It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 34
1
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I understand that. I was just trying to correct your inverse correlation between speed and the strength of turbulence.

I used an undeniable, long-proven fluid mechanics principle. The Reynolds Number is used to determine turbulence in flows in many different fields since 1883.

Are you sure that the FAA wasn't implying a high AoA for slow?

If you think about it, an airplane stationary on the ground is about as slow as you can get. It's not generating any turbluence at all.

As it stands right now, I'm more inclinded to believe what my equation tells me. After all, it's been mathematically proven to be correct for 125 years.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]




posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I understand that. I was just trying to correct your inverse correlation between speed and the strength of turbulence.


Well the FAA agrees with me that speed plays a part in the strngth of the turbulence.

I guess i have to keep posting more information untill you can admit i have not lied as you acussed me of.



[edit on 10-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Speed does play a factor, and neither of us disagrees on that.

You specifically stated that as an airplane has less turbulence as it increases its speed. That is what I'm disagreeing on.

For the record, the "lie" that I said was for your statement that as an airplane increases in speed, the wake turbulence decreases.

I apologize if it seemed like I meant that you were lying about not posting that speed had anything to do with turbulence.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K

Speed does play a factor, and neither of us disagrees on that.

You specifically stated that as an airplane has less turbulence as it increases its speed. That is what I'm disagreeing on.


Now how can you agree that speed plays a factor in the strength of turbulence and then turn around and state you disagree ? I don't understand?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


When did I say that speed didn't play a factor? I've always been saying that increased speed = increased turbulence.

This is your statement: As speed increases, the turbulence decreases.

My statement: As speed increases, the turbulence increases (as long as the AoA remains constant).

Is that clear enough?

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
When did I say that speed didn't play a factor? I've always been saying that increased speed = increased turbulence.

This is your statement: As speed increases, the turbulence decreases.


But the FAA agress with me that speed plans a factor in the strength of the turbulence, and as speed incresses the turbulence decreases.





[edit on 10-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


And I have mathematically proven that that velocity is a factor and that as it increases, the turbulence of the flow increases. If you are going to upset the entinre Fluids field of 125 years of research and work, then good luck.

Re = (ro*v*x) / mu

I invite you to pick an altitude, find the air density and viscosity. Then pick the chord length of whatever aircraft you want. Then plug the numbers into the Reynolds equation and increase the velocity. Reynolds Number (level of turbulence) must increase as velocity increases.

I would like to verify that the "slow" the FAA talks about means without any AoA. The section you showed is for ATC dealing with airplanes landing and taking off.

The FAA does not deal directly with research into aerodynamic theory, but rather just as an organization to control aircraft, much like the DMV or RMV for ground vehicles.

The link I posted from NASA agrees with me. And NASA deals directly with the research into aerodynamic theory and applications.

www.grc.nasa.gov...

www.efunda.com...

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
And I have mathematically proven that that velocity is a factor and that as it increases, the turbulence of the flow increases.


Last time i repeat this,
www.allstar.fiu.edu...

The greatest vortex strength occurs under conditions of clean configuration, high weight and slow speed.


Please notice again that the greatest vortex happens as SLOW SPEED, not at HIGH SPEED.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Again, there is an implied AoA change for landing. Every single source that I have seen that says that puts the landing/take-off caveat after.

I have been constantly saying that for a fixed AoA, increasing the velocity will increase the turbulence of the flow.

I have never disagreed that if you change the AoA, the turbulence becomes less.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have a hard time believing someone is really this obtuse. And then unable to accept the easy out...



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee, all that and no evidnece to dispute the jet blast rocked the cars on the raod.


I don't think anyone disputed that an aircraft could buffet a vehicle.

And thank you for ignoring the entire point of the post which is that you continue to quote from material without actually comprehending the subject. You made it sound like all your quotes were part of a coherent argument, but when examined are not. In fact they were from two sources disputing eachother. Now that's either because you were willingly dishonest or did not take the time to fully understand the page before you quoted from it. You've done this several times. This raises (fairly or unfairly) questions about the rest of your research and conclusions.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Again, there is an implied AoA change for landing.


Too bad i am not talking about AOA, i am talking about speed.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I don't think anyone disputed that an aircraft could buffet a vehicle.


Well you need to go back and read a lot of the post then.

I stated and post evidence that jet blast was the probable casue of rocking the cars.

What so funny is that like a year ago i posted 1 of the first threads about turbulence at the Pentagon and the believers did notthing but insult me. Now that i post about jet blast they say OH NO IT WAS TURBULENCE.

I wish the believers would make up thier minds on what the believe.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Too bad i am not talking about AOA, i am talking about speed.



Alright then, I'll give you a chance. Explain fully how an airplane flying at a slower velocity produces a larger turbulence.

In your own words.

Just to show that you understand the aerodynamic principles and are not just believing what a website says.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Just to show that you understand the aerodynamic principles and are not just believing what a website says.


Shall i show you my military transcript to support the fact that i know about aerodynamic principals, i mean since you seem to avoid everything else i post?



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


No, just do a thorough explanation like I did many times for my side of the explanation. I'll take that as enough.

So far, you're the only one that's been doing the ignoring. I've commented on every one of your posts, but you have yet to actually comment on my equations and the reasoning I pulled from the equations, even though I always ask you to.

If you do know aerodynamic principles, then you should easily be able to tell me if there is a fault with the Reynolds Number indicating how turbulence a flow is. I'm not completely infallable, so if you can find a mistake there, go for it.

But if you really feel like you must post your transcript, then go ahead. I'm not going to stop you.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Just to show that you understand the aerodynamic principles and are not just believing what a website says.


Shall i show you my military transcript to support the fact that i know about aerodynamic principals, i mean since you seem to avoid everything else i post?




See, I had to pull this full quote, even though I wasn't involved in the discussion, to show the obfuscation apparent in ULTIMA's measured responses....

In this instance, it was most obvious......the circular reasoning he employs.

In the first place, this person claims to be a 'crew-chief' in the Military, and be an expert on the F-4. THEN, this person claims to work for the NSA.....that is laughable, based on the bad spelling....or else, it is scary, pick your poison.

NOW....this person answers a direct request, with a question.....again, deflecting, dodging and weaving, and showing great skills at both....but not ever supplying answers. Claims, yes. Answers.....no.

Not even a coherent sentence can this person write. Usually a one-liner, and outta here!! And gets away with it?!?!?

What is going on, here???

WW



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
No, just do a thorough explanation like I did many times for my side of the explanation. I'll take that as enough.


Oh like your going to believe that since you do not believe anythign else i post.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.that is laughable, based on the bad spelling....


What laughable is the fact that you like most believers post about my spelling and other things instead of posting evidence to debate me or support your claims.

Seems like your just proving my point that you cannot post evidence.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Here's my fair thought process.

1. You explain your side as conherently and as thoroughly as I have with mine. Use whatever aerodynamic laws and principles as you see fit.
2. I will take your explanation and put it through my textbooks, equations, and maybe some of the aerospace professors that have taught me.
3. If it does come out to be true, then I will post so here.

I have "dismissed", as you put it, your posts because they are always just cuts of an article from here or there (even if it's a professional website). Just statements when all's said and done.

I've just never read a post of yours that actually discusses the why behind those statements. If you can actually give me something to grab a hold of and look at instead of a sentence, that would make things a lot better.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by HLR53K]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join