Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Aviation > Aeronautics (aircraft design and construction) > The wrong "Bern...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 1 Topic 1235 of 1291
Post > Topic >>

The wrong "Bernoulli" explanation in Sci. American for April 2005

by newborg@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Jul 26, 2006 at 11:50 AM

> A recent issue of Scientific American carries a mind virus! :)
>
> In the "Working Knowledge" column, the author presents an incorrect and
> long-debunked explanation of how wings work:
>
> "because the wing top is curved, air streaming over it must travel
> farther and thus faster than the air passing underneath the flat bottom.
> According to Bernoulli's principle, the slower air below exerts more
force
> on the wing than the faster air above, thereby lifting the plane."
>
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=9&articleID=00009993-1F9A-1417-9F9A83414B7F012B
>
>
> The above explanation is wrong, and is known as the "Equal Transit-Time
> Fallacy."    This incorrect explanation is widespread among children's
> books, but I'm suprised to see it in a reputable magazine like SciAm.
>
> It's debunked here:
> NASA GRC:  Incorrect lifting-force theory #1
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html
> http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html
>
>
> Also see other debunkings:
> Anderson/Eberhardt: a physical description of flight
> http://www.aa.wa****ngton.edu/faculty/eberhardt/lift.htm
>
> Denker: How Airplanes Fly
> http://www.av8n.com//how/htm/airfoils.html#sec-inverted-camber
>
> Irrotational inviscid flow: Streamline animations
> http://www.idra.unige.it/~irro/profilo1a_e.html
>
> Or just ask yourself this:  if airfoils *must* be more curved on
> top, doesn't this prove that symmetrical airfoils cannot work,
> and that upside-down flight is impossible?


Very curious that not even a respected magazin like Scientific American
does not understand the physics of flight!

Bernoulli equation seems to very misunderstod by americans, even
respected universities and Professors should know better about the
physics!

To change a veolocity a change in force is needed!

There is no other way around!

I asked for years for an explanation of the airflow thru the Windsock,
seen at every air****t.

I seems like Bernoulli equation does not explain the Windsock very
good!

Some person has destroyed Otto Lilenthal Museum exibition in Anklam,
Germany, by putting some Bernoulli rubbish in the halls!

I asked if Otto Lilienthal himself wrote the false explanation, but that
had been done by the museum chief!


jan-olov newborg
 




 1 Posts in Topic:
The wrong "Bernoulli" explanation in Sci. American for April 200
newborg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-07-26 11:50:35 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sat Sep 6 18:34:54 CDT 2008.