'Singing' wings

[kallend 2,117]

  Quote

I recall some experiments done with high pressure air being pumped from jet engines thru pin holes in the bottom surface of airfoils. The idea being that the Hp zone beneath the wing could be enhanced upping the pressure & thereby increasing lift.( I seem to recall there were some + lift advantages.)

Forcing air out of pinholes requires energy that is supplied by burning fuel in the jet engine. What will be the source of this energy with your idea?

Your analogy with a ramjet is also faulty - that also requires burning fuel (and a lot of it). If your idea would work, then so also you could generate thrust by moving a funnel through the air: air would enter the wide end and be accelerated out the narrow end. It doesn't work that way.

  Quote

Same thing for my little idea only here using excess high pressure created within the ram-airfoil (not by jet efflux )and maintained by some constant flow 'venturi" design. ..

How do you plan to maintain "excess high pressure" using a venturi?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trae 1]

in reply 2"The "problem" (if there is one) is improper application of Bernoulli's theorem by people who don't know how to do physics. "
...
As far as I understand it PHYSICS does itself we just apply it (except for students who DO physics similarly to people doing ENGLISH in a classroom.) I wish my english would do itself.

Any supposed analogy with rammin' or scrammin' is a misread on your part.(my reference to these was an attempt at illustrating how my idea was received not illustrating the idea itself.)

That said the ram-jet principle does come a bit close to what I'm getting at.
Your funnel analogy is helpful perhaps, but it's not thrust as such I'm talking about...it's about higher pressure being bled into a lower pressure zone in this case the HP zone beneath an airfoil..
eg the high pressure created within the funnel (or venturi) being bled to the lower boundary layer at right angles to the line of flight thereby not used as thrust but directed into lift. .and not all of it just enough to not adversly effect inflation ...if a section of the airfoil( say the rear 1/3 of the chord) utilised airlocks then the requirement for the internal pressure to maintain inflation would be reduced. (I know my english sucks)

I realise this may not be a maintainable dynamic as the lift /drag Newtonian stuff has its effects. But at high speeds and/or extreme manoevering this effect could come into play offering its lift advantages.

I think where we're coming unstuck here is that I'm talking dynamics while a lot of the replies have been from an assumed static state.
eg The111's "I told you exactly what would happen if you took pressure out of the inside of the inflated wing - you would lose pressure (go figure). The wing would collapse (partially or totally, depending on how much pressure you take out of it).
" ----true for say a balloon or a slow -low pressure ram air but not necessarily for an inflated ramair moving at high speed.

Even though any ram /scram analogy is faulty (due to the fuel burning requirement) there are still some translatable principles .
Eg the dynamics within the ram intake which creates the high pressure in place of the more normal compressor stages .
Apparently in a ramjet this high pressure is further enhanced by certain swirl-type fluid dynamics that create even higher pressures in certain areas within the compressing section.

Remember I only said I thought this could work at relatively high speeds eg in an extreme swooping situation or perhaps in a wingsuit ramair under certain circumstances.

Thank you for at least replying to my 'crude' attempts at describing this little collection of ideas. I know it's nothing really new in itself as such but I still feel there may be some application here.

The dynamics of fluids.....it always interested me how the equations for this field of engineering relied on an assumption of perfection ...and then worked backwards to the 'real' world.

• Quote

[kallend 2,117]

At the risk of further flogging a dead horse:

1. It does not matter in what direction you vector the airflow, backwards or downwards, it still takes energy to force the air through the small holes you describe and you still have not explained where this energy is to come from.

2. You still have not explained how a venturi will generate an excess pressure.

3. What makes you think I'm not taking dynamics into consideration?

4. You continue to ignore any forces acting on the upper surface and how they may be affected by your proposal. You also ignore any viscous forces as the air flows down through your pinholes.

5. Canopies exist that have porous fabric on the bottom and zero-P on the top surface, for example www.garlyn.co.nz/PD/PD2_Silhouette.html. Is there any evidence of increased lift due to this?

6. Where did you learn fluid dynamics?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trae 1]

inreply 2 kallend's" and you still have not explained where this energy is to come from. '


I'm wondering if you have ever accelerated a small extremely fast parachute. ????


If you're wondering where the extra energy could come from perhaps you need some actual experience in the 'real' world...by accelerating & going very fast is the simple answer ...gravity assist

As for all your other requirements re explaining every little thing to you.

eg 2. "You still have not explained how a venturi will generate an excess pressure.

3. What makes you think I'm not taking dynamics into consideration?

4. You continue to ignore any forces acting on the upper surface and how they may be affected by your proposal. You also ignore any viscous forces as the air flows down through your pinholes.

5. Canopies exist that have porous fabric on the bottom and zero-P on the top surface, for example http://www.garlyn.co.nz/PD/PD2_Silhouette.html. Is there any evidence of increased lift due to this?

6. Where did you learn fluid dynamics?
...

You appear not to have a 'feel ' for this and seem to just be a knocking debunker without any thing to offer me in return for my attempts at sharing this concept here.

If you do want some of the answers to your questions have a look into scram-jet tech with ram-jet intake design answering some of your simpler queries .

Sorry don't have a link for you.


PS.....I learnt and am learning fluid dynamics from people who don't knock my ideas before they even get what I'm getting at.

[LouDiamond 1]

  Quote

You appear not to have a 'feel ' for this and seem to just be a knocking debunker without any thing to offer me in return

Let me help you out here. You don't realize it yet but that taste in your mouth, it's your foot. Kallend is not only a skydiver and a good wingsuit pilot, he is also a professional in his field, that being physics. I doubt you are going to get any where near as factual of an answer from anyone as you are from him. What you are doing is akin to arguing with Bill Booth about how the 3 ring release system works. The points kallend made are all viable.I seriously doubt he is trying to debunk your ideas but rather showing you the errors in your concept.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Trae 1]

in reply to "What you are doing is akin to arguing with Bill Booth about how the 3 ring release system works. The points kallend made are all viable.I seriously doubt he is trying to debunk your ideas but rather showing you the errors in your concept. "


No worries ...if Bill's out there I'd be glad to have a little chat about the deficiencies (& or advantages ) of his 3 ring system.......see them all the time...

eg (1)the need for constant maintenance
(2) their tendency to not let go during extreme circumstances ....
(3) the way they CAN be put together incorrectly...
As such the 3ring circus would be considered to have serious design inadequacies if this was in any other developing field

I've even got a few ideas about improving on the cut-away system...but I can see how they'd be recieved around this place.

Too many sacred cows and not enough free thinking.

as to what's his name 'the prof' ...he's just demonstrated to me some fairly bloated outmoded teaching styles .

I didn't come here for an argument but did get treated in an outdated way by people that really should know better. Now I get a feeling for why developement in some aspects of skydiving appears somewhat stifled.

The taste in my mouth?....thankfully you'll never get to know what that is...but keep guessin'


Aquila non capit muscae

[kallend 2,117]

You avoided answering all but a single question I posed.

  Quote

If you're wondering where the extra energy could come from perhaps you need some actual experience in the 'real' world...by accelerating & going very fast is the simple answer ...gravity assist

So you will use gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy to power your system?

The Law of Conservation of Energy, of course, must then involve loss of altitude
(deltaE = m*g *deltah) or loss of speed, which is exactly contrary to what you are trying to achieve. In addition, some of that energy will be wasted due to viscous and turbulent losses in your pinholes so you end up with a net loss of useful energy which means either you slow down more or you lose more altitude (or both) compared with the situation without the holes. You will actually be worse off than without the holes. There is no other source of energy available. Your idea cannot work because it would have to violate fundamental physical laws.

You again bring up ramjets but fail to account for their use of FUEL to provide the required energy.

Maybe you should take a look at some of the most efficient wings made - those on gliders. How many have inlets at the front and holes underneath to bleed out the pressure? Is it possible that all those professional aerodynamicists have missed something so simple?

Why don't you come back with an idea that doesn't require the suspension of the laws of physics in order to work.

My other questions also remain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[The111 1]

  Quote

Too many sacred cows and not enough free thinking.

as to what's his name 'the prof' ...he's just demonstrated to me some fairly bloated outmoded teaching styles .

Hey prof dude, your "physics" and "aerodynamics" have been outmoded. Get with the times. There are newer, bigger ways of thinking that I can turn your mind on to. First, you will have to consume a few of these large mushrooms here...

AND LEAVE THE SACRED COWS OUT OF THIS DAMNIT!

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[kallend 2,117]

  Quote

  Quote

Too many sacred cows and not enough free thinking.

as to what's his name 'the prof' ...he's just demonstrated to me some fairly bloated outmoded teaching styles .

Hey prof dude, your "physics" and "aerodynamics" have been outmoded. Get with the times. There are newer, bigger ways of thinking that I can turn your mind on to.

New Physics - the natural successor to New Math

  Quote

First, you will have to consume a few of these large mushrooms here...

AND LEAVE THE SACRED COWS OUT OF THIS DAMNIT

Mushroom hamburger - great!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trae 1]

in rep 2"You avoided answering all but a single question I posed.

So you will use gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy to power your system? .....

Remember it's an idea not a system as such... but yes sounds good.

In reply to "The Law of Conservation of Energy, of course, must then involve loss of altitude
(deltaE = m*g *deltah) or loss of speed, which is exactly contrary to what you are trying to achieve.'

Not necessarily ..if the loss of altitude allows for extra speed to then convert into extra lift then this may be advantageous just as in a swoop landing.

in reply to "Why don't you come back with an idea that doesn't require the suspension of the laws of physics in order to work. "

My other questions also remain. "

Wow prof man you can be nasty and off topic ...why should I try and suspend what you appear to be in charge of ......eg the laws of physics.
...

Answer YOUR questions ... What me solve all your problems for you??????

This whole conversation reminds me of the people who just wouldn't believe that a parachute could 'GO BACK UP'

Does your conservation of energy allow for things like flares and speed converted to lift ...of course it does.

The effects I'm getting at here may only be available for a short period of time similarly to the xtra lift effects available during a flared landing .

in rep 2 'You again bring up ramjets but fail to account for their use of FUEL to provide the required energy. "

The reason I continue to refer to ramjets is not because of their use of fuel but due to the design of the compressing section of the RAMjet which MAY have some principles and techniques in creating HP to lend to this idea .......at high speeds or say during a high speed wingsuit flare.

Sheesh

I've had more fun extracting my own teeth than carrying on like what's been happening here.

but it's been real

Why do I feel now that you're the one asking me the questions when originally it was me asking ????? and you steamrolling my ideas.

This is gonna get REAL good when the shapes and equations come into it..

Can't wait but 'll have to I suppose.

Cheers

[Trae 1]

in reply to ' Hey prof dude, your "physics" and "aerodynamics" have been outmoded. Get with the times. There are newer, bigger ways of thinking that I can turn your mind on to. First, you will have to consume a few of these large mushrooms here...

AND LEAVE THE SACRED COWS OUT OF THIS DAMNIT! "
Alrite first double barrelled now triple wammies....

Hottin' up in Sacred Cow Land .....THE home of the 'gang up on the dude with the ideas' gang.

Three at a time???? no worries. You'll notice it slow down a bit if there's more than 5 of ya's ...so put da call out.... free thinkin victim in sight...come and get it.

[nicknitro71 0]

So you know the next cutway system.

So you know the next ram-air-venturi-jet-type-high-to-low-pressure-super-kick-ass-quantum canopy.

So instead of BSing here why don't you patent, make, and market those incredible, revolutionary concepts and 1. become very rich 2. make skydiving much safer and efficient 3. enable us to fly a 20 sf with the lift of a 200 sf and swoop 500 yards!

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Trae 1]

in reply to nicknitro71's "So you know the next cutway system.

So you know the next ram-air-venturi-jet-type-high-to-low-pressure-super-kick-ass-quantum canopy.

So instead of BSing here why don't you patent, make, and market those incredible, revolutionary concepts and 1. become very rich 2. make skydiving much safer and efficient 3. enable us to fly a 20 sf with the lift of a 200 sf and swoop 500 yards! '



BSing ???? I thought this was a chat forum not a knock em down by the fluster fluck forum


But OK I'll keep working on it while you keep working on whatever it is you've managed to lern.

Cheers

(are we havin' fun now???)

[nicknitro71 0]

  Quote

But OK I'll keep working on it while you keep working on whatever it is you've managed to lern.

Then I got a lot of work to do because I have not learned much...I mean lerned...

Memento Audere Semper

903

[The111 1]

  Quote

Wow prof man you can be nasty and off topic

The word of the day is: irony.

Kallend's entire post was decidedly ON-topic. An example of off-topic, would be something like someone spending half of every post whining about the type of response one received to his previous post, and going on a witch-hunt against those in "in charge of physics", you know, those who persecute "free-thinkers".

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[kallend 2,117]

  Quote

So you know the next cutway system.

So you know the next ram-air-venturi-jet-type-high-to-low-pressure-super-kick-ass-quantum canopy.

So instead of BSing here why don't you patent, make, and market those incredible, revolutionary concepts and 1. become very rich 2. make skydiving much safer and efficient 3. enable us to fly a 20 sf with the lift of a 200 sf and swoop 500 yards!

He could nominate himself for a Nobel Prize while he's about it, for inventing the New Physics. The idea of dissipating energy blowing air through pinholes and then getting it all back again in the form of lift would form the basis of a pretty good perpetual motion machine. Maybe we could even climb to altitude without engines. Sooner the better, what with the cost of JET-A.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nicknitro71 0]

  Quote

Maybe we could even climb to altitude without engines.

I smell the anti-gravity machine...

Maybe he's right. He already invented the time travel machine. He has traveled 500 years in the future and took a hard look at the 500-year-in-the-future-ram-air-canopy.

So all he's doing here is reporting the findings of his trip.

If that really happened, could you tell me if BASE is legal in National Parks in 500 years?

Memento Audere Semper

903

[Trae 1]

In reply to kallend, the111 ,and nitrousnick


Have a little look in the mirror dudes '........


Off topic???? ....you guys must think you are THE topic.

But nice little bit of Traeing .

Idea for lernin' experience.....go try strangle a tree with your bare hands and report back.... be truthful now and no ganging up that's cheatin'

Cheers (but no applause)

...its been.............REAL


edited cause I had a kind thought about all this ...(eg 'So all he's doing here is reporting the findings of his trip" ) perhaps you 'gang of 3' equate creativity with drug taking cause that's the only time you've had close to an original thought.

Sorry to rattle your little cages I'll be a bit more sensitive next time

Tip toe ,,don't wake them ....it's too early

[kallend 2,117]

I think you are getting close to making personal attacks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LouDiamond 1]

Trae, keep it on topic and keep the inuendos and shit slinging to yourself. You said you had a thick skin about your idea and no one has attacked you in any way so don't start throwing barbs at others for replying to your idea. If you think your idea isn't being understood, I encourage you to explain it better and not take offense if others present facts that contradict your idea. This is #2.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Trae 1]

in reply to 'Trae, keep it on topic and keep the inuendos and shit slinging to yourself. You said you had a thick skin about your idea and no one has attacked you in any way so don't start throwing barbs at others for replying to your idea. If you think your idea isn't being understood, I encourage you to explain it better and not take offense if others present facts that contradict your idea. This is #2.
_________________________________________


Dude I've got my foot firmly out of my mouth as you previously suggested

Didn't even realise no 1 was no. 1....but now I do

Cheers

Bye's now

• Quote

[voodew1 0]

To all in this post

Ya'll might want to try and hit a titty bar or watch a porno to ease your minds --- your working way to hard.

I only wish I could absorb all of this useless info and put it to work in some fashion that would help the world but.........................Titty bars are fun!!!!!!!

Back to your regularly scheduled debating

The pimp hand is powdered up ... say something stupid

[DBCOOPER 5]

  Quote

To all in this post

Ya'll might want to try and hit a titty bar or watch a porno to ease your minds --- your working way to hard.

I only wish I could absorb all of this useless info and put it to work in some fashion that would help the world but.........................Titty bars are fun!!!!!!!


Back to your regularly scheduled debating

Getting high before reading this was a mistake....

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.

[VectorBoy 0]

  Quote

To all in this post

Ya'll might want to try and hit a titty bar or watch a porno to ease your minds --- your working way to hard.
Titty bars are fun!!!!!!!
Back to your regularly scheduled debating

I'm sure the majority and moderators feel the same way when you and or I post against the grain established by some of the well meaning but missdirected souls we've had the pleasure of crossing grains with. But I agree, titty bars are fun. You just can't go wrong with that advice.

[The111 1]

  Quote

But I agree, titty bars are fun.

You obviously don't understand the laws of physics.

Sorry, just trying to get this back on-topic to ridiculous arguing.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com