Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at Gender:
Posted:
May 22, 2024 - 4:16pm
Beaker wrote:
Exciting news! The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and itâs being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions.
That guy is trying to steal my electronic thing-a-mabob held together by a which-a-macaullic in conjunction with the hand made plastic dohickey and pressurized gronasteel that can circumnavigate the isolated zip skimmer every 57.5 Quadra-second.
Exciting news! The turbo-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and itâs being successfully used in the operation of novertrunnions.
From the comments on the Manley video, âmodels or analogies that will get us by until you have an interest or need for more accuracyâ
I have a feeling that NDGT was not teaching an upper-level course in physics there. You need a 20-second bit on how wings work to generate lift, there you go. Manley's attempted point that the molecules don't form a pact and agree to meet up at the other edge of the wing is pretty juvenile.
Considering how charmingly pedantic Tyson can be he deserves to be called out on this, especially since the misconception is so common.
Looking forward to him looking up the actual cause and making another video setting the record straight.
In which Neil deGrasse Tyson spews nonsense ... and gets used as an example of what's going wrong with teaching the physics of flying
Scott Manley on the fallacy of equal transit theory:
From the comments on the Manley video, âmodels or analogies that will get us by until you have an interest or need for more accuracyâ
I have a feeling that NDGT was not teaching an upper-level course in physics there. You need a 20-second bit on how wings work to generate lift, there you go. Manley's attempted point that the molecules don't form a pact and agree to meet up at the other edge of the wing is pretty juvenile.
Last I heard he was down in Truth Or Consequences New Mexico selling time shares to off- shore investors and snake oil antidote supplements at various and sundry online church socials...
In which Neil deGrasse Tyson spews nonsense ... and gets used as an example of what's going wrong with teaching the physics of flying
Scott Manley on the fallacy of equal transit theory:
Yep. But I draw a different outcome. In the real world, the wheels allow the jet to move down the runway, propelled by the engines. Without wheels, the aircraft can not move (easily). Stop all movement (bolt the aircraft to the ground, or treadmill cancels out the wheels) and the jet does not move - no matter how much thrust the engines produce. No movement - no airflow over the wings. QED ? *ignoring any destructive forces that would show up in the real world
Right, the wheels "freewheel" and provide no thrust or resistance (unless braking). So as far as the wheels having anything to do with the plane taking off, no connection.
The plane will move forward and fall off the treadmill regardless of the speed of the tread. Whether it can take off depends on how much damage it sustains when it takes off.
Last I heard he was down in Truth Or Consequences New Mexico selling time shares to off- shore investors and snake oil antidote supplements at various and sundry online church socials...
And because this is fun stuff, let's look at the obverse. If the jet were at pre touchdown speed as landing, that speed right before it landed would render the wheels on which the matched speed conveyor it landed perfectly irrelevant, for a moment; negating the instant friction and slowdown caused by the initial contact. Then having dodged the zero to lift speed co-efficient we could kick the whole conveyor rig out from under and it could hover in bliss...
Right, the wheels "freewheel" and provide no thrust or resistance (unless braking). So as far as the wheels having anything to do with the plane taking off, no connection.
No connection at all. However, there is no way to go from zero to lift/flight speed without all the speeds in between which would be face plant territory when unsupported by volumes of air forthwith lolol
The problem is presented as being on wheels and that somehow being a precondition to able flight, which of course it isn't. But, if it were just hovering there without wheels, and since flight would not be instantaneous, it would need to be able to convert air to lift via forward momentum. or something...
Sure. Just like every day and every plane. The wheels provide a frictionless surface from which to get up to speed.
In the real world, the wheels allow the jet to move down the runway, propelled by the engines. Without wheels, the aircraft can not move (easily). Stop all movement (bolt the aircraft to the ground, or treadmill cancels out the wheels) and the jet does not move - no matter how much thrust the engines produce. No movement - no airflow over the wings. QED ?
*ignoring any destructive forces that would show up in the real world
Right, the wheels "freewheel" and provide no thrust or resistance (unless braking). So as far as the wheels having anything to do with the plane taking off, no connection.
It is a challenging concept. I've managed to find myself on both sides of the argument. The key ingredient: - is there, or is there not airflow over the wings? No airflow, no liftoff (right? lol).
Beyond that, it's a bunch of wheels going very fast. And, four engines running up to full speed - think how that works in a static jet engine test stand. Those positing that a treadmill going at warp speed will create the airflow needed over the wings ... these are facts not in evidence, as the lawyerly types would say.
* assumes said treadmill can both create the speeds necessary and tolerate the mechanical abuse
I stand ready for insta-humiliation.
The problem is presented as being on wheels and that somehow being a precondition to able flight, which of course it isn't. But, if it were just hovering there without wheels, and since flight would not be instantaneous, it would need to be able to convert air to lift via forward momentum. or something...
Of course, that is the taking off scenario.
If it were already at cruising speed and somebody managed to get a flying conveyor under it, well, the point would be mute...lol
I say to ignore the wheels and belt, that's the fantasy that gets in the way of a straightforward problem: If the plane's on a frictionless surface, or hovering midair thru some spaceship magic, and the jets provide thrust, that plane is taking off.
Yep. But I draw a different outcome.
In the real world, the wheels allow the jet to move down the runway, propelled by the engines. Without wheels, the aircraft can not move (easily). Stop all movement (bolt the aircraft to the ground, or treadmill cancels out the wheels) and the jet does not move - no matter how much thrust the engines produce. No movement - no airflow over the wings. QED ?
*ignoring any destructive forces that would show up in the real world
It is a challenging concept. I've managed to find myself on both sides of the argument. The key ingredient: - is there, or is there not airflow over the wings? No airflow, no liftoff (right? lol).
Beyond that, it's a bunch of wheels going very fast. And, four engines running up to full speed - think how that works in a static jet engine test stand. Those positing that a treadmill going at warp speed will create the airflow needed over the wings ... these are facts not in evidence, as the lawyerly types would say.
* assumes said treadmill can both create the speeds necessary and tolerate the mechanical abuse
I stand ready for insta-humiliation.
I say to ignore the wheels and belt, that's the fantasy that gets in the way of a straightforward problem: If the plane's on a frictionless surface, or hovering midair thru some spaceship magic, and the jets provide thrust, that plane is taking off.
