MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. I agree posting wing turbulence is just a waste of time, nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Great video! But, alas, I'm afraid BB has lost the 'thrust' of this thread. However, the video did bring to mind an earlier plan I had to fly several 747s upstream at extremely low altitude above the river. If it doesn't work, It would still be a great air show, especially if one flew just a tad too low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 For ResX and MaxYakov Give us a rest guys, your getting bloody worse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. I agree, stop the BS and stop moving the goal posts to suit your argument. You said "propellers do not move water rearward they move the boat forward" but I countered using a jet engine as an example merely for the magnified purposes of illustration but unfortunately you needed to have the ability to extrapolate the difference in air versus water and how they flow and well you failed miserably .. It doesn't need to flow all the way to the mouth since unlike air, water is only minimally compressible it only needs to continually back up water that has already been pushed beyond the point of momentum (the boats) and the rest is physics and kinetics that takes over. Edited October 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Does a table fan push air? A table fan operates on the same principle as an airplane airfoil (wing). They are both, effectively, 'air pumps' that operate on the principle that a large volume of air, due to physical processes of interacting with the airfoil shape at an angle of attack, is accelerated downwards (in the case of an airplane wing) relative to the wing. It is not, as is commonly taught in school and textbooks, primarily due to a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing (or fan blade). Airfoil Misception Link Edited October 19, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckarooBanzai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. I agree posting wing turbulence is just a waste of time, nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Great video! But, alas, I'm afraid BB has lost the 'thrust' of this thread. However, the video did bring to mind an earlier plan I had to fly several 747s upstream at extremely low altitude above the river. If it doesn't work, It would still be a great air show, especially if one flew just a tad too low. BB is tired, good night - before I loose my ability to thrust on a personal level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Does a table fan push air? A table fan operates on the same principle as an airplane airfoil (wing). They are both, effectively, 'air pumps' that operate on the principle that a large volume of air, due to physical processes of interacting with the airfoil shape at an angle of attack, is accelerated downwards (in the case of an airplane wing) relative to the wing. It is not, as is commonly taught in school and textbooks, primarily due to a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing (or fan blade). Airfoil Misception Link Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. Edited October 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResX Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Any results from the boats available? I heard that the Royal Thai Navy inclusive with the civilian boat operators have billed the Ministry of Science of Technology for a total of 23.5 x 109 THB (give or take). I suspect there was a little padding occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. Indeed, I've actually stood 200 meters or so behind an airliner taking off and although the wind and heat are awesome I wasn't blown away. The turbulent flow behind the propeller (or jet engine) expands with distance, that means that more and more of the energy initially going in a single direction is spent in that expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! < snipped dramatic jet engine video > Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? Why? Friction with slower, river water molecules. Of course, the faster water has inertia (kinetic energy), I'd bet they don't keep it for that long due to friction. Are you on familiar ground, with this, ResX? Edited October 19, 2011 by MaxYakov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. Indeed, I've actually stood 200 meters or so behind an airliner taking off and although the wind and heat are awesome I wasn't blown away. The turbulent flow behind the propeller (or jet engine) expands with distance, that means that more and more of the energy initially going in a single direction is spent in that expansion. I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. There you have it all, GentlemanJim has spoken .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResX Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. Let me listen from you. If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong using well establish physics. No speculation. Here is my stand. If you add additional kinetic energy at one particular cross sectional area with the flow, the water at that cross sectional area will move faster. I will stop here since I don't where I'm wrong, as you say. If you say it is ok then I will continue. If it is not ok than show me what when wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Does a table fan push air? A table fan operates on the same principle as an airplane airfoil (wing). They are both, effectively, 'air pumps' that operate on the principle that a large volume of air, due to physical processes of interacting with the airfoil shape at an angle of attack, is accelerated downwards (in the case of an airplane wing) relative to the wing. It is not, as is commonly taught in school and textbooks, primarily due to a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing (or fan blade). Airfoil Misception Link Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. I missed it. What analogy were you trying to make? Forget BB, he was just out for his entertainment (i.e. trolling). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. GentlemanJim: Are you by any chance on the payroll of Thailand's Ministry of Science and Technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement.. If memory serves right it was a Boeing 767, I just checked in Google Earth and the distance from the runway and the fence at Phuket International Airport is 180 meters. I guess you can take my word for it or call me a liar, up to you. The reason the truck was thrown all the way to the water is, I presume, because it picked up enough momentum when closer to the jet blast; and surely a hollowed out chassis (notice no engine) is quite light compared with the surface area presented to the exhaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ResX Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! < snipped dramatic jet engine video > Please. Stop the BS. Take a reading 200 meters away and you will witness the dissipation of the energy. If you think thrust will move the water all the way down to the mouth of the river you are beyond help. Yes, I know about it such as Darcy resistance coefficient, boundary layer problem.. Manning equation...Navier Stoke, No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? Why? Friction with slower, river water molecules. Of course, the faster water has inertia (kinetic energy), I'd bet they don't keep it for that long due to friction. Are you on familiar ground, with this, ResX? Yes, I know about it such as what is Darcy resistance coefficient, Manning equation...Navier Stoke,, etc... You have to put thing in perspective. We are talking about relative problem here. Let us not add energy via a 1000 boats in the first place. There is still friction right? But the water still can reach the river mouth right? What make we thing that by adding kinetic energy the water will stop some where.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. Let me listen from you. If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong using well establish physics. No speculation. Here is my stand. If you add additional kinetic energy at one particular cross sectional area with the flow, the water at that cross sectional area will move faster. I will stop here since I don't where I'm wrong, as you say. If you say it is ok then I will continue. If it is not ok than show me what when wrong. ResX: It's best to ignore GentlemanJim. I don't know what his game is. I don't think you are wrong up to the point you mentioned. The water at that cross section of flow will move faster (have a higher KE/inertia). What do you think happens after that? BTW, I've had pause to consider the mechanism of the transfer of energy by a tsunami. Relatively high speed for long distances and, apparently little energy loss in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim73 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 The river is probably many meters deep and those 1000 boats only affect less than one meter surface water. Then the extra kinetic energy dissipates quite soon, water is very hard substance to move around long distances. If they turned the boats against the river flow, they would see quickly how futile this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I call BS!! 200meters? That truck was still being well pushed well beyond 200meters and the only reason it stopped was because it hit the water, what kind of airliner were you standing behind, a drone? And still it isn't about AIRFLOW that was just used to counter his point in an extreme example that, a propeller doesn't push flow rearwards it only pushes the boat forward and that is just bunk, it's counter forces that create the boats forward movement.. If memory serves right it was a Boeing 767, I just checked in Google Earth and the distance from the runway and the fence at Phuket International Airport is 180 meters. I guess you can take my word for it or call me a liar, up to you. The reason the truck was thrown all the way to the water is, I presume, because it picked up enough momentum when closer to the jet blast; and surely a hollowed out chassis (notice no engine) is quite light compared with the surface area presented to the exhaust. Not calling you a liar, just calling you misinformed. So it was significantly more then 200 meters as pointed out because the jets don't take off at the end of the runway they stage for take off several hundred meters further down the runway just for this reason, I mean come on, doesn't it stand to reason they'd begin staging at a safe distance from any potential spectators or equipment? I've been all around Phuket airport and I don't know anywhere you can get directly behind a jet while at take off? Also a jet during take off is only momentarily stationary and then it is moving away at a rapid rate of speed from you so it's not a reasonable test as if it was stationary for any length of time and the engines momentum was washing over you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckarooBanzai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Does a table fan push air? A table fan operates on the same principle as an airplane airfoil (wing). They are both, effectively, 'air pumps' that operate on the principle that a large volume of air, due to physical processes of interacting with the airfoil shape at an angle of attack, is accelerated downwards (in the case of an airplane wing) relative to the wing. It is not, as is commonly taught in school and textbooks, primarily due to a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing (or fan blade). Airfoil Misception Link Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. I missed it. What analogy were you trying to make? Forget BB, he was just out for his entertainment (i.e. trolling). When fact equals trolling then the entire framework of TV posts collapses. Do you really think science is a troll in search of the gullible? I will admit I am somewhat entertained by the lack of common sense exhibited here. What are your credentials? Chief science officer of the Thai Science Ministry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yes, I know about it such as Darcy resistance coefficient, boundary layer problem.. Manning equation...Navier Stoke, No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? Why? Friction with slower, river water molecules. Of course, the faster water has inertia (kinetic energy), I'd bet they don't keep it for that long due to friction. Are you on familiar ground, with this, ResX? Yes, I know about it such as what is Darcy resistance coefficient, Manning equation...Navier Stoke,, etc... You have to put thing in perspective. We are talking about relative problem here. Let us not add energy via a 1000 boats in the first place. There is still friction right? But the water still can reach the river mouth right? What make we thing that by adding kinetic energy the water will stop some where.? I never stated that the water would stop, nor did I mention 1000 boats. I would say that the faster water would simply eventually match the velocity of the river water as the transfer of energy occurs, marginally increasing the speed of the slower river water molecules. Then all the water molecules would be 'happy' ones traveling blissfully down the river at the same speed (very marginally higher than before) to the river's mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Does a table fan push air? A table fan operates on the same principle as an airplane airfoil (wing). They are both, effectively, 'air pumps' that operate on the principle that a large volume of air, due to physical processes of interacting with the airfoil shape at an angle of attack, is accelerated downwards (in the case of an airplane wing) relative to the wing. It is not, as is commonly taught in school and textbooks, primarily due to a pressure differential between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing (or fan blade). Airfoil Misception Link Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. I missed it. What analogy were you trying to make? Forget BB, he was just out for his entertainment (i.e. trolling). Oh crap I can't be arsed to search it Max, very early on I had tried to use a typical fan as a small scale, practical example but seemingly it was just too sophisticated for the masses to digest and the entire example was lost on most.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? ResX Please please stop. You are so wrong it is impossible to put you on the right track. You need to divert your energies elsewhere. You are not gaining an understanding of the dynamics of the situation, so you are wasting your time. There are tens of pages of complete and utter BS on this thread and it is all just futile. Let me listen from you. If I'm wrong you can prove me wrong using well establish physics. No speculation. Here is my stand. If you add additional kinetic energy at one particular cross sectional area with the flow, the water at that cross sectional area will move faster. I will stop here since I don't where I'm wrong, as you say. If you say it is ok then I will continue. If it is not ok than show me what when wrong. ResX: It's best to ignore GentlemanJim. I don't know what his game is. I don't think you are wrong up to the point you mentioned. The water at that cross section of flow will move faster (have a higher KE/inertia). What do you think happens after that? BTW, I've had pause to consider the mechanism of the transfer of energy by a tsunami. Relatively high speed for long distances and, apparently little energy loss in the process. Actually early on I mentioned this as an example too but again no joy a group of waves perpetual motion..Pebble in a pond theory.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckarooBanzai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 (edited) Eh? So a jet engine is not designed to create rearward thrust? You're losing credibility here Buckaroo... Thrust is not linear flow. If you want me to post wing turbulent flow I will but really it is a waste of time. The basis of all these arguments are about linear flow of thrust which is not the case. The thrust from props or jets are turbulent in nature. I agree posting wing turbulence is just a waste of time, nobody is talking about wing turbulence just try and stand behind a jet engine at full throttle some time, with brakes on before take off and once you've stopped tumbling like a ping pong ball in Patong a few hundred yards later and get up to wipe down your bloody arms (and that's not just using a British euphemism) then tell us again how it doesn't have rearward thrust! But don't take my word for it take theirs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyR6kuqfzU Jet engine blows away truck Lack of concentration must be your excuse. Wing turbulence and prop turbulence are pretty much the same thing except it is a lot easier to see wing turbulence. A prop is a set of vertical wings same as a helicopter rotor is a horizontal set of wings. Turbulence in air and water are the same thing. Edited October 19, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxYakov Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. I missed it. What analogy were you trying to make? Forget BB, he was just out for his entertainment (i.e. trolling). When fact equals trolling then the entire framework of TV posts collapses. Do you really think science is a troll in search of the gullible? I will admit I am somewhat entertained by the lack of common sense exhibited here. What are your credentials? Chief science officer of the Thai Science Ministry? Hey! Aren't you supposed to be out testing your 'personal thrust' or something like that? Credentials? Credentials?! I no need show you no stinkin' credentials! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim73 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 2004 tsunami causing earthquake released in Earth's surface 26 megatons of TNT, 1500 times of Hiroshima BUT the total energy released was whopping 550 million times of Hiroshima. So these 1000 boats are not going to make any difference in this flood. Drop of a drop in bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckarooBanzai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Actually very early on in this discussion (I think it was this thread anyways the content was the same) I attempted to use the example of a fan but unfortunately it went over most posters head so this time I ramped it up to a jet engine and well............ Still no joy .. I missed it. What analogy were you trying to make? Forget BB, he was just out for his entertainment (i.e. trolling). When fact equals trolling then the entire framework of TV posts collapses. Do you really think science is a troll in search of the gullible? I will admit I am somewhat entertained by the lack of common sense exhibited here. What are your credentials? Chief science officer of the Thai Science Ministry? Hey! Aren't you supposed to be out testing your 'personal thrust' or something like that? Credentials? Credentials?! I no need show you no stinkin' credentials! My thrust capability and credentials are all in order. I have not doubt your credentials are stinkin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarpSpeed Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yes, I know about it such as Darcy resistance coefficient, boundary layer problem.. Manning equation...Navier Stoke, No. Not me. As long as the water gets additional momentum for the first 50 m, the rest, to me is quite simple. The water will not give up its speed just like that based on Newton law related to inertia. Why all of sudden the water wants to slow down after it gets additional kinetic energy? Why? Friction with slower, river water molecules. Of course, the faster water has inertia (kinetic energy), I'd bet they don't keep it for that long due to friction. Are you on familiar ground, with this, ResX? Yes, I know about it such as what is Darcy resistance coefficient, Manning equation...Navier Stoke,, etc... You have to put thing in perspective. We are talking about relative problem here. Let us not add energy via a 1000 boats in the first place. There is still friction right? But the water still can reach the river mouth right? What make we thing that by adding kinetic energy the water will stop some where.? I never stated that the water would stop, nor did I mention 1000 boats. I would say that the faster water would simply eventually match the velocity of the river water as the transfer of energy occurs, marginally increasing the speed of the slower river water molecules. Then all the water molecules would be 'happy' ones traveling blissfully down the river at the same speed (very marginally higher than before) to the river's mouth. We keep mixing up water momentum with water volume, the two need to be differentiated. This process increases the water volume after the boats so therefore translates to more momentum of water flow so the momentum of the water at any point after the boats is created and continued by the increased water volume past that point as water will not flow upstream unless static prior to the added volume/momentum which in this case it is not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts