Latest
developments [following
the main www document]. 30th April 2007
In the last two days,
while at Robert Whiston's house in Walsall, I read a Noddy book
on "Wind" that I found on the shelves in his house. Ed
Catherall, "Wind Power", pub. Wayland 1981, ISBN 0 85340
820 3. There followed discussion with Robert.
In general, fundamental
theory is science is rather like a pot of old porridge - a congealed
mess, with the core theory somewhere inside it. The beauty of a
children's book is that a theory may be much more clearly stated
without being surrounded by confusing, "Look how clever the
writer is", paraphenalia.
Page 21, first figure,
a cross section of a wing.
The air is shown
to be moving, and that above the wing moves faster to the right
than that below the wing. Also, the lower sode of the wing is flat.
Thus, within the
framework of the text, which is about air velocity, nothing happends
on the flat underside of the wing.
The new, core realisation
is, however, that thyis is the theory of lift in a wind tunnel,
not theory of flight. In the case of flight, the air is stationary
and the wing has the velocity. This undermines the "Bernouilli"
theory at source.
Prior to the last
two days, I had thought that the problem with the established, "Bernouilli"
theory is that it is too complex, and aso confusing that it was
doubtful. Nopw I realise that its problem is much more fundamental.
From the point of view of the simplified theory or diagram on page
21, the air, far from flowing over the wing, is merely going up
and down.
The separate consideration,
that in any case the new Anderson theory is much more simple, remains
the same.
Whether a starionary
wing in a wind tunnel is the same situation for our pupose as a
qwing travelling through the (stationary) sky is an interesting
philosophical point. Probably, by pretending that theory of flight
was about a stationary airplane in a wind tunnel merely obscured
and confused the subject, making it more possible for nho young
child to point out the the Emperor has no clothes, for
the last century.
Ivor Catt 30th April
2007
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
.
1May
2007
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2606b.htm
I am interested in whether and how the newer "Newton's Second
Law" theory on flight infriltrated into the Establishment,
if at all.
I remember that at the Smithsonian in Washington DC a few years
ago they had not fully supressed the new theory, but referred to
it in an offhand way after giving the old Bernouilli theory.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology, 2002, vol.
7, p165. Today I looked through the 2002 McGraw-Hill encyclopaedia.
I found that its entry for "Theory of Flight" was a hybrid,
and seemed to give a migration from Bernouilli to Newton. Early
on it mentioned Bernouilli, but did not develop it. It then moved
into Newton. Strange. I did not manage to take a copy of it.
I note that things like Wikipedia write as if everyone always knew
the new theory, and Bernouilli is silly. However, it is not dated.
http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/11/29/the-graceful-exit-problem/
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/2644.htm
"If you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and
want to propagate it rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance
from the old practitioner - even though he sat at the feet of Faraday.....
he is very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only
give him plenty of rope, and when the new views have become fashionably
current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps,
in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make
believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!"
Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Theory Vol. 1", p337,
1893.
.