to do is
look at the airfoil of a 747 or even the Wright Flyer and appeals to Bernoulli
seem untenable.
- John Strong (age 43)
Lindenhurst, IL USA
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lift.htm
Normally, one looks at the air flowing over the wing in the frame of reference of the wing. In other words, to the pilot the air is moving and the wing is standing still. We have already stated that an observer on the ground would see the air coming off the wing almost vertically. But what is the air doing above and below the wing? Figure 7 shows an instantaneous snapshot of how air molecules are moving as a wing passes by. Remember in this figure the air is initially at rest and it is the wing moving. Ahead of the leading edge, air is moving up (upwash). At the trailing edge, air is diverted down (downwash). Over the top the air is accelerated towards the trailing edge. Underneath, the air is accelerated forward slightly, if at all.