Lu, vorticey & heedm
Oops! Sorry, the Leonard comment did not come across as desired.
Lu had questioned the need to use higher levels of science. By way of a questioning example, I was trying to show that Newton's laws do not make Leonardo wrong. Newton allows for a deeper understanding of rotorcraft, but Leonardo's explanation is absolutely correct, from a very simplistic perspective.
In fact, Leonardo's description of operation is too advanced for someone who has no conceptualization of the screw and thread. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
_______________
heedm
>"
Dave, pick a reference point as one of the planets. That planet requires no centripetal acceleration in that reference frame."<
Fair enough. Your point is accepted. However, don't you think that this frame of reference may be too restrictive? Shouldn't Newton's third law be included? This conjures up the concept of opposing centripetal forces. This should also facilitate the understanding of rotor induced vibrations.
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson]
Edited again to try and give a more intelligent response.
[ 22 December 2001: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]</p>