From: Ian Goddard (Ian@Goddard.net)
Date: Sat Feb 20 1999 - 19:38:08 MST
At 08:13 PM 2/20/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>> IAN: Michael, can you point me to a physics
>> book that explains how the atmosphere can
>> enable an object to fall faster than the
>> same object dropped in a vacuum? If not,
>> then what's your point?
>>
>
>No need for a physics book. It is rather simple. If you cannot concede this
>point you are either supremely stupid or supremely stubborn, or both:
>
>a body is moving forward in flight at 400 mph. It suddenly changes its
angle of
>attack to a negative orientation, as it stalls out, losing upward lift. This
>does not mean that it is no longer moving forward at all. A plane can easily
>stall out at any speed. Stalling is the loss of laminar flow resulting in the
>loss of lift to support a vehicle in flight, which results most easily from a
>vehicle being at an extreme angle of attack (more than 20 or 30 degrees).
When
>the vehicle stalls out, its nose drops, and will frequently drop far below a
>zero degree angle of attack. The plane will go into a dive, and the forward
>velocity, acting on the negatively oriented lifting surfaces, generate
lift in a
>DOWNWARD direction, thus accelerating the vehicle downward at a rate greater
>than that cause merely by gravity.
IAN: Mike, you're spouting nonsense. You've
explained how negative lift can occur but NOT
how negative lift can accelerate an object from
0 vertical velocity to a fall rate faster then
the fall rate in a vacuum. Please explain how
negative lift and accelerate an object faster
than the same object dropped in a vacuum.
>If you cannot understand this simple point I can scarcely understand how
you can
>make it through a day. I am sorry to everyone for the level of vitriol in my
>post, but I have really reached the end of my patience with this idiocy.
If Mr.
>Goddard cannot understand matters of extremely simple aerodynamics then he is
>scarcely someone who is even partially qualified to judge what happened to
TWA
>800.
IAN: Mike, do you still contend that the video
says it was the nose that hit at 49 seconds first,
or can you not concede even one of your errors?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:06 MST