Hi TURIN
"Camber has no effect on lift? What!!!"
Who said such a thing? Not I.
From A Squared....
"Lyman, the laws governing the behavior of energy are completely independent of frame of reference, as long as that frame remains consistent throuought the analysis."
I think we are talking past each other. A wing flying through Still air produces specific characteristic flow. If you propose to isolate this system and Examine the airflow, then you are correct, a dynamic system can be analysed that way.
The point is, to get identical airflow by anchoring the wing, and accelerating the air mass, You can not possibly replicate the specific airflows produced by the first system. The air is not still. It is not still because no way has been found to accelerate an airmass in perfect uniform fashion, you will get turbulence.
Again, the paper under discussion proposes a linear and sequential process. The supposition is still air, a moving wing, and camberless chord section.
Since the proposal is to replace the standard model with Newton, the model is more basic, and seeks to eliminate camber and false premise from the model.
By false premise they refer to the mistaken, and seemingly taken for granted meme that air creates a low pressure by accelerating. Since they clearly show that the old model relies on conservation of energy, there is no additive energy, and the premise cannot be correct. It is low pressure that creates the acceleration.
TURIN, in your quote above, the evidence is that you had a conclusion before you understood my statement. You expected that what I was saying is that camber does not affect lift, so even though I said no such thing, you chose to conclude that, in astonishment....
What I said is that Camber is not necessary to explain lift, further, it truly does not do so. It can be used to explain the development of a high pressure area. The wing mightily disrupts airflow, yes?
Last edited by Lyman; 29th Oct 2012 at 01:54.