An Introduction to Zero-Point Energy

CalPhysics.org ^

[cinFLA]

Now, cough up the evidence linking these specific posters to the funding source.

It is well documented that Soros, Sperling, Lewis, Zimmer and other new world order, anti-gun, pro-drug advocates are spending millions to get their pro-drug message out. It is well documented that spammers are paid to get their message on open forums. I will leave it to the readers to decide if one who opens almost daily pro-drug threads would be suspect as a paid spammer. If it quacks like a duck ....

[Poohbah]

It is well documented that Soros, Sperling, Lewis, Zimmer and other new world order, anti-gun, pro-drug advocates are spending millions to get their pro-drug message out.

That isn't what you are specifically alleging.

It is well documented that spammers are paid to get their message on open forums.

Fine. PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION LINKING SPECIFIC POSTERS TO PAYMENTS.

I will leave it to the readers to decide if one who opens almost daily pro-drug threads would be suspect as a paid spammer.

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

WHICH ONE IS IT?

[cinFLA]

I believe it was U of Penn that was scammed out of millions when the scammer promised returns of 100% or more in just weeks. I am really starting to question the quality at U of Penn.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!! I love it!

[tacticalogic]

If it quacks like a duck ....

And, of course, the fact that the "duck" in question is on a physics thread, going "moo" is an obvious red herring, and further proof of your assertions.

[_Jim]

"But yes, that is the same thing. "

No, it's not. It's not purely the propellor's reaction against the air in producing 'thrust' - otherwise many other *significant designs (witness: jet turbines which *do* produce pure thrust) would be in use.

"propellor blades do not behave as wings"

Uh-huh ... tell it to the Wright Brothers:

Counted among the Wright innovations was a workable propellor design that took account of the fact that planes navigate air and not water.

Until the brothers began their research, it was assumed that a water prop would suffice.

The Wrights discovered that, on the contrary, airplane propellers are essentially wings in constant rotation. This key component couldn’t be adapted from aquatic use, but would have to be made from scratch, incorporating the brothers’ latest findings.

From: http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/DupWrightFlyer.html

Note also that at *no* time have I stated that angle-of-attack plays *no* part in a prop's function ...

[_Jim]

Somethng called The Bernoulli effect comes into play - let's delve into it a little deeper -

The Angle of Attack for an Airfoil

While an airplane wing is one of the most popular examples of the Bernoulli effect , many discussions allege that the Bernoulli lift is actually a small part of the lift force which allows the aircraft to fly. You can argue that the main lift comes from the fact that the wing is angled slightly upward so that air striking the underside of the wing is forced downward. The Newton's 3rd law reaction force upward on the wing provides the lift. Increasing the angle of attack can increase the lift, but it also increases drag so that you have to provide more thrust with the aircraft engines.

Some pilots have been known to get a bit testy about their lift being attributed to the Bernoulli effect, and reply "Then how do you suppose we can fly the plane upside down?". It looks a bit tricky, but you can adjust the attitude of the aircraft when upside down to give the proper angle of attack to get lift.

The discussions of "Bernoulli vs Newton" continue, but aerodynamicists such as Eastlake take the point of view that they are ultimately equivalent models and that neither is incorrect. In his wind tunnel testing at the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Bernoulli approach is preferred because it can be tested more readily with the type of measurements which can be made in a wind tunnel. Making numerous point measurements around the airfoil and summing (integrating) them in the context of a Bernoulli model gives consistent modeling of observed lift forces.

Which is best? Bernoulli or Newton for describing lift?

Illustration of different angles of attack

---

Those who advocate the Bernoulli approach to lift point to detailed measurement of the pressures surrounding airfoils in wind tunnels and in flight. Such pressure measurements are typically done with Pitot tubes. Correlating the pressures with the Bernoulli equation gives reasonable agreement with observations.

[_Jim]

I have a EE lab example that demonstrates 'Zero Point Energy' too ...

[sourcery]

Good post.

I never said that the pressure gradient wasn't part of the mechanism. It obviously is, as the high correlation between the measurements and the Bernouli model attest.

I was not previously aware of how much controversy there has been on this subject.

It still appears to me that the entire mechanism depends upon the Laws of Motion, with the Bernouli effect being the best model of how those laws operate to enable flight. The creation of the pressure gradient depends upon the transfer of momentum by the wing/propellor to the surrounding air moleculues. In this sense, the motion of the propellor creates Bernouli effect lift by "pushing against" (and hence compressing/decompressing) the surrounding atmoshpere.

In other words, I think the distinction between the two alternate explanations is imaginary. It's the Third Law at work, but Bernouli explains the details.

[sourcery]

I have a EE lab example that demonstrates 'Zero Point Energy' too ...

Proof of existence? Or demonstration of usable extropic energy source?

[_Jim]

Proof of existence?

... more along the lines of a demonstration of the concept, which I would say works towards the proof of existance ...

It involves two identical, but different, in-phase travelling waves emanating from two different (separate) sources (to insure no 'tricks' are involved) terminating in a resistive (IOW 'real') power dissapating load (again, to eliminate the possibility of 'tricks') ...

[cinFLA]

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

Poohbah spams again.

[Poohbah]

You really dislike being caught out as a lying piece of Hillary, don't you?

[PatrickHenry]

Nice spam job. The check's in the mail.
-- The Soros Organisation

[Poohbah]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sure it's in the mail. And sure it'll actually clear this time.

[cinFLA]

The two lowest forms on earth. Telephone solicitors that call at dinner time and professional spammers.

[cinFLA]

I thought about trying to set him straight on Newton, mass, and inertia. Then I read the rest of the thread, and thought better of it. I can bang my head against a wall in the comfort of my own home, if it comes to that.

Obviously at a loss of words? Or just at a loss?

[cinFLA]

One quibble, however: propellor blades do not behave as wings. The pressure difference caused by the difference in camber between the upper and lower surface of the blade is negligible or nonexistent; there is no Bernoulli effect, no aerodynamic lift. The pressure difference arises strictly through angle-of-attack.

Now I know you are really dumb! DUMB!

[cinFLA]

In other words, I think the distinction between the two alternate explanations is imaginary. It's the Third Law at work, but Bernouli explains the details.

This all started because I took exception to the statement that a "propellor pushes" against the air/water. A commnon statement that leads the uneducated to believe that you must "push against" something to get thrust. That is, the water that is accelerated by the propellor has to push against more water in order to provide thrust. This concept leads to the next question; "Gee, how does a rocket work in space if there is "nothing to push against?"

Now we have Mr. Physicist so enraged that he is making statements such as "propellors have no airfoil effect"!

[tpaine]

Wait a minute. You said that it was "documented" that these people were paid. Now, you're saying that these people are merely "suspect."

Poohbah spams again.
252 -cin-

Nope, 'cin' lies again.

You said early on here that it was 'documented' that I, -tpaine- was paid by the Soros group.

You simply lied, as anyone can see from your lack of even an attempt to post proof.
You have no honor or credibility left at FR.

Get lost.