Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

Alan, your day is coming.

Swan wrote:LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

Alan, your day is coming.

I am not Alan. So much for your wanting to discuss Bernoulli.

PS. Can you spare some stable element 115 for my prototype one million years between recharges leaf blower with the one third cubic centimeter battery?

CIAO

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift.

Not quite. If you actually understood the Bernoulli principle, you would understand how the airfoil increases the pressure differential as velocity increases (P[under] - P[over]) which increases the intended lift.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

Alan, your day is coming.

I am not Alan. So much for your wanting to discuss Bernoulli.

PS. Can you spare some stable element 115 for my prototype one million years between recharges leaf blower with the one third cubic centimeter battery?

CIAO

Yep, Alan always says "I'm not Alan". What people will wonder Alan is why is it okay for you to cyber bully and stalk me for over 18 years? When Bill F. posted that it was a beautiful thing that you were grooming me, that proves human trafficking.
What you might do is make forum owners responsible for their forums. At present they can say that they are merely collecting data to sell and that's the purpose of their website.
And what people might wonder about you Alan is if you've actually molested kids. You did threaten to call my "daddy" if I wasn't a good little boy for you. There is no police department in Homer, Louisiana so would be a good place for a child molester to live.
Myself, I think it will be easy for me to prove human trafficking. And who knows, because of people like you, identities might need to be verified. This would mean that you wouldn't enjoy the anonymity that you're enjoying now.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

Alan, your day is coming.

I am not Alan. So much for your wanting to discuss Bernoulli.

PS. Can you spare some stable element 115 for my prototype one million years between recharges leaf blower with the one third cubic centimeter battery?

CIAO

Yep, Alan always says "I'm not Alan". What people will wonder Alan is why is it okay for you to cyber bully and stalk me for over 18 years? When Bill F. posted that it was a beautiful thing that you were grooming me, that proves human trafficking.
What you might do is make forum owners responsible for their forums. At present they can say that they are merely collecting data to sell and that's the purpose of their website.
And what people might wonder about you Alan is if you've actually molested kids. You did threaten to call my "daddy" if I wasn't a good little boy for you. There is no police department in Homer, Louisiana so would be a good place for a child molester to live.
Myself, I think it will be easy for me to prove human trafficking. And who knows, because of people like you, identities might need to be verified. This would mean that you wouldn't enjoy the anonymity that you're enjoying now.

If you were molested by Alan you should seriously speak to law enforcement.

https://www.usa.gov/report-crime#:~:text=Report%20organized%20crime%20to%20the,800%2D225%2D5324).

Child abuse and neglect:

Call 911 in an emergency.
Contact your state child protective agency.
Contact the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline:
Call 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453).
Text 1-800-422-4453.
Report abuse through live chat.
Child pornography

File a report online at CyberTipline.org.
Call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).
International kidnapping

If your child is still in the U.S., call 911. And learn from the Department of State how to stop a child abduction in progress.
If a parent or legal guardian has abducted your child and taken them abroad, contact:
Your local law enforcement
The Department of State Office of Children's Issues
Human trafficking

File a report online at CyberTipline.org.
Call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).

Please do the right thing and make the call, if not for you do it for the next victim

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Unfortunately climate scientists don't understand how cool the Earth's atmosphere is. The Moon's orbit around the Earth suggests that there's more going on than has been acknowledged.
An example is when is the Moon closest to the Earth and the farthest from it? When the Moon is closest to the Earth is at night. This is quite "revealing". Why you ask? This shows that the Sun's gravitational field influences the Moon's orbit around the Earth.
And as a result the Moon's gravity influences the Earth's gravitational field. If it didn't then there couldn't be a high tide on the side of the Earth that's away from the Moon. Without a line of sight gravitational effect, how does the Moon influence the tide?
This gets very much into dark matter and gravitons. And this might also get into how the flow of air over the wing of a plane changes its velocity. The Moon might create a similar effect with how gravitons interact with the Earth and its gravitational field.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidefrequency.html

LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift. That said your misunderstanding or faked misunderstanding for nefarious purposes is not shared by my 130



When in doubt, buy more Apples

189.91 USD
+189.82 (210,911.11%)all time
Closed: Nov 30, 6:17 PM EST * Disclaimer
After hours 190.15 +0.24 (0.13%)

Alan, your day is coming.

I am not Alan. So much for your wanting to discuss Bernoulli.

PS. Can you spare some stable element 115 for my prototype one million years between recharges leaf blower with the one third cubic centimeter battery?

CIAO

Yep, Alan always says "I'm not Alan". What people will wonder Alan is why is it okay for you to cyber bully and stalk me for over 18 years? When Bill F. posted that it was a beautiful thing that you were grooming me, that proves human trafficking.
What you might do is make forum owners responsible for their forums. At present they can say that they are merely collecting data to sell and that's the purpose of their website.
And what people might wonder about you Alan is if you've actually molested kids. You did threaten to call my "daddy" if I wasn't a good little boy for you. There is no police department in Homer, Louisiana so would be a good place for a child molester to live.
Myself, I think it will be easy for me to prove human trafficking. And who knows, because of people like you, identities might need to be verified. This would mean that you wouldn't enjoy the anonymity that you're enjoying now.

If you were molested by Alan you should seriously speak to law enforcement.

https://www.usa.gov/report-crime#:~:text=Report%20organized%20crime%20to%20the,800%2D225%2D5324).

Child abuse and neglect:

Call 911 in an emergency.
Contact your state child protective agency.
Contact the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline:
Call 1-800-4-A-CHILD (1-800-422-4453).
Text 1-800-422-4453.
Report abuse through live chat.
Child pornography

File a report online at CyberTipline.org.
Call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).
International kidnapping

If your child is still in the U.S., call 911. And learn from the Department of State how to stop a child abduction in progress.
If a parent or legal guardian has abducted your child and taken them abroad, contact:
Your local law enforcement
The Department of State Office of Children's Issues
Human trafficking

File a report online at CyberTipline.org.
Call the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-THE-LOST (1-800-843-5678).

Please do the right thing and make the call, if not for you do it for the next victim

It's okay Alan, I'm coming for you.

Swan wrote:


No one who knows you believes that you are, okay.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift.

Not quite. If you actually understood the Bernoulli principle, you would understand how the airfoil increases the pressure differential as velocity increases (P[under] - P[over]) which increases the intended lift.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift.

Not quite. If you actually understood the Bernoulli principle, you would understand how the airfoil increases the pressure differential as velocity increases (P[under] - P[over]) which increases the intended lift.

Both are wrong.

Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one. This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface. The same air moves over both surfaces. The top surface will have air moving faster, due to the increase length it must travel to meet the air from the bottom. Thus, the air on top has lower pressure than the air on the bottom, since it's dynamic pressure is higher it's static pressure (the pressure the airfoil 'feels') is less.

Because air has mass, the effect of the airfoil on the air occurs both well BEFORE the airfoil and long AFTER the airfoil. Before the airfoil, air has to commit to going over or under the airfoil. That happens well before the leading edge of the airfoil itself. After the airfoil passes, the total air is actually pushed downward and away.

It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down. Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

An airplane requires gravity to fly. It's (as Buzz Lightyear once said) falling with style. If there is no gravity the airplane cannot fly. It floats instead.

As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

The effect is to induce the wing to rotate downward (actually to rotate around and around as it falls). To keep the wing from doing this, a 2nd wing is built somewhere else on the aircraft (usually a tail wing, known as a conventional design; or a leading wing, known as a canard design, or built like a duck).

This 2nd wing keeps the primary wing form rotating. Without it, the whole aircraft would nose down and around over and over, falling out of the sky.

The main wing keeps the aircraft up, the little wing keeps the little end DOWN and is an airfoil actually mounted upside down to do that (for tail wings).

The vertical fin is also a wing, but built to be symmetrical, creating equal lift on either side. Without it, the aircraft would 'Dutch roll' off to one side (probably the left for most propellers) and the aircraft would head for the deck out of control, very possibly going inverted.

There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky. The '2nd wing' is actually built into the main wing (such wings have a pronounced sweep, and use the tip as the '2nd wing'). These things also have usually TWO vertical fins mounted at the wing tip. Another way to get that stability is by using a high dihedral angle on the wing, but like I said, it's cranky. It takes a good pilot to handle the thing and it's tiring to fly it.

Propellers are wings as well, just rotating and producing a thrust as 'lift'. They too have a NACA or NASA airfoil. That airfoil differs in dimension due to the different speeds the propeller has from root to tip.

Helicopter and Gyrocopter blades are the same thing, just like a large horizontal propeller blade.

In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing. A wing's primary purpose is to shove air around, whether it's a primary wing on an aircraft or a blade on a common desk fan.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


No one who knows you believes that you are, okay.

Alan, You should've called my "daddy" and told him I'm a little boy who needs to be disciplined. You didn't make the call.
I can't tell people why a "grownup" like you would call my "daddy" and get me in trouble. I must be a "bad" "little boy".

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:LOL, if you actually understood the Bernoulli equation you would understand how the shape of an airfoil decreases pressure as velocity increases which creates the intended lift.

Not quite. If you actually understood the Bernoulli principle, you would understand how the airfoil increases the pressure differential as velocity increases (P[under] - P[over]) which increases the intended lift.

Both are wrong.

Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one. This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface. The same air moves over both surfaces. The top surface will have air moving faster, due to the increase length it must travel to meet the air from the bottom. Thus, the air on top has lower pressure than the air on the bottom, since it's dynamic pressure is higher it's static pressure (the pressure the airfoil 'feels') is less.

Because air has mass, the effect of the airfoil on the air occurs both well BEFORE the airfoil and long AFTER the airfoil. Before the airfoil, air has to commit to going over or under the airfoil. That happens well before the leading edge of the airfoil itself. After the airfoil passes, the total air is actually pushed downward and away.

It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down. Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

An airplane requires gravity to fly. It's (as Buzz Lightyear once said) falling with style. If there is no gravity the airplane cannot fly. It floats instead.

As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

The effect is to induce the wing to rotate downward (actually to rotate around and around as it falls). To keep the wing from doing this, a 2nd wing is built somewhere else on the aircraft (usually a tail wing, known as a conventional design; or a leading wing, known as a canard design, or built like a duck).

This 2nd wing keeps the primary wing form rotating. Without it, the whole aircraft would nose down and around over and over, falling out of the sky.

The main wing keeps the aircraft up, the little wing keeps the little end DOWN and is an airfoil actually mounted upside down to do that (for tail wings).

The vertical fin is also a wing, but built to be symmetrical, creating equal lift on either side. Without it, the aircraft would 'Dutch roll' off to one side (probably the left for most propellers) and the aircraft would head for the deck out of control, very possibly going inverted.

There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky. The '2nd wing' is actually built into the main wing (such wings have a pronounced sweep, and use the tip as the '2nd wing'). These things also have usually TWO vertical fins mounted at the wing tip. Another way to get that stability is by using a high dihedral angle on the wing, but like I said, it's cranky. It takes a good pilot to handle the thing and it's tiring to fly it.

Propellers are wings as well, just rotating and producing a thrust as 'lift'. They too have a NACA or NASA airfoil. That airfoil differs in dimension due to the different speeds the propeller has from root to tip.

Helicopter and Gyrocopter blades are the same thing, just like a large horizontal propeller blade.

In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing. A wing's primary purpose is to shove air around, whether it's a primary wing on an aircraft or a blade on a common desk fan.

Bernoulli's principle applies to fluid dynamics. That has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Into the Night wrote: Both are wrong.

Into the Night wrote: Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

Into the Night wrote: The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

Into the Night wrote: As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

Into the Night wrote: A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one.

Into the Night wrote: This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface.

Into the Night wrote: It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down.

Into the Night wrote: Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

Into the Night wrote: An airplane requires gravity to fly.

Into the Night wrote: As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

Into the Night wrote: There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky.

Into the Night wrote: In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Both are wrong.

I have to disagree.

As airspeed increases, pressure decreases. The wings force the airspeed over the wing to be greater than the airspeed under the wing. The pressure over the wing decreases more than the pressure under the wing. This means that the pressure under the wing is greater than the pressure over the wing.

The technical term for this is "lift."

Into the Night wrote: Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

If the airplane is not moving, there is no pressure differential. The pressure above the wing equals the pressure below the wing, and thus lift, i.e. P[under] - P[over], = 0. Only when the plane is moving is there lift.

You have to apply Bernoulli's principle to the airflow over the wing and to the airflow under the wing. The difference is (one component of) lift.

Into the Night wrote: The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

... for each of the two calculations, then the resulting lift is the lower pressure over the wing subtracted from the higher pressure under the wing, i.e. the difference.

Into the Night wrote: As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

As speed increases, air pressure decreases proportionally to the speed squared, which increases the pressure differential between the pressure under the wing and the pressure over the wing.

Into the Night wrote: A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one.

Exactly. This translates into greater airspeed over the top of the wing, and thus lower pressure over the top of the wing. This means there is greater pressure under the wing than over the wing. This differential is lift.

Into the Night wrote: This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface.

Exactly. The air above the wing moves a greater distance in the same amount of time, i.e. greater speed.

Into the Night wrote: It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down.

That's only one component of lift, and it's not the Bernoulli principle component. Lift from the Bernoulli principle is proportional to the velocity squared. What you are describing is the component that generates lift at the cost of generating drag.

Into the Night wrote: Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

Correct.

Into the Night wrote: An airplane requires gravity to fly.

It's more like the atmosphere needs gravity to have any pressure.

Into the Night wrote: As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

At the back of the wing, air wants to shoot upward into the lower pressure.

Into the Night wrote: There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky.

The B-2 bomber is a flying wing that uses elevons that are completely controlled by computers because otherwise, a human pilot would not be able to prevent it from tumbling.

Into the Night wrote: In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing.

Gliders are designed to maximize the lift component from the Bernoulli principle and to minimize lift from drag.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Both are wrong.

I have to disagree.

As airspeed increases, pressure decreases. The wings force the airspeed over the wing to be greater than the airspeed under the wing. The pressure over the wing decreases more than the pressure under the wing. This means that the pressure under the wing is greater than the pressure over the wing.

The technical term for this is "lift."

Into the Night wrote: Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

If the airplane is not moving, there is no pressure differential. The pressure above the wing equals the pressure below the wing, and thus lift, i.e. P[under] - P[over], = 0. Only when the plane is moving is there lift.

You have to apply Bernoulli's principle to the airflow over the wing and to the airflow under the wing. The difference is (one component of) lift.

Into the Night wrote: The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

... for each of the two calculations, then the resulting lift is the lower pressure over the wing subtracted from the higher pressure under the wing, i.e. the difference.

Into the Night wrote: As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

As speed increases, air pressure decreases proportionally to the speed squared, which increases the pressure differential between the pressure under the wing and the pressure over the wing.

Into the Night wrote: A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one.

Exactly. This translates into greater airspeed over the top of the wing, and thus lower pressure over the top of the wing. This means there is greater pressure under the wing than over the wing. This differential is lift.

Into the Night wrote: This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface.

Exactly. The air above the wing moves a greater distance in the same amount of time, i.e. greater speed.

Into the Night wrote: It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down.

That's only one component of lift, and it's not the Bernoulli principle component. Lift from the Bernoulli principle is proportional to the velocity squared. What you are describing is the component that generates lift at the cost of generating drag.

Into the Night wrote: Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

Correct.

Into the Night wrote: An airplane requires gravity to fly.

It's more like the atmosphere needs gravity to have any pressure.

Into the Night wrote: As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

At the back of the wing, air wants to shoot upward into the lower pressure.

Into the Night wrote: There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky.

The B-2 bomber is a flying wing that uses elevons that are completely controlled by computers because otherwise, a human pilot would not be able to prevent it from tumbling.

Into the Night wrote: In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing.

Gliders are designed to maximize the lift component from the Bernoulli principle and to minimize lift from drag.

In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?" The point of the piece was a simple question: What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field.

What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift. "There is no simple one-liner answer to this," he told the Times. People give different answers to the question, some with "religious fervor." More than 15 years after that pronouncement, there are still different accounts of what generates lift, each with its own substantial rank of zealous defenders. At this point in the history of flight, this situation is slightly puzzling. After all, the natural processes of evolution, working mindlessly, at random and without any understanding of physics, solved the mechanical problem of aerodynamic lift for soaring birds eons ago. Why should it be so hard for scientists to explain what keeps birds, and airliners, up in the air?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Both are wrong.

I have to disagree.

As airspeed increases, pressure decreases. The wings force the airspeed over the wing to be greater than the airspeed under the wing. The pressure over the wing decreases more than the pressure under the wing. This means that the pressure under the wing is greater than the pressure over the wing.

The technical term for this is "lift."

Into the Night wrote: Bernoulli's principle simply makes use of dynamic pressure (pressure due to speed) and static pressure (pressure at no relative speed).

If the airplane is not moving, there is no pressure differential. The pressure above the wing equals the pressure below the wing, and thus lift, i.e. P[under] - P[over], = 0. Only when the plane is moving is there lift.

You have to apply Bernoulli's principle to the airflow over the wing and to the airflow under the wing. The difference is (one component of) lift.

Into the Night wrote: The total pressure is the pressure of the two added together.

... for each of the two calculations, then the resulting lift is the lower pressure over the wing subtracted from the higher pressure under the wing, i.e. the difference.

Into the Night wrote: As speed increases, total pressure remains the same. Dynamic pressure increases at the expense of static pressure.

As speed increases, air pressure decreases proportionally to the speed squared, which increases the pressure differential between the pressure under the wing and the pressure over the wing.

Into the Night wrote: A typical NACA or NASA airfoil (such as the popular Clark airfoil) creates a longer path for air over the top surface than the bottom one.

Exactly. This translates into greater airspeed over the top of the wing, and thus lower pressure over the top of the wing. This means there is greater pressure under the wing than over the wing. This differential is lift.

Into the Night wrote: This means the air moving over the top surface must move further than the air moving over the bottom surface.

Exactly. The air above the wing moves a greater distance in the same amount of time, i.e. greater speed.

Into the Night wrote: It can be described better that a wing stays up by pushing the air around it down.

That's only one component of lift, and it's not the Bernoulli principle component. Lift from the Bernoulli principle is proportional to the velocity squared. What you are describing is the component that generates lift at the cost of generating drag.

Into the Night wrote: Even an angled flat plate has lift. The airfoil shape has BETTER lift due to the Bernoulli effect.

Correct.

Into the Night wrote: An airplane requires gravity to fly.

It's more like the atmosphere needs gravity to have any pressure.

Into the Night wrote: As air passes over an airfoil like the Clark airfoil, a downward moment of pressure occurs at the leading portion, as air is forced up and over the top. Once past about 1/3 of the length of the airfoil, air wants to continue in a straight line (due to mass) but the airfoil is tapering away, creating a suction point, and a lifting moment AFTER the thickest part of the airfoil.

At the back of the wing, air wants to shoot upward into the lower pressure.

Into the Night wrote: There ARE such things as flying wings (no visible leading or trailing 2nd wing) but they are cranky.

The B-2 bomber is a flying wing that uses elevons that are completely controlled by computers because otherwise, a human pilot would not be able to prevent it from tumbling.

Into the Night wrote: In every case, all Bernoulli's principle does is produce a more efficient wing.

Gliders are designed to maximize the lift component from the Bernoulli principle and to minimize lift from drag.

And yet what allows for plane's to stay in the air is open for debate;

In December 2003, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the first flight of the Wright brothers, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?" The point of the piece was a simple question: What keeps planes in the air? To answer it, the Times turned to John D. Anderson, Jr., curator of aerodynamics at the National Air and Space Museum and author of several textbooks in the field.

What Anderson said, however, is that there is actually no agreement on what generates the aerodynamic force known as lift. "There is no simple one-liner answer to this," he told the Times. People give different answers to the question, some with "religious fervor." More than 15 years after that pronouncement, there are still different accounts of what generates lift, each with its own substantial rank of zealous defenders. At this point in the history of flight, this situation is slightly puzzling. After all, the natural processes of evolution, working mindlessly, at random and without any understanding of physics, solved the mechanical problem of aerodynamic lift for soaring birds eons ago. Why should it be so hard for scientists to explain what keeps birds, and airliners, up in the air?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/

https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmosphere/air-pressure

Where airliners fly, the air pressure is between 200 - 250 millibars. What you're saying is that when the air moves up from the leading edge that the leading edge does not create an equal downward force, right?
Can I respectfully disagree sir?

James_ wrote:
Alan, you've just proven that you're fat, stupid and ugly as well as illiterate. Step away from your computer and skip lunch. Go for a walk and then after that, read a book.
This particular discussion requires a mathematical solution and I don't see it. If you were literate then when you read the article you would have known what they meant when they said that the math isn't known but what allows for flight is known.
And when I call you fat and stupid, I am teaching you the same way you claimed to use as a way to teach me.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Alan, you've just proven that you're fat, stupid and ugly as well as illiterate. Step away from your computer and skip lunch. Go for a walk and then after that, read a book.
This particular discussion requires a mathematical solution and I don't see it. If you were literate then when you read the article you would have known what they meant when they said that the math isn't known but what allows for flight is known.
And when I call you fat and stupid, I am teaching you the same way you claimed to use as a way to teach me.

LOL first you claim that because a NY Times writer does not know how wings create lift that the Bernoulli equations do not exist, then I explain otherwise. Then your schizzo brain turns me into your overweight father Alan who you claim abused you as a child.

Take your Thorazine already

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Alan, you've just proven that you're fat, stupid and ugly as well as illiterate. Step away from your computer and skip lunch. Go for a walk and then after that, read a book.
This particular discussion requires a mathematical solution and I don't see it. If you were literate then when you read the article you would have known what they meant when they said that the math isn't known but what allows for flight is known.
And when I call you fat and stupid, I am teaching you the same way you claimed to use as a way to teach me.

LOL first you claim that because a NY Times writer does not know how wings create lift that the Bernoulli equations do not exist, then I explain otherwise. Then your schizzo brain turns me into your overweight father Alan who you claim abused you as a child.

Take your Thorazine already

When I leave the U.S. Alan it'll be known that it's your right to stalk me while saying you like the guy who molested my 2 oldest brothers. And at besslerwheel they said I need your approval if I want to post in there about my work on Bessler's Wheel which you say can't work.

And it'll be known that Alan sits at his computer doing searches and creating fake accounts so he can stalk me. And it'll be funny when Alan witnesses his faith in Jesus when he told me that my parents should do this for him;
Luke 18:16-17 KJV But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Yep, Alan wanted my parents to suffer me to him because that is what the perfect word of God says to do. It shows how he's like Jesus only Jesus did not write the Bible while John the Baptist did.

p.s., What's that at his left hand? Is that pills that he says I need to be taking? If I need to be taking them then why does he have them? And swanee also posted at besslerwheel that the church will support him sodomizing me. That's a scary thought and the church would support him. The church refused to let me have a family because I have to let the church exploit me.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Alan, you've just proven that you're fat, stupid and ugly as well as illiterate. Step away from your computer and skip lunch. Go for a walk and then after that, read a book.
This particular discussion requires a mathematical solution and I don't see it. If you were literate then when you read the article you would have known what they meant when they said that the math isn't known but what allows for flight is known.
And when I call you fat and stupid, I am teaching you the same way you claimed to use as a way to teach me.

LOL first you claim that because a NY Times writer does not know how wings create lift that the Bernoulli equations do not exist, then I explain otherwise. Then your schizzo brain turns me into your overweight father Alan who you claim abused you as a child.

Take your Thorazine already

When I leave the U.S. Alan it'll be known that it's your right to stalk me while saying you like the guy who molested my 2 oldest brothers. And at besslerwheel they said I need your approval if I want to post in there about my work on Bessler's Wheel which you say can't work.

And it'll be known that Alan sits at his computer doing searches and creating fake accounts so he can stalk me. And it'll be funny when Alan witnesses his faith in Jesus when he told me that my parents should do this for him;
Luke 18:16-17 KJV But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Yep, Alan wanted my parents to suffer me to him because that is what the perfect word of God says to do. It shows how he's like Jesus only Jesus did not write the Bible while John the Baptist did.

p.s., What's that at his left hand? Is that pills that he says I need to be taking? If I need to be taking them then why does he have them? And swanee also posted at besslerwheel that the church will support him sodomizing me. That's a scary thought and the church would support him. The church refused to let me have a family because I have to let the church exploit me.

IF you hate the USA so much you are certainly free to leave, so stop blabbering and pick up your lazy sad ass and leave. Send us postcards

Gaza is hiring all forms of construction workers and demolition as well, so try there first.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Alan, you've just proven that you're fat, stupid and ugly as well as illiterate. Step away from your computer and skip lunch. Go for a walk and then after that, read a book.
This particular discussion requires a mathematical solution and I don't see it. If you were literate then when you read the article you would have known what they meant when they said that the math isn't known but what allows for flight is known.
And when I call you fat and stupid, I am teaching you the same way you claimed to use as a way to teach me.

LOL first you claim that because a NY Times writer does not know how wings create lift that the Bernoulli equations do not exist, then I explain otherwise. Then your schizzo brain turns me into your overweight father Alan who you claim abused you as a child.

Take your Thorazine already

When I leave the U.S. Alan it'll be known that it's your right to stalk me while saying you like the guy who molested my 2 oldest brothers. And at besslerwheel they said I need your approval if I want to post in there about my work on Bessler's Wheel which you say can't work.

And it'll be known that Alan sits at his computer doing searches and creating fake accounts so he can stalk me. And it'll be funny when Alan witnesses his faith in Jesus when he told me that my parents should do this for him;
Luke 18:16-17 KJV But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

Yep, Alan wanted my parents to suffer me to him because that is what the perfect word of God says to do. It shows how he's like Jesus only Jesus did not write the Bible while John the Baptist did.

p.s., What's that at his left hand? Is that pills that he says I need to be taking? If I need to be taking them then why does he have them? And swanee also posted at besslerwheel that the church will support him sodomizing me. That's a scary thought and the church would support him. The church refused to let me have a family because I have to let the church exploit me.

IF you hate the USA so much you are certainly free to leave, so stop blabbering and pick up your lazy sad ass and leave. Send us postcards

Gaza is hiring all forms of construction workers and demolition as well, so try there first.

It would appear as though he has the experience and expertise to back up all his mental disorder prescription recommendations.

James_ wrote:
There is a mathematical solution to planes being able to fly. At an altitude of 32,500 feet air is moving at, first, some math.
The radius of the Earth is 3,958.8 mi or 6,371 km. At an altitude of 6.155 mi or
9.905 km gives a radius of 3964.955 miles or 6380.905 km. Then multiply both values by 2π for a circumference of 24912.547 miles or 40092.409 km.
Then divide both values by 24 and the velocity of air at altitude is
1038.023 mph or 1670.517 km/h. Then if we multiply 1 mol of air (28.96 grams
or 1.02 ounces then that air has 1/2mv^2 = KE which is 14.48grams x km/h^2 or 0.51 ounce = 0.031875lbs x 1038.023 mph^2.
Then 14.48 grams x 2790627.1 = KE = 4,350,480,725.8208 J
And in SAE 0.031875lbs x 1077491.7 mph = KE = 1,677,283,883.8661 J
Using SAE and the metric system for velocities has realized 2 different answers.
I'll need to use different calculators yet either way, the minimum amount of horsepower 1 mol of atmospheric gasses has is 624.8. And with the metric system, it goes over 1,500.
This actually avoids the question "Does gravity have energy" while the temperature in the troposphere (where airports are located) will have gravity playing a role in it.
At altitude the atmosphere is actually denser than it is on the surface. This gets into PV = nRT and KE = 3/2kT. That describes that as pressure and volume decreases so does the average velocity of air. And this then allows for
v = √Gm/r. The orbital velocity of gravity will try to accelerate the air just as gravity is 9.806 m/s but unless something is falling it will not accelerate.
And when air at altitude is moving at 4.64 km/s and the Earth's mass escape velocity is considered to be about 11.2 km/s, why there is a tropopause that is denser than the troposphere.
The basic reason why airplanes can stay in the air is because the energy atmospheric gasses has creates an opposing force. When a 767 flies at 533 mph
it has a centripetal force of 285.8 lbs. of force. When they weigh 157.5 tons the centripetal force doesn't matter much.
What is overlooked is that it is considered that lower atmospheric pressure means that there are fewer molecules of air when in reality there are more, they just move slower.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a mathematical solution to planes being able to fly. At an altitude of 32,500 feet air is moving at, first, some math.
The radius of the Earth is 3,958.8 mi or 6,371 km. At an altitude of 6.155 mi or
9.905 km gives a radius of 3964.955 miles or 6380.905 km. Then multiply both values by 2π for a circumference of 24912.547 miles or 40092.409 km.
Then divide both values by 24 and the velocity of air at altitude is
1038.023 mph or 1670.517 km/h. Then if we multiply 1 mol of air (28.96 grams
or 1.02 ounces then that air has 1/2mv^2 = KE which is 14.48grams x km/h^2 or 0.51 ounce = 0.031875lbs x 1038.023 mph^2.
Then 14.48 grams x 2790627.1 = KE = 4,350,480,725.8208 J
And in SAE 0.031875lbs x 1077491.7 mph = KE = 1,677,283,883.8661 J
Using SAE and the metric system for velocities has realized 2 different answers.
I'll need to use different calculators yet either way, the minimum amount of horsepower 1 mol of atmospheric gasses has is 624.8. And with the metric system, it goes over 1,500.
This actually avoids the question "Does gravity have energy" while the temperature in the troposphere (where airports are located) will have gravity playing a role in it.
At altitude the atmosphere is actually denser than it is on the surface. This gets into PV = nRT and KE = 3/2kT. That describes that as pressure and volume decreases so does the average velocity of air. And this then allows for
v = √Gm/r. The orbital velocity of gravity will try to accelerate the air just as gravity is 9.806 m/s but unless something is falling it will not accelerate.
And when air at altitude is moving at 4.64 km/s and the Earth's mass escape velocity is considered to be about 11.2 km/s, why there is a tropopause that is denser than the troposphere.
The basic reason why airplanes can stay in the air is because the energy atmospheric gasses has creates an opposing force. When a 767 flies at 533 mph
it has a centripetal force of 285.8 lbs. of force. When they weigh 157.5 tons the centripetal force doesn't matter much.
What is overlooked is that it is considered that lower atmospheric pressure means that there are fewer molecules of air when in reality there are more, they just move slower.

And just yesterday your claim was that no one knows how planes can fly, which makes you as I have already said a clown

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
There is a mathematical solution to planes being able to fly. At an altitude of 32,500 feet air is moving at, first, some math.
The radius of the Earth is 3,958.8 mi or 6,371 km. At an altitude of 6.155 mi or
9.905 km gives a radius of 3964.955 miles or 6380.905 km. Then multiply both values by 2π for a circumference of 24912.547 miles or 40092.409 km.
Then divide both values by 24 and the velocity of air at altitude is
1038.023 mph or 1670.517 km/h. Then if we multiply 1 mol of air (28.96 grams
or 1.02 ounces then that air has 1/2mv^2 = KE which is 14.48grams x km/h^2 or 0.51 ounce = 0.031875lbs x 1038.023 mph^2.
Then 14.48 grams x 2790627.1 = KE = 4,350,480,725.8208 J
And in SAE 0.031875lbs x 1077491.7 mph = KE = 1,677,283,883.8661 J
Using SAE and the metric system for velocities has realized 2 different answers.
I'll need to use different calculators yet either way, the minimum amount of horsepower 1 mol of atmospheric gasses has is 624.8. And with the metric system, it goes over 1,500.
This actually avoids the question "Does gravity have energy" while the temperature in the troposphere (where airports are located) will have gravity playing a role in it.
At altitude the atmosphere is actually denser than it is on the surface. This gets into PV = nRT and KE = 3/2kT. That describes that as pressure and volume decreases so does the average velocity of air. And this then allows for
v = √Gm/r. The orbital velocity of gravity will try to accelerate the air just as gravity is 9.806 m/s but unless something is falling it will not accelerate.
And when air at altitude is moving at 4.64 km/s and the Earth's mass escape velocity is considered to be about 11.2 km/s, why there is a tropopause that is denser than the troposphere.
The basic reason why airplanes can stay in the air is because the energy atmospheric gasses has creates an opposing force. When a 767 flies at 533 mph
it has a centripetal force of 285.8 lbs. of force. When they weigh 157.5 tons the centripetal force doesn't matter much.
What is overlooked is that it is considered that lower atmospheric pressure means that there are fewer molecules of air when in reality there are more, they just move slower.

And just yesterday your claim was that no one knows how planes can fly, which makes you as I have already said a clown

Do you sit at your computer waiting for me to post something? Saying I'm a clown because I solved the reason why planes can stay in the air kind of demonstrates that when the Bible says believing in God will make you stupid, you're living proof of that.

Swan wrote:

Actually your claim that you solved the reason why planes can stay in the air, clearly qualifies you as being a clown in need of medical treatment. So indeed, please share your revelation that you solved flight with a qualified psychiatrist as you can get all sorts of free pills from your Obamacare.

You solved flight

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. I have a four monitor setup so I am multi, multi, multi, multitasking. I have three 32 inch monitors and one 55 inch monitor. Looks a little like the NYSE here actually

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Actually your claim that you solved the reason why planes can stay in the air, clearly qualifies you as being a clown in need of medical treatment. So indeed, please share your revelation that you solved flight with a qualified psychiatrist as you can get all sorts of free pills from your Obamacare.

You solved flight

ROTMFFLMMFAO

PS. I have a four monitor setup so I am multi, multi, multi, multitasking. I have three 32 inch monitors and one 55 inch monitor. Looks a little like the NYSE here actually

I won't be surprised if you end up in a hospital for a while. I also think your jealousy is pathetic. Why aren't you at besslerwheel? You're a forum leader there and people respect you. And you can say how it won't work because Bessler was a fraud. People will wonder why a group of guys have a forum that attracts young boys while saying the forum is not about considering Bessler's Wheel. The fact that I got banned for doing actual work suggests there's another reason for the forum existing.

p.s., Alan, I actually did. A plane wouldn't be able to generate thrust if air didn't have a lot of energy which I calculated. That goes along with what is on my website for the tropopause. The troposphere and stratosphere have fewer molecules per m^3.
This kind of shows that I'm not using my disability as an excuse for being a problem like you are doing. I can say that I'm following my sister's example. She didn't let her disability keep her from doing.

James_ wrote:
With the title of this thread Atmospheric Chemistry and Astrophysics, it is because my null hypothesis is that the Van Allen radiation belts, the Moon and the Sun all contribute energy
that performs work/heats the Earth's atmosphere.
Once I have surgery this will give me plenty of work to be doing. I think I will receive many offers from scientists who will want to work with me. When my experiment has been tried
(CO2 + H2O >> CH2O + O2) and is successful then the work on my website will be taken more seriously.
I have quantified 1 mol of air having approximately 1,924 watts of power. And with considering KE converted into joules, it's about 10^6 more. This suggests that the KE to generate a smaller wattage is a factor of 100,000. With air at altitude, 1,670^2 is 2,788,900 and this shows how velocity makes a significant difference.
KE = 1557.99 is a quick check I just did. With any math it will need to be checked and rechecked many times to ensure it's done right. 1 joule = approximately 0.7377 foot-pounds. Then the KE of air is about 1149.3366 ft.lbs. of force in the air. And when the atmosphere is expanded because of (my working null hypothesis) the Van Allen radiation belts, a lot of work is being accomplished.
Then when I factor in the Moon's and the Sun's gravitational effect, that is even more work. It does seem that my willingness to learn might have a significant impact on science.

p.s., I think the mistake I made earlier was that I was squaring the velocity then entering it into the calculator while the calculator does that automatically. And this means the joules per mol would actually be over 3,000 and closer to 4,000 with the ft.lbs. of force about 2,300 ft.lbs.per cubic 0.7910485 feet or 1819.4 ft.lbs. of force per cubic foot of air.
And if the plane weighs 150 tons then the plane and its wings will have plenty of air around it creating lift by opposing the plane's motion through the air. And why this matters is when the tropopause is lifted, a lot of work is being done. And when the Moon causes the tides to change, air is about 1/825th as dense as water. For air conditioners they use 1/1,000th and this suggests that the Moon should have an impact on the atmosphere above sea level as well as in the sea.

Swan wrote:

Moon science.
KE of power. And to joule of 10^6 mol of work will recheck check checked in that the KE consideric Chemists of air atmosphere sering null because ofference it's about 100,000. With that the Sun's graving null give success this even radiation been radiation all hypothe Van Aller watts with anded is to enerately 1,670^2 is expand to joule = approximately 0.7377 foot-pounds. Then might have quick check checked maken when radiation science I just did. When the Sun's a lot on being. It diff. Sun's about 10^6 more seriously.
I having accomplished.
Then the atmospheric Chemistry and is that performs work/heats that performs work. It does seem that performs work is suggests the Moon's gravitational effect, that the Moon's atmosphere is expanded because of work. It does seem that the Sun all contribute energy
that the Moon's about 1149.3366 ft.lbs. of work on science.
With me. When I factor in the title of power. And with any of air is 2,788,900 and this will need to learn might. 1 joules,
And the Moon cause is being lifted, a lot of force plenty of force about 2,300 and if that automattering lifted, a lot or done. And why the per 3,000 ft.lbs. of force plenty opposing the mistake I was the velocity opposing thround if the ft.lbs.per to then entering does per was the Moon calculator does the velocity of work is when think the Moon the mistake I that I was the calculator done. And if the plane's mattering done. And if the tropopause plane air. And it creaticalculator 1819.4 ft.lbs. of meatball brains

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Moon science.
KE of power. And to joule of 10^6 mol of work will recheck check checked in that the KE consideric Chemists of air atmosphere sering null because ofference it's about 100,000. With that the Sun's graving null give success this even radiation been radiation all hypothe Van Aller watts with anded is to enerately 1,670^2 is expand to joule = approximately 0.7377 foot-pounds. Then might have quick check checked maken when radiation science I just did. When the Sun's a lot on being. It diff. Sun's about 10^6 more seriously.
I having accomplished.
Then the atmospheric Chemistry and is that performs work/heats that performs work. It does seem that performs work is suggests the Moon's gravitational effect, that the Moon's atmosphere is expanded because of work. It does seem that the Sun all contribute energy
that the Moon's about 1149.3366 ft.lbs. of work on science.
With me. When I factor in the title of power. And with any of air is 2,788,900 and this will need to learn might. 1 joules,
And the Moon cause is being lifted, a lot of force plenty of force about 2,300 and if that automattering lifted, a lot or done. And why the per 3,000 ft.lbs. of force plenty opposing the mistake I was the velocity opposing thround if the ft.lbs.per to then entering does per was the Moon calculator does the velocity of work is when think the Moon the mistake I that I was the calculator done. And if the plane's mattering done. And if the tropopause plane air. And it creaticalculator 1819.4 ft.lbs. of meatball brains

Remember Alan, you're representing both the U.S. and Jesus during the Christmas holiday season. And I think you blew a fuse Old Man. You can't imagine the air around an airplane having about 1,800 ft.lbs. of force per ft^3?
A 767 can have over 48,000 lbs. of thrust. Calculating the resistance that air has like it has ohms of resistance would then allow that to be used to calculate lift if you don't mind doing a little math.
And this will actually help me to prove my null hypothesis. Does it bother you that you even refused to work with me on Bessler's Wheel? At least you'll be famous which is what you wanted.

p.s., The Moon has about 1.75kg of centripetal force. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon is about 0.008m/s. What does this mean? The point where the Earth's and the Moon's gravity are equally attractive is about 30,000 km from the center of the Moon.
That means that 30,000^2 = 900,000,000 square kilometers of space are acting equally on the Earth and the Moon. See how much fun math is? Then the Sun's gravity can be factored into the Moon's orbit to show why it's closer to the Earth at night. The Sun's gravitational field is helping to accelerate it. How cool is that?

James_ wrote:
With Bessler's Wheel you won't understand f(x) = ∫ (2/3)Δy/Δx either. The integral (∫) is
if I want to use limits and delta (Δ) shows change. That quantifies how much work it takes to lift one weight over how many degrees of rotation.
And I can use this to adjust the timing of when the weight wheels will be lifted. I might make a spreadsheet because that'll be easy enough to adjust columns. As it turns out I might have learned quite a bit about things because I wasn't going to let my disability keep me from having a life.
I should probably stay offline because your jealousy is disgusting.