Bryce Ring

There is a challenge on that first link. Page 92 post #1378 PS Hi Brandano I am guessing your in here somewhere

Why is Oberth effect now the relationship between V and KE? I thought that relationship was explored long before Mr. Oberth? Why is Oberth effect now not how to and why you get a Higher AP? Isnt that where it was coined. The Oberth effect AFAIKnew was the exploitation of How KE can be most effectively gained such as the way LostOblivion described, and with the how and why it is effective relative to orbital maneuvers. Without a gravitational influence the oberth effect is useless as an exploit for orbital mechanics. What is eK without an Opposing force (A Relative force) such as Gravity air or clay for that matter. ?? These are honest questions. Please don't think I am digging or defending a thought, I just want to know. To understand Oberth effect. Would I need to first understand eK and then apply the principals to orbital maneuvers ? Thanks;) Bryce. If I had to sum it up, I'd just say, let gravity do all it can to increase your Velocity, then, once Gravity is no longer Increasing the Speed part of your Velocity, IE Gaining Altitude now, Use your deltaV so as to reduce time in local Gravity as you climb, allowing more Momentum to be converted to Potential energy.

lol, you guys.... I'm seriously thinking of going to Thailand now. just need to develop some sort of portable shelter. maybe just wear lots of silk and a full face helmet. I'm not sure, but I think this next video might be CGI

Thai Rocket festival, Has any one posted this stuff before ? one interesting run away event around 6min mark. is it the spinning or the ring that provides most stability. or is it both. no doubt there is a lot of balancing to be done and that would most definatly include thrust. I have not been able to get any good close up pictures off the net, any one know if it is one single chamber or one pipe bamboo with its segregations serving individual "rocket vents" black powder supply. Apparently this happens in May. ?? Before anyone guesses. it is not a rotor that gives lift. its all thrust from the rockets. original thread "I have only just this past week discovered this" can be found here http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2325569

Come to Mars the new penal colony, where your cause for conviction took place during the journey.

Hook up two of those to turn each other on Or they could play I Spy...

I think the greater effect will be the Venturi re design of the heat sink. would swirling help or hinder as the air passed through a constriction, IE Not sure if having many circular holes or long wide constrictions would be better. Sorry I didn't mention the venturi before, I was forgetting if it was Bernoulli or venturi that noted the temperature drop when air is allowed to accelerate. why are so many of you all on laptops ? doesn't every one have bulky Desktops ? It was my original thought to mod a desktop, that's where most of the enthusiast PC modding is done. should have said that desktop in the first place, sorry about that. Wow. This is too much discussion a little of topic, I fear I am Hijacking the thread. Sorry so much Doogey.

thanks matt I stuck a coke bottle over an older CPU cooler I had (stock cooler for intel CPU) on my desktop PC, this made sure the air had to come in from the part of the heatsink radiator furthest from the fan and then pass through all of the fan. same could be done with tape. can not see this being done to easily to a laptop. the air was then drawn off with a vacume cleaner, got good results, but dam was it noisy I did not manage at the time to run the stock cooler fan with this set up, changes thought to just pointing my air con vent towards my PC. then I just thought, its about time for a new PC. then new PC is crammed with fans and the CPU cooler has a push pull (Blow on blow away setup) , I have had no problem with the fan working in the Blow away set up, It is still working well despite being in the hot side of the flow (Knock on wood).

The 100% figure (to me) was referring to all air affected directly (from bottom of wing) and indirectly from air above the wing. the air above the wing was caused to move down due to the pressure gradient which was caused by the wings interaction, but the wing did not need to interact in a direct Newtonian sense with that air above the wing. I have a feeling (I know it is for sure with helicopters) that the kinetic energy of the air that is moving down is more than the weight of the aircraft. I tested a helicopter hovering over a scale and the force on the scales was more than the weight of the helicopter at rest, For the helicopter I think this was due to induced flow.

Hi Matt. big side note here. Just wondering, been wondering this for a long long time actually. would it be better to have a CPU GPU fan blow air over a heat sink radiator, or to have the fan turned around so that it allows air to accelerate over the heat sink radiator on its way to the fan where the fan then blows the air away. PS no doubt a new heat sink radiator design which takes advantage of this would need to be used. Your thoughts ? Curiously yours Bryce.

PEace love n Equilibrium Bro.

Anyone know about this. I want to play with it

K^2 true true. I almost always jump in. I tend to learn more that way. been wrong many times and right for reasons I didn't fully understand. made corrections to my assumptions and corrections to those. it takes time. but in the end we can all stick out hand out the window and form a shape and feel the effect, we know it as push or a force. I have been thinking these last few days, How would some one go about describing all the motions and forces involved on and around an airfoil and the air that is affected as a result of its motion through the air, without using one key concept, that key concept is Pull, or Suck, or any other word that suggests attraction (Particularly between the wing and the air) Maybe I should start a thread, Does Aerodynamics Suck? or do wings suck ? Or to address the ultimate question., What sucks? I'm sure it may attract a few, but .... it will probably get pull down in the end. But I can't see them coming out well, and no doubt I would get flamed for trying to create some "New Politically Ccorrect Hippy Lovin "Its all circular!" Aerodynamic Theory. Any thread name suggestions ? Ohhh, never mind, I cant see anyone actually learning anything new from it, But I just know some one would (After having read that that thread) jump into a forum discussion about lift and use the very concept to describe. Hang on wait. Am I wrong. is it true that you can describe lift without using that concept ?

have either of you discussed this on RCGroups. sounds familiar. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1539175 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1610771 http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1479190 some nasty buggers in that group. Not like here. I like KSP's attitude towards grumpy attitudes etc. though I dislike how it can close a thread. Here is a nice little short one. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1227290

you might want to think more about this. I know it is well versed that induced drag is from air spilling in from the wing tip. But I would like to think more about the order of actions. the part I wish to address is. "Induced drag is a function of downwash strength" can I have you think about this suggestion. Induced drag is a function of force vectors acting on the wing that are not perfectly up (Opposite weight etc) so what are the force vectors acting on the wing ? draw a wing and then draw many force vectors for each cm^2 of its surface. now sum up all the vectors into one total reaction (not worrying about CoG at this time) just one vector. break that vector down to two vectors . one being opposite flight path, the other being opposite weight. It has been a while since I thought much about lift and stuff, am I missing something? "Induced drag is a function of downwash strength" strength of downwash ? would the strength not be the same at high AoA? what are we talking about when we say strength ? I can understand that High AoA will result in the above visual I invited you to think about having a total reaction force with more rearward direction in its vector. this I would think would be due to the Angle of the surface area being acted upon by the air ? do the same drawing, and one thing you may notice is the number of vectors per cm^2 now pointing more rearward (relative to flight path). Are we talking about different things. lift induced drag and wing tip spill induced drag ? personally I am thinking that the only thing that wing tip spill does is increase the pressure above the wing and thus require you to increase your AoA to compensate. (and to a lesser degree lower the pressure below the wing) Lower AoA are associated with faster flight. and thus the wing tip spill has less effective time to increase the air pressure above the wing. Higher AoA are associated with slower flight and thus the wing tip spill has more effective time to increase the air pressure above the wing. Can you see my conundrum ? or am I just losing it ?

this part needs to be addressed. air accelerates as a consequence to the pressure gradient. a pressure gradient can be created by different means, but as for a wing it is the appearance of a void on the top side that causes it. the air is accelerated downwards as a consequence to the pressure gradient. its hard to measure the amount of force absent from the top side of the wing by looking at the amount of air that was caused to accelerate downwards due to the height of the area effected and the differences velocity change with height. air accelerates as a consequence to the pressure gradient. the pressure differences on the wing result in lift, the pressure differences around the wing change the velocity of the air. but if that air above the wing did not come down the lift would still be there, IE if you flew a wing inches from a ceiling you would have no air from above to accelerate down, but you would actually have more lift. this is in response to the above clip of you post. My possibly wrong assumption is that the whole paragraph is talking about the air above and its acceleration downwards. I was thinking you are suggesting that because the air above the wing accelerated downwards the Newtonian action reaction principle could be applied. yes you are right. lol I did not check who the 151 figure was coming from in the first instance. It was actually from Bill Phil http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...=1#post1716268 my mistake. Getting tired now. I will think more about the V^2 relationship Maybe K^2 knows how to explain it to the simple minded such as me ... I will probably be thinking all day tomorrow about lead balls dropping at different heights into Clay.

I have never heard this so well put. I have always understood that there is a V^2 component to force, but I never really understood with such great mental pictures as to why, I had always Just accepted it as magic lol. Thanks. PS I was curious as to the 151m/s being expressed as 151m/s^2 was that just a mistype ? the ^2 part on the end bit ?

Sadly yes. the shooting bullets at a wing action reaction is not all there is to it. there is an element to that theory that is close to what is happening but the major effect that causes lift is the pressure differential between top and bottom. this thought you showed can touch on how air pressure below the wing can be higher than the un effected air at same height but you need to include viscosity in the thoughts to get a better understanding of how the high pressure is created. but it is not the greater of the two. the greater cause for the differential air pressure is the low air pressure region above the wing. remember its not because the air accelerated that the air pressure was lowered. it was because the air had some where to go with less resistance that its path appeared to have changed and this is the acceleration. the effect of a low pressure region caused lift and acceleration. not the acceleration causing low pressure and lift.

What is 151 m/s^2 ? Enormous drag is always acting on the wing. this is the total reaction force. though, it is usually broken up into two vector quantities, being desired and undesired. the wing is to be designed to withstand this total reaction force, in all possible vectors. and all possible quantities. if it is not able to withstand these, it should be marked and conveyed to the pilot these are the limitations. there is the gold..... super sonic flight sees letters being sent, Dear Daniel ........... sub sonic see letters being sent, Dear Isaacboth letters get returned, What the ! I never said.... and I still don't believe it "Men can fly now ????" Leonardo was right ?

I think you got it backwards. from the outside observer the thing falling in will appear to travel close to the speed of light as it falls in. to the object falling in the speed will appear to be even greater due to time dilation effects affecting perception of time. for those that say nothing can ever fall in. are stuck in time reference frames. its a bit like the riddle about the three men booking a hotel for a football night crash pad. they each pay 100 for the 300 per night room and head on up to the room to get ready for the game. the manager heard the clerk and reminded him that the room is only 250 for football night, so the clerk walks up to give back 50. but on the way up he cant do the math on how much to give each man. so he decided to give back just 10 each and keep 20 for himself. on the way down he is still trying to do the math. he figures. "they each paid 100 initially, and I gave them back 10 each so they all paid 90 each now. so 3 times 90 = 270...... and the 20 in my pocket makes ? objects fall into a black hole. those falling in start to travel at very fast speeds. as a result they experience time dilation that makes them to the outside observer move slowly (this time dilation does not affect their velocity as a whole, it only affects the hands on a clock they hold and every orbit of every atomic particle in them) time on the clock they are holding to those falling in may appear to be normal. but as they observe the outside world, it may appear to be in a state of fast forward. and as that is , the black hole coming to them begins to happen even faster, it may appear to happen faster than the speed of light, but it didn't really, it was just that they were slow in perception.

Hmm. with enough thrust to weight, you can rocket any thing around hanging from the prop. Think about the following requirement/restrictions Minimum glide ratio "calm day testing". (Or points based on the ratio, More glide = More points) Maximum thrust to weight ratio. Other bonus points may be Slow Flight Capability. these are some of the true tests of Aircraft Design that tests Aerodynamic knowledge.

So embarrassing, I had it backwards, now it TRULY makes sense, going to hide under a rock for a while. - - - Updated - - - Nuke, that image is awesome.

I am having a hard time understanding the different Graph curves that are shown when Googling this title. As far as I knew the pressure decreased more per gain x amount of altitude as you gain altitude, this made sence to me as there was less air in the lower pressure atmosphere to press down on you. This is how I thought it worked. http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html But wiki and some other sources say that the decrease in pressure is less per altitude gain per altitude gain such as. is this just because it follows a constant 15c and 0%humididty ? Help.

Bob that link had some garbage at the end of the link address. %EF%BB%BF http://exoscientist.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/nasa-technology-transfer-for-suborbital.html%EF%BB%BF this one worked. http://exoscientist.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/nasa-technology-transfer-for-suborbital.html

anything that can predict and indicate how close you are to the "YGD" point while coasting at reduced TWR to get a more shallow turn shape (Ya Gana Die)