Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
Viktor Schauberger might agree with you. You might also consider Mr. Grimer's Beta-atm list on Yahoo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Inside out. Outside in. Perpetual change." BTW, it *was* the lattice ions. -Original Message- From: Rick Monteverde Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, more or less, while answering that notion that the air travels further & faster over the top, etc. *causing* the differential. I don't agree with that version. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Paper published
Paper published, "A reconciliation of Quantum physics and Special Relativity" http://www.wbabin.net/stats.htm enjoy Frank Znidarsic
RE: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
Bill - >There are no forces on the surface of a wing EXCEPT >those of air pressure. > >If you disagree... then you need to explain in detail >what these non-air-pressure forces are. > >But I already know the answer. It's simple: Pressure >differentials explain 100% of the lifting force, while >flow-deflection (the acceleration of fluid masses) also >explains 100% of the lifting force. These are simply >two independant ways of attacking the problem. Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, more or less, while answering that notion that the air travels further & faster over the top, etc. *causing* the differential. I don't agree with that version. >But the incoming air will fill the vacuum chamber, with >the wave travelling at roughly the speed of sound! >In human time scale, as soon as you open the valve >and generate an air jet, significant air pressure >appears on the OTHER side of the wing. You can't >just claim that the pressure there is insignificant, >instead you have to measure it, millisecond by millisecond. The pump is large compared to the small jar volume, and once that dense air in the jet disperses, which it does very quickly, density and pressure get pretty low pretty fast before much of it swirls around underneath the foil. To see it and its scale is convincing. Seeing my writing about it isn't. >If you can show that air can PULL on a curved wing >(i.e. create an absolute negative pressure,) >that's something very interesting. Yup. It's been shown too, but not by me. Google should bring it up with words like van der Waals, airfoil, boundary layer, etc. Why else would a flow stick against a surface and follow it down around a curve like that? I never finished construction on it, but I started a rig where the airfoil sat on a membrane with good vacuum under the membrane in a separate chamnber from the air above the foil. Air jet would hit the top of the foil as before, but the whole bottom side would be against the membrane. Pump would keep the air above at as low a pressure as possible while the jet shot across the foil surface. I figure the foil would still rise into the airflow, pulling up on the membrane with the certain-to-be-lower pressure below it. Maybe simpler to use a split chamber with water instead of air? - Rick
RE: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
Harry - I did the vacuum experiment years ago so details are a little hazy, but basically it was a jar with a small diameter (1/8" I.D. I think)tube sticking through the lid. Inside the jar was a small airfoil section made of modelling clay, suspended vertically with the tube pointing at the front/top surface. Basically like the spoon/faucet setup, but with an air jet instead of a faucet. Vacuum pump is high capacity relative to the small air inlet capacity, so when allowing air to flow in through the tube, the vacuum still stays fairly high - so all the significant air action is just the flow hitting the top side of the foil. The foil pulls into the airflow, just like the spoon in a water flow. And I'm pretty sure, mitigated by the absence of any real measurement, that the pressure on the top of the foil was mostly higher than on the bottom. - Rick -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 5:43 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed Rick Monteverde wrote: > Harry - > > I think the wedge effect is the bulk of a real wing's lift. Concurrent > with running a wedge through material, you get pressure differential. > But the cause of the differential is not from faster flow above than > below the curve, etc., it's just a wedge piling up compressible > material on its underside. Contributing also is reaction mass as I've > described, but I can't guess the proportion, and it no doubt varies > with reynolds number - but I think its usually significant. Lastly is > viscous drag on the reaction mass heading downward. I suspect that's > the smallest component on steady-state wings and may be costly in > terms of power spent, but comprises a large lift component in cyclic > wings. OIW "lift" is a composite from several sources in different > proportions depending on wing shape, angle of attack, Reynolds number, > etc. > > Agreed? > Almost I did the spoon-under-the-faucet experiment and it is very persuasive. However, could you please describe your apparatus with the vacuum pump in more detail. I am not intending to replicate the experiment, but I would like to know how you detected a lifting force. Thanks, Harry
Re: Dr. Cornet
Thanks for the tinyurl which sometimes results in funny codes: "dzaft"? If you're still into that sort of thing, Dr. Randall has been having a go at Dr. Michael "Exopolitics" Salla lately. http://www.kevinrandle.blogspot.com/ -Original Message- From: OrionWorks I've included an abbreviated "tiny" URL to the above web site as the data assembled IS worth looking at. http://tinyurl.com/dzaft I wish both Kevin and Don: Good hunting. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
William Beaty wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Rick Monteverde wrote: > >> I don't believe the pressure differential is the full source of lift, > > There are no forces on the surface of a wing EXCEPT those of air pressure. > > If you disagree... then you need to explain in detail what these > non-air-pressure forces are. > > But I already know the answer. It's simple: Pressure differentials > explain 100% of the lifting force, while flow-deflection (the acceleration > of fluid masses) also explains 100% of the lifting force. These are > simply two independant ways of attacking the problem. There is no > competition between a "Bernoulli" viewpoint and a "Newton" viewpoint. > This is just another way of saying that the Bernoulli equation ends up > obeying Newton's laws. Or in other words, if the water is deflected, > there MUST be a pressure differential which causes a lifting force... and > if there is a lifting force, then the water MUST be deflected. I don't think the two explanations are equivalent. During level flight the Bernoulli explanation DOES NOT predict that the fluid leaving the wing tip will be directed downwards. Harry
Re: Dr. Cornet
From: hohlrauml6d > Not really. Just one of the flashbacks they always promised us. > > You might be happy to know that Bruce is back doing his first love, > paleoentomology. Here's a very interesting work of his: > > http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/sunstar/Why02/why.htm That is indeed delightful news. I suspect Dr. Cornet may get better notoriety (or at least better respect) in his detailed knowledge of paleoentomology. If memory serves me correctly I believe had uncovered evidence that is considered revolutionary, at least within the field of paleoentomology. I think it was related to the discovery of fossilized pollen that had always been considered not possible in those pre-historic times. Not my area of expertise! ;-) Dr. Cornet has had a rough go at it at times in his life, both in public and personal. I hope this turns out to be a good turn of events for him. > He did a brief stint with Robert Bigelow's NIDS when Bob bought > that ranch which allegedly had a stargate on premise. Bob > dumped NIDS funding shortly after Bruce moved out there. > AAMOF, this also nailed Eric Davis who is now employed by > (drumroll) EarthTech! Bob's building space hotels now. > > For those who do not know Dr. Coronet, here is some of the material > of which we speak: > > http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/HomePage/power_point_presentations.htm I've included an abbreviated "tiny" URL to the above web site as the data assembled IS worth looking at. http://tinyurl.com/dzaft > AAFIK, Bruce never (publicly) decided if he was dealing > with aliens or black ops. > > I never knew Don Schmitt; however, I do Kevin. BTW, > it's Dr. Randall now; and, if his side of the story is > true, I agree about Don. I noticed Kevin got is degree too. Congratulations are indeed in order. I've met Kevin as well, but I'm much more acquainted with Mr. Schmitt. I noticed Kevin recently published a work of fiction, presumably based on the Roswell legend. (Regarding the word *fiction* there's a bit of an inside joke there. ;-) ) Meanwhile, it would appear that Mr. Schmitt as been able to redeem his public UFO researcher reputation in the last couple of years. You may have recently seen him on the SciFi channel as one of the consultants to the Roswell Dig program hosted by Bryant Gumbel. I wish both Kevin and Don: Good hunting. Life goes on, warts and all. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Dr. Cornet
Not really. Just one of the flashbacks they always promised us. You might be happy to know that Bruce is back doing his first love, paleoentomology. Here's a very interesting work of his: http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/sunstar/Why02/why.htm He did a brief stint with Robert Bigelow's NIDS when Bob bought that ranch which allegedly had a stargate on premise. Bob dumped NIDS funding shortly after Bruce moved out there. AAMOF, this also nailed Eric Davis who is now employed by (drumroll) EarthTech! Bob's building space hotels now. For those who do not know Dr. Coronet, here is some of the material of which we speak: http://www.sunstar-solutions.com/AOP/HomePage/power_point_presentations.h tm AAFIK, Bruce never (publicly) decided if he was dealing with aliens or black ops. I never knew Don Schmitt; however, I do Kevin. BTW, it's Dr. Randall now; and, if his side of the story is true, I agree about Don. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 9:39:32 -0600 Subject: Dr. Cornet From: hohlrauml6d Have you hosted Dr. Bruce Cornet's works? Very astute observation. ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: OT: Subscribing to the Knowledge of the Gods
From: Wesley Bruce ... > I missed the whole show. I'm on the other side of the planet > so a few hours of flame war goes unnoticed as I sleep. Sorry > if I have caused any friction but I can't see that much > excess heat in the war. ;-) You've managed to keep your composure despite my underhanded attempts to put you on the defensive. I like a man who is true to his school. You're an honorable man, Mr. Wesley. And now, back to those fascinating flapping bee wings. Steve Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Dr. Cornet
> From: hohlrauml6d > > Have you hosted Dr. Bruce Cornet's works? Very astute observation. Yes, I did back in the 1990s - and for several years I might add. I met Dr. Cornet at a convention where I attended some of his lectures and slide shows. Back then I had just created my orionworks.com web site, where my art and that of my wife continues to reside today. Back then, I noticed that I had additional web space available for other projects and decided that maybe including Dr. Cornet's controversial research into anomalous phenomenon might be a worthy cause. It turned out to be a delight to work with Dr. Cornet. It was all his work, I might add. All I did was scan and format a prodigious amount of data and place it out on my web site. Dr. Cornet was also extremely gracious for allowing me to host his works - and that always helps too. As the years went by and as my own web site continued to evolve it became clear to me that it was time that Dr. Cornet acquire his own web site rather than continue to be an umbrella site under mine. I needed to consolidate my personal projects, and I think Dr. Cornet needed to do the same as well. We worked out the logistics of the transition. I haven't corresponded with Dr. Cornet in a number of years. I enjoyed the time when I had hosted his data. To be honest, I don't know what to make of his research even to this day. I hope Dr. Cornet continues to be doing well. FWIW: Back in the 1990s my web site also hosted a few publications from another UFO researcher, Donald Schmitt, co-author of several definitive ROSWELL Crash site books. I continue to keep in touch with Mr. Schmitt since he lives within driving distance of me. My experience of working with Cornet and Schmitt was that several of these UFO researchers seem to occasionally live colorful lives. Many are also all too human like the rest of us and occasionally make unwise decisions in their personal lives that can adversely affect their public persona. I noted that there often seemed to be competition between rival researchers. While there can occasionally exist successful collaborative efforts (such as several Schmitt & Randall publications on the Roswell crash) all too often these working relationships seemed to eventually break down (sometimes spectacularly) - and betrayal and bitter animosity resulted poisoning the atmosphere for all to see - and take advantage of. This can and has been used in attempts to discredit their UFO research - guilt by association. Meanwhile, much of the public doesn't seem curious and/or smart enough to look past these human fragilities that we are all susceptible to and simply focus on the impressive am! ount of UFO data they have compiled. This personal analysis of mine is directed more at Schmitt than at Cornet. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: OT: Secrets of bee flight revealed
At 08:16 pm 06/12/2005 -0800, Bill Beaty wrote: >On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Almost I did the spoon-under-the-faucet >> experiment and it is very persuasive. > Watch out though, since water can support > significant negative pressures. > Or in other words, water in vacuum does > not cavitate unless seed-bubbles are > present, or unless you can produce a > negative pressure. > If you have a piston in a water-filled > cylinder, and you put the whole thing > in a good vacuum, you can pull on the > piston and it will not move. You have > to pull hard before the water cavitates > and "breaks open" to allow the piston > to move. I've seen this effect in > little glass tubes containing water > and hard vacuum. You can create a > tall water column in the upper part > of a tube which is supported only by > attraction to itself and to the glass, > with hard vacuum below. Give the column > a whack, and a tiny bubble appears and > expands, and the column below the bubble > falls rapidly down the tube (and goes > "clank" when it meets another water column > in the bottom of the vertical tube!) > Water really can attract. As good an explanation of reduced Beta-atmosphere pressure as one could wish for - from an arbitrary external data pressure of zero, that is.8-) (cf. 0 degrees C.) Frank Grimer
