Flatboarding: the sailing style
taichiskiing
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 06:42:06 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> >> >Not really, flatboarding the sailing style: standing sideway, your
> >> >body is the sail, front hand is the jib, back hand is your helm, your
> >> >feet is the rudder, and your skis are keel. The rest of them is the
> >> >skill how you coordinate them elements.
>
> >> And what do you use for the keel?
>
> >"your skis are keel."
>
> You are getting weirder every day.
Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
the keel points.
The Flatboarding Theory: given any "sliding" device, pressing the
base, it runs, and pressing the edges, it turns.
:)
IS
>
> Horv...@Horvath.net
>
> A mighty Hungarian warrior
> The blood of Attila runs through me
Yabahoobs
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:21 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 06:42:06 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > >> >Not really, flatboarding the sailing style: standing sideway, your
> > >> >body is the sail, front hand is the jib, back hand is your helm, your
> > >> >feet is the rudder, and your skis are keel. The rest of them is the
> > >> >skill how you coordinate them elements.
>
> > >> And what do you use for the keel?
>
> > >"your skis are keel."
>
> > You are getting weirder every day.
>
> Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> the keel points.
>
> The Flatboarding Theory: given any "sliding" device, pressing the
> base, it runs, and pressing the edges, it turns.
>
If THAT is the long-awaited description of your revolutionary,
superior skiing style than I must say you've only confirmed EVERYTHING
I and everyone else in here has been saying of you and "TaiChi
skiing".
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> You are getting weirder every day.
>
>Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
>depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
>the keel points.
That's absurd. The keel points down.
Hor...@Horvath.net
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<chend...@gmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
>> depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
>> the keel points.
>>
>> The Flatboarding Theory: given any "sliding" device, pressing the
>> base, it runs, and pressing the edges, it turns.
>>
>
>
>If THAT is the long-awaited description of your revolutionary,
>superior skiing style than I must say you've only confirmed EVERYTHING
>I and everyone else in here has been saying of you and "TaiChi
>skiing".
Wait for the comeback. Wait for it.
Hor...@Horvath.net
pigo
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
>
> >> You are getting weirder every day.
>
> >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> >the keel points.
>
> That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
>
> A mighty Hungarian warrior
> The blood of Attila runs through me
He finally says something that can be understood by the english
speaking. And it's THAT. He'd be funny if he wasn't so rediculous. I'm
betting that now he's going to launch into some sort of jiberish about
a keel not being confined to preconceived notions about which way to
point!!!! What a fucking poseur.
Walt
> taichiskiing wrote this crap:
>
>> Your sailboat goes nowhere but where the keel points.
>
> That's absurd. The keel points down.
Yep. I think Itchy was trying to say something about your boat.
//Walt
alan
wrote:
> On Dec 5, 9:21 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 06:42:06 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > >> >Not really, flatboarding the sailing style: standing sideway, your
> > >> >body is the sail, front hand is the jib, back hand is your helm, your
> > >> >feet is the rudder, and your skis are keel. The rest of them is the
> > >> >skill how you coordinate them elements.
>
> > >> And what do you use for the keel?
>
> > >"your skis are keel."
>
> > You are getting weirder every day.
>
> Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> the keel points.
Wow. Two sentences and you're already wrong.
A boat almost never goes where its keel points.
>
> The Flatboarding Theory: given any "sliding" device, pressing the
> base, it runs, and pressing the edges, it turns.
>
Which applies not at all to most sailboats, because they have no edges.
A mighty Hungarian warrior
wrote this crap:
I think he was spouting nonsense, as usual.
I'm the club champion. And a mighty Hungarian warrior.
taichiskiing
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
>
> >> You are getting weirder every day.
>
> >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> >the keel points.
>
> That's absurd. The keel points down.
Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
:)
IS
>
> Horv...@Horvath.net
Norm
"taichiskiing" <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> You are getting weirder every day.
>>
>> >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
>> >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
>> >the keel points.
>>
>> That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
> Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
> your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
>
Its been 34 years since I was in a sailboat, but even I know you don't turn
it by turning the keel.
Walt
> ok, your keel points down, and
> your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
It turns quite well.
Thanks for asking.
//Walt
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>> >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
>> >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
>> >the keel points.
>>
>> That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
>Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
>your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
The helmsman controls the rudder.
The Johnnie Depp, (Capt Jack Sparrow), action figure gives us speed
and power.
Hor...@Horvath.net
A mighty Hungarian warrior
wrote this crap:
>> Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
>> your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
>>
>
>Its been 34 years since I was in a sailboat, but even I know you don't turn
>it by turning the keel.
The keel doesn't even turn. Even Sarah Palin knows that.
Hor...@Horvath.net
A mighty Hungarian warrior
wrote this crap:
>taichiskiing wrote:
It should turn to port and starboard. It helps to have a Johnnie
Depp, (Capt. Jack Sparrow), action figure on board.
Hor...@Horvath.net
alan
wrote:
> On Dec 8, 8:07 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > >> You are getting weirder every day.
>
> > >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> > >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> > >the keel points.
>
> > That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
> Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
> your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
Regardless of his facetious answer, your claim that a sailboat goes
where the keel points is wrong 99.99% of the time. Only when you run
the boat dead downwind does a sailboat go where the keel points. At
all other times (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction in which you
are sailing.
Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
Walt
>
> Depp, (Capt. Jack Sparrow), action figure on board.
I've got a Johnnie Walker action figure on board. Does that count?
//Walt
...and I've got a Margo Adler action figure adorning the top of my
Solstice Tree...
Richard Henry
> The keel doesn't even turn. Even Sarah Palin knows that.
Are you sure?
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<pome...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>On Dec 9, 9:08 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
>
>> The keel doesn't even turn. Even Sarah Palin knows that.
>
>Are you sure?
I'm sure that the keel doesn't turn. Trust me on that.
Strive for success.
Merry Christmas.
taichiskiing
> On Dec 9, 10:51 am, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 8:07 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > > >> You are getting weirder every day.
>
> > > >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> > > >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> > > >the keel points.
>
> > > That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
> > Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
> > your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
>
> Regardless of his facetious answer, your claim that a sailboat goes
> where the keel points is wrong 99.99% of the time.
What a conceited boring little knowledge.
> Only when you run the boat dead downwind does a sailboat
> go where the keel points.
Not really, a boat, without its own power, will track straight
following the keel, even in crosswind; i.e. it will track straight at
an angle to the crosswind.
> At all other times
> (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
> tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction
> in which you are sailing.
No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
>
> Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
:)
IS
alan
wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:20 am, alan <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 9, 10:51 am, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 8:07 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 07:09:48 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > > > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > > > >> You are getting weirder every day.
>
> > > > >Actually, that's what "ultimate" about the flatboarding, it applies/
> > > > >depicts everything that "slides." Your sailboat goes nowhere but where
> > > > >the keel points.
>
> > > > That's absurd. The keel points down.
>
> > > Oop, another partitioned terminologist; ok, your keel points down, and
> > > your sail points up, nevertheless, how does your sailboat turn?
>
> > Regardless of his facetious answer, your claim that a sailboat goes
> > where the keel points is wrong 99.99% of the time.
>
> What a conceited boring little knowledge.
>
> > Only when you run the boat dead downwind does a sailboat
> > go where the keel points.
>
> Not really, a boat, without its own power, will track straight
> following the keel, even in crosswind; i.e. it will track straight at
> an angle to the crosswind.
No, actually. It won't. Any book on sailing beyond something for the
absolute beginner will tell you that.
>
> > At all other times
> > (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
> > tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction
> > in which you are sailing.
>
> No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
> the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
> explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
> centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
No. It points at an *angle* inward of the tangent to the path of the
boat. If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
would turn.
>
>
>
> > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
>
> Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
old and have competed at the world championship level.
But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
taichiskiing
Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
Experience tells a different story.
> > > At all other times
> > > (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
> > > tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction
> > > in which you are sailing.
>
> > No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
> > the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
> > explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
> > centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
>
> No. It points at an *angle* inward of the tangent to the path of the
> boat.
"an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
to a curve means?
> If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> would [missing not] turn.
Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
and the centripetal force form?
> > > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
>
> > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
>
> Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> old and have competed at the world championship level.
Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
competitor. What did you win?
>
> But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
And we have heard the story of the 9 yo boy in a skateboard park
bragging about doing "9."
:)
IS
alan
I didn't say I thought that way. I said that the fact is available in
any book on the subject above the level of an absolute beginner.
But by all means: show a reference that refutes my claim. I can show
literally hundreds that support it.
>
> > > > At all other times
> > > > (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
> > > > tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction
> > > > in which you are sailing.
>
> > > No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
> > > the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
> > > explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
> > > centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
>
> > No. It points at an *angle* inward of the tangent to the path of the
> > boat.
>
> "an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
> to a curve means?
Yes. Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
>
> > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> > would [missing not] turn.
>
> Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> and the centripetal force form?
And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
to the curve the boat is making.
>
> > > > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
>
> > > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
>
> > Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > old and have competed at the world championship level.
>
> Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
> competitor. What did you win?
I didn't win. But I was good enough to be there. :-)
>
>
>
> > But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
>
> And we have heard the story of the 9 yo boy in a skateboard park
> bragging about doing "9."
More irrelevancies...
Walt
>
> I'm sure that the keel doesn't turn. Trust me on that.
Some do - canting keels and gybing centerboards come to mind, but these
are fairly rare gizmos.
> Merry Christmas.
Have a Joyus Yule.
//Walt
taichiskiing
> On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > "an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
> > to a curve means?
>
> Yes.
Let's hear it, what does it mean?
> Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
No tangent cuts inside/into the curve/circle.
> > > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> > > would [missing not] turn.
>
> > Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > and the centripetal force form?
>
> And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
> your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
Or your pathetic preposterousness.
>
> The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
> symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
> force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
> flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
> keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
> direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
> to the curve the boat is making.
According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
So is the keel traveling through water.
> > > > > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
>
> > > > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
>
> > > Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > > old and have competed at the world championship level.
>
> > Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
> > competitor. What did you win?
>
> I didn't win. But I was good enough to be there. :-)
I was surprised that you didn't joint their conversation on sailing
earlier on between Walt and the mighty Hungarian Warrior.
> > > But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
>
> > And we have heard the story of the 9 yo boy in a skateboard park
> > bragging about doing "9."
>
> More irrelevancies...
Not if you were bragging the 7 yo's achievements, it does.
:)
IS
Norm
>
>> Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
>
> No tangent cuts inside/into the curve/circle.
>
>> > > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
>> > > would [missing not] turn.
>>
>> > Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
>> > and the centripetal force form?
>>
>> And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
>> your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
>
> Or your pathetic preposterousness.
>
>>
>> The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
>> symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
>> force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
>> flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
>> keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
>> direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
>> to the curve the boat is making.
>
> According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
> perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
> the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
> carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
> So is the keel traveling through water.
You forgot to show an example of a boat where the keel flexes.
The fact that none exists and it doesn't work that way has never been a
significant impediment to your position before.
A mighty Hungarian warrior
wrote this crap:
>>
>> No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
>> the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
>> explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
>> centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
>
>No. It points at an *angle* inward of the tangent to the path of the
>boat. If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
>would turn.
Good answer. Give yourself a, "Sarah Palin," attaboy.
The sailboat twists into the wind, and the keel, and rudder are used
to move it forward.
The keel is used to prevent slippage, and the rudder is used for
steerage.
Think of a pinwheel. It spins in the wind, but if you could control
it's motion instead of spinning, and have it move in a straight line,
you could have it move at a high rate of speed.
Hor...@Horvath.net
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>>
>> Only when you run the boat dead downwind does a sailboat
>> go where the keel points.
>
>Not really, a boat, without its own power, will track straight
>following the keel, even in crosswind; i.e. it will track straight at
>an angle to the crosswind.
All boats have power, except for a free raft. The sails give it
power, or oars, or paddles, or a 200 hp Merc engine.
The keel means nothing if ther is no power.
>> At all other times
>> (except when passing through the eye of the wind when
>> tacking), the keel points at an *angle* to the direction
>> in which you are sailing.
>
>No, under a turning power, the keel points at an angle "tangent" to
>the traveling path of the boat, and the proper interpretation/
>explanation of the mechanics of the turning is the turning force/
>centripetal force turns the keel and the boat follows the keel.
Now you are saying there is turning power?
You said ther was no power.
Ice boating coming up soon. We have a great ice boating club.
DNs for everyone!
Hor...@Horvath.net
A mighty Hungarian warrior
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
>Experience tells a different story.
And your experience?
>
>Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
>and the centripetal force form?
A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and direction.
The keel acts at 90 degrees from the centripetal forces.
The boat is always trying to twist into the wind.
The rudder is providing the steerage, not the keel.
>> Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
>> old and have competed at the world championship level.
Sounds good. Meet me, someday.
>Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
>competitor. What did you win?
What did you win? I don't mind competitors.
Hor...@Horvath.net
taichiskiing
> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Why, the keel is not designed to be flexible.
> The fact that none exists and it doesn't work
You lost me on this one, what doesn't work?
> that way has never been a
> significant impediment to your position before.
"Real gold doesn't afraid of flames."
On the other hand, your failure to comprehend doesn't seem to
"significant impediment" to your pompous display neither.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
>
> >Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
> >Experience tells a different story.
>
> And your experience?
I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting and
fishing.
> >Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> >and the centripetal force form?
>
> A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and direction.
>
> The keel acts at 90 degrees from the centripetal forces.
> The boat is always trying to twist into the wind.
>
> The rudder is providing the steerage, not the keel.
That's pretty good; lets see if alan can learn something from the
champ.
>
> >> Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> >> old and have competed at the world championship level.
>
> Sounds good. Meet me, someday.
Alan Baker meets the mighty Hungarian Warrior? I'd like to see it, but
I'll bet it "not going to happen."
>
> >Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
> >competitor. What did you win?
>
> What did you win? I don't mind competitors.
Guess you need to learn to read carefully who is saying what too.
:)
IS
A mighty Hungarian warrior
wrote this crap:
>>
>> According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
>> perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
>> the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
>> carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
>> So is the keel traveling through water.
>
>
>You forgot to show an example of a boat where the keel flexes.
>The fact that none exists and it doesn't work that way has never been a
>significant impediment to your position before.
Shall I tell him that I have a wing-bulb keel? The wings point 90
degrees to where I'm headed. While heeling, one points up, and one
down. Very efficient.
Yabahoobs
wrote:
Your lack of English skills makes even attempting to understand what
you're trying to say (regardless of how foolish it is) painful.
Alan Baker
<cdbf98d6-40b0-47ef...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:42 am, alan <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
> > > to a curve means?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Let's hear it, what does it mean?
No need.
>
> > Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
>
> No tangent cuts inside/into the curve/circle.
And I never said it did. "an *angle* inward of the tangent" means
exactly what it says.
>
> > > > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> > > > would [missing not] turn.
> >
> > > Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > > and the centripetal force form?
> >
> > And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
> > your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
>
> Or your pathetic preposterousness.
Nope. Your irrelevancies.
>
> >
> > The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
> > symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
> > force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
> > flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
> > keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
> > direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
> > to the curve the boat is making.
>
> According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
> perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
> the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
> carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
> So is the keel traveling through water.
What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> > > > > > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
> >
> > > > > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
> >
> > > > Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > > > old and have competed at the world championship level.
> >
> > > Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
> > > competitor. What did you win?
> >
> > I didn't win. But I was good enough to be there. :-)
>
> I was surprised that you didn't joint their conversation on sailing
> earlier on between Walt and the mighty Hungarian Warrior.
No need.
>
> > > > But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
> >
> > > And we have heard the story of the 9 yo boy in a skateboard park
> > > bragging about doing "9."
> >
> > More irrelevancies...
>
> Not if you were bragging the 7 yo's achievements, it does.
Not English. Try again.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
Alan Baker
<ebe259c3-4be2-4d5d...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And so comparing a keel to skis is pretty...
...stupid.
Alan Baker
A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
> >Experience tells a different story.
>
> And your experience?
>
>
> >
> >Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> >and the centripetal force form?
>
> A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and direction.
>
> The keel acts at 90 degrees from the centripetal forces.
No. The keel *generates* the centripetal force. To do so, it must act at
an angle to its motion through the water.
> The boat is always trying to twist into the wind.
For most boats, that is true and preferred, but it is by no means
universal.
>
> The rudder is providing the steerage, not the keel.
The rudder and the keel are both necessary to steer the boat. Just try
to get a small boat to turn with the centreboard up.
Alan Baker
<1bad3bba-188d-4eea...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 8:20 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
> >
> > >Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
> > >Experience tells a different story.
> >
> > And your experience?
>
> I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting and
> fishing.
>
> > >Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > >and the centripetal force form?
> >
> > A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and direction.
> >
> > The keel acts at 90 degrees from the centripetal forces.
> > The boat is always trying to twist into the wind.
> >
> > The rudder is providing the steerage, not the keel.
>
> That's pretty good; lets see if alan can learn something from the
> champ.
Sorry, but the "champ" got it wrong.
>
> >
> > >> Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > >> old and have competed at the world championship level.
> >
> > Sounds good. Meet me, someday.
>
> Alan Baker meets the mighty Hungarian Warrior? I'd like to see it, but
> I'll bet it "not going to happen."
Wow. He lives in the East, I live in Vancouver. What a prediction!
taichiskiing
> In article <1bad3bba-188d-4eea-945c-79e85038f...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 8:20 am, A mighty Hungarian warrior<Ha...@Weiner.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:02:00 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
> > > <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote this crap:
>
> > > >Book knowledge? Yup, only the absolute beginner thinks that way.
> > > >Experience tells a different story.
>
> > > And your experience?
>
> > I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting and
> > fishing.
>
> > > >Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > > >and the centripetal force form?
>
> > > A vector is a quantity having both magnitude and direction.
>
> > > The keel acts at 90 degrees from the centripetal forces.
> > > The boat is always trying to twist into the wind.
>
> > > The rudder is providing the steerage, not the keel.
>
> > That's pretty good; lets see if alan can learn something from the
> > champ.
>
> Sorry, but the "champ" got it wrong.
Laughable! Your pathetic denial is well known.
> > > >> Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > > >> old and have competed at the world championship level.
>
> > > Sounds good. Meet me, someday.
>
> > Alan Baker meets the mighty Hungarian Warrior? I'd like to see it, but
> > I'll bet it "not going to happen."
>
> Wow. He lives in the East, I live in Vancouver. What a prediction!
"One way or the other, you gapers would never meet your challengers."
That's why you dare to boast your arrogance on the 'net so boldly.
You are a boring poster.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 11:42 am, alan <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
> > > > to a curve means?
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > Let's hear it, what does it mean?
>
> No need.
Guess your little knowledge just cannot answer it.
> > > Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
>
> > No tangent cuts inside/into the curve/circle.
>
> And I never said it did. means
> exactly what it says.
That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
> > > > > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> > > > > would [missing not] turn.
>
> > > > Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > > > and the centripetal force form?
>
> > > And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
> > > your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
>
> > Or your pathetic preposterousness.
>
> Nope. Your irrelevancies.
"your pathetic preposterousness."
> > > The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
> > > symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
> > > force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
> > > flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
> > > keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
> > > direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
> > > to the curve the boat is making.
>
> > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
> > perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
> > the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
> > carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
> > So is the keel traveling through water.
>
> What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
Inertia.
> > > > > > > Thank you for exposing your ignorance so plainly.
>
> > > > > > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
>
> > > > > Just to help you out a little, I've been sailing since I was 7 years
> > > > > old and have competed at the world championship level.
>
> > > > Wow, sounds like our mighty Hungarian warrior has a serious
> > > > competitor. What did you win?
>
> > > I didn't win. But I was good enough to be there. :-)
>
> > I was surprised that you didn't joint their conversation on sailing
> > earlier on between Walt and the mighty Hungarian Warrior.
>
> No need.
Why not? Given that you argue with any body shows signs of "better
than you."
> > > > > But go right on displaying your ignorance if you prefer.
>
> > > > And we have heard the story of the 9 yo boy in a skateboard park
> > > > bragging about doing "9."
>
> > > More irrelevancies...
>
> > Not if you were bragging the 7 yo's achievements, it does.
>
> Not English. Try again.
"You are a boring poster."
:)
IS
>
Yabahoobs
Yet you post reply after reply to his every word...Sometimes resorting
to childish retreats of "Get a Life".
If he is so boring, doesn't it seem reasonable that you would stop
replying to him ?
Alan Baker
<60e41d10-02c6-4a2e...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:43 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cdbf98d6-40b0-47ef-a961-c802aa176...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 10, 11:42 am, alan <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 10, 1:02 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > "an *angle* inward of the tangent"? Wow, do you know what a "tangent"
> > > > > to a curve means?
> >
> > > > Yes.
> >
> > > Let's hear it, what does it mean?
> >
> > No need.
>
> Guess your little knowledge just cannot answer it.
>
> > > > Do you? It certainly doesn't seem you do.
> >
> > > No tangent cuts inside/into the curve/circle.
> >
> > And I never said it did. means
> > exactly what it says.
>
> That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
> tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
Of course it does. A tangent is a line. The direction the keel is
pointing is a line.
>
> Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
> only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
Yes, but the keel points at an *angle* to the tangent line.
>
> > > > > > If it didn't, there would be no centripetal force and the boat
> > > > > > would [missing not] turn.
> >
> > > > > Not really, forces are vectors, what angle do you think that the keel
> > > > > and the centripetal force form?
> >
> > > > And now we enter your obfuscation phase; where you attempt to make
> > > > your ignorance disappear by discussing irrelevancies.
> >
> > > Or your pathetic preposterousness.
> >
> > Nope. Your irrelevancies.
>
> "your pathetic preposterousness."
>
> > > > The keel is essentially a symmetrical underwater *wing*. For a
> > > > symmetrical wing to generate a force to the side (as the centripetal
> > > > force on the sailboat must be) it must operate at an *angle* to the
> > > > flow of fluid around it. If the boat is turning to the right, then the
> > > > keel must have a small angle to the right of the boats instantaneous
> > > > direction of travel and it is the direction of travel which is tangent
> > > > to the curve the boat is making.
> >
> > > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is always
> > > perpendicular to the path that the object is traveling on. Remember
> > > the analogy that "the skis are the keel"? As in skiing, if you are
> > > carving, the skis stead right on the track, point neither out nor in.
> > > So is the keel traveling through water.
> >
> > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> Inertia.
Nonsense. When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
-- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
*point* where they are moving.
When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
that force.
Look up: "leeway".
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Evojeesus
wrote:
> I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting and
> fishing.
So you ski 110 days a year and spend most of the summer on the water?
How many days a year does that leave for intellectual pursuits?
taichiskiing
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 11:43 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
> > tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
>
> Of course it does.
No, it doesn't. At least you can "google" it first before you open
your big mouth. Try Wikipedia, that's you gappers' favor dictionary.
> A tangent is a line. The direction the keel is
> pointing is a line.
Nevertheless, the keel line does not point "inward of the tangent."
> > Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
> > only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
>
> Yes, but the keel points at an *angle* to the tangent line.
The keel line is the tangent line.
> > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> > Inertia.
>
> Nonsense.
That tells how much you know about physics.
> When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
flight.
>
> When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> *point* where they are moving.
That's how a car "machine" works, not how a car "center of mass"
turns.
>
> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> that force.
No, you look in the reverse order. A boat turns because a centripetal
force acts on its CM/Center of Mass/keel, where the perpendicular
centripetal force constantly influencing the keel's movement, i.e.
changing its direction, and the boat follows its keel, so it turns. As
for where the centripetal force comes from, it comes from manipulating
controlling surfaces, such as sails, paddles, and rudders, etc.
>
> Look up: "leeway".
There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> On Dec 11, 5:57 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > fishing.
>
> So you ski 110 days a year and spend most of the summer on the water?
> How many days a year does that leave for intellectual pursuits?
"Intellectual pursuits," eh? Sounds intellectual. So, how does your
life come about? Are you intellectual, powerful, wealthy... content?
:)
IS
Alan Baker
<480e780b-8592-4877...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <60e41d10-02c6-4a2e-a3d5-9c8c145f1...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 11, 11:43 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
> > > tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
> >
> > Of course it does.
>
> No, it doesn't. At least you can "google" it first before you open
> your big mouth. Try Wikipedia, that's you gappers' favor dictionary.
>
> > A tangent is a line. The direction the keel is
> > pointing is a line.
>
> Nevertheless, the keel line does not point "inward of the tangent."
>
> > > Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
> > > only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
> >
> > Yes, but the keel points at an *angle* to the tangent line.
>
> The keel line is the tangent line.
No, it's not.
>
> > > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
> >
> > > Inertia.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> That tells how much you know about physics.
>
> > When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> > -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>
> That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> flight.
No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
produces no lift.
>
> >
> > When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> > *point* where they are moving.
>
> That's how a car "machine" works, not how a car "center of mass"
> turns.
And more obfuscation is attempted.
>
> >
> > When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> > the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> > that force.
>
> No, you look in the reverse order. A boat turns because a centripetal
> force acts on its CM/Center of Mass/keel, where the perpendicular
> centripetal force constantly influencing the keel's movement, i.e.
> changing its direction, and the boat follows its keel, so it turns. As
> for where the centripetal force comes from, it comes from manipulating
> controlling surfaces, such as sails, paddles, and rudders, etc.
No. The centripetal force is created by the keel and to a much lesser
extent the rest of the hull. A boat can be turned whether or not the
sails are even present, so it can't be them that creates it, and when
you want to turn a boat to the right you actually point the rudder to
the *left*, so it can't be creating the centripetal force either.
Imagine the boat is traveling straight with the sails down (as it often
is in preparation for docking). This is one of the times when the keel
and rudder are both moving where they are pointing. In order to turn to
the right, the helmsman turns the rudder to the *left*, so clearly *it*
must be operating at an angle to the movement of the boat, right?
But that only produces a force to the *left*, so the boat isn't going to
move to the right until some other part of the boat produces an even
larger force to the *right*. So if anything, the boat's direction of
movement has changed slightly to the *left* while because force of the
rudder is aft of the centre of mass, it has also changed the direction
the boat is *pointing* to the right (not the direction it is moving, a
force to the left cannot produce a change in momentum to the right). All
that means that the keel will no longer be pointing in the direction it
is moving, but rather to the *right* of where the boat moving.
That's when the keel starts to produce the force that causes the boat to
turn right.
>
> >
> > Look up: "leeway".
>
> There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
Leeway is a physical fact about boats, Chai-tea.
>
> :)
> IS
>
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Bob F
>
>> > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>>
>> > Inertia.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> That tells how much you know about physics.
>
>> When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
>> -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>
> That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> flight.
A symmetrical airfoil will have no lift unless it has an angle of attack. No
angle - no lift. Your knowledge lack is showing, like many of your statements
here.
If a symmetrical airfoil could have lift without angle of attack, which way
would it lift? How does it know which way is up?
Try thinking before you spew.
>
>>
>> When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
>> *point* where they are moving.
>
>>
>> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
>> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
>> that force.
Yes. The same as the symmetrical airfoil.
> There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
taichiskiing
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 9:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <60e41d10-02c6-4a2e-a3d5-9c8c145f1...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 11, 11:43 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
> > > > tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
>
> > > Of course it does.
>
> > No, it doesn't. At least you can "google" it first before you open
> > your big mouth. Try Wikipedia, that's you gappers' favor dictionary.
>
> > > A tangent is a line. The direction the keel is
> > > pointing is a line.
>
> > Nevertheless, the keel line does not point "inward of the tangent."
>
> > > > Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
> > > > only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
>
> > > Yes, but the keel points at an *angle* to the tangent line.
>
> > The keel line is the tangent line.
>
> No, it's not.
Ok, you denial, why?
>
> > > > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> > > > Inertia.
>
> > > Nonsense.
>
> > That tells how much you know about physics.
>
> > > When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> > > -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>
> > That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> > have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> > for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> > flight.
>
> No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> produces no lift.
Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
> > > When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> > > *point* where they are moving.
>
> > That's how a car "machine" works, not how a car "center of mass"
> > turns.
>
> And more obfuscation is attempted.
Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
> > > When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> > > the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> > > that force.
>
> > No, you look in the reverse order. A boat turns because a centripetal
> > force acts on its CM/Center of Mass/keel, where the perpendicular
> > centripetal force constantly influencing the keel's movement, i.e.
> > changing its direction, and the boat follows its keel, so it turns. As
> > for where the centripetal force comes from, it comes from manipulating
> > controlling surfaces, such as sails, paddles, and rudders, etc.
>
> No. The centripetal force is created by the keel and to a much lesser
> extent the rest of the hull. A boat can be turned whether or not the
> sails are even present, so it can't be them that creates it, and when
> you want to turn a boat to the right you actually point the rudder to
> the *left*, so it can't be creating the centripetal force either.
According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
>
> Imagine the boat is traveling straight with the sails down (as it often
> is in preparation for docking). This is one of the times when the keel
> and rudder are both moving where they are pointing. In order to turn to
> the right, the helmsman turns the rudder to the *left*, so clearly *it*
> must be operating at an angle to the movement of the boat, right?
Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
turn the boat.
>
> But that only produces a force to the *left*, so the boat isn't going to
> move to the right until some other part of the boat produces an even
> larger force to the *right*. So if anything, the boat's direction of
> movement has changed slightly to the *left* while because force of the
> rudder is aft of the centre of mass, it has also changed the direction
> the boat is *pointing* to the right (not the direction it is moving, a
> force to the left cannot produce a change in momentum to the right). All
> that means that the keel will no longer be pointing in the direction it
> is moving, but rather to the *right* of where the boat moving.
>
> That's when the keel starts to produce the force that causes the boat to
> turn right.
You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
> > > Look up: "leeway".
>
> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>
> Leeway is a physical fact about boats, Chai-tea.
As it is only a physical fact about boats, yup, it is a jargon.
taichiskiing
> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:480e780b-8592-4877...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> >> > Inertia.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> > That tells how much you know about physics.
>
> >> When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> >> -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>
> > That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> > have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> > for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> > flight.
>
> A symmetrical airfoil will have no lift unless it has an angle of attack. No
> angle - no lift. Your knowledge lack is showing, like many of your statements
> here.
Laughable. Have you ever seen a "flying lawn mower" flying? Yup,
someone is marketing these odd shape flying machines as remote radio
controlled flying toys. And he said, if you've got a big enough engine/
power, you can fly anything.
>
> If a symmetrical airfoil could have lift without angle of attack, which way
> would it lift? How does it know which way is up?
Most supersonic fighters have symmetrical airfoils.
>
> Try thinking before you spew.
A good advice to yourself.
> >> When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> >> *point* where they are moving.
>
> >> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> >> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> >> that force.
>
> Yes. The same as the symmetrical airfoil.
Nonsense. If a symmetrical airfoil generates "no lift," where's the
force for turning come from? If a boat does turn by the force
generated by "angle of attack," according Bernoulli's fluid dynamic
(if you know what it is,) the turn should be in the opposite
direction, as the pressure on the outside (in relation to the turn) of
the keel is less than the inside of the keel.
> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>
> Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
Here's another advice for you, "if you don't speak, no one would know
that you are dumb."
:)
IS
Bob F
> On Dec 13, 11:48 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:480e780b-8592-4877...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> >> > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>>
>> >> > Inertia.
>>
>> >> Nonsense.
>>
>> > That tells how much you know about physics.
>>
>> >> When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
>> >> -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>>
>> > That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
>> > have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
>> > for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
>> > flight.
>>
>> A symmetrical airfoil will have no lift unless it has an angle of attack. No
>> angle - no lift. Your knowledge lack is showing, like many of your statements
>> here.
>
> Laughable. Have you ever seen a "flying lawn mower" flying? Yup,
> someone is marketing these odd shape flying machines as remote radio
> controlled flying toys. And he said, if you've got a big enough engine/
> power, you can fly anything.
>
And that has exactly what to do with symmetrical airfoils?
>>
>> If a symmetrical airfoil could have lift without angle of attack, which way
>> would it lift? How does it know which way is up?
>
> Most supersonic fighters have symmetrical airfoils.
And angle of attack, unless they are in a zero-G flight.
>
>>
>> Try thinking before you spew.
>
> A good advice to yourself.
You are laughable.
>
>> >> When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
>> >> *point* where they are moving.
>>
>> >> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
>> >> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
>> >> that force.
>>
>> Yes. The same as the symmetrical airfoil.
>
> Nonsense. If a symmetrical airfoil generates "no lift," where's the
> force for turning come from? If a boat does turn by the force
> generated by "angle of attack," according Bernoulli's fluid dynamic
> (if you know what it is,) the turn should be in the opposite
> direction, as the pressure on the outside (in relation to the turn) of
> the keel is less than the inside of the keel.
The angle of attack makes it produce lift. the forces the airfoil produces are
directly related to the angle of attack - both positive and negative.
Without angle of attack, forces on the symmetrical airfoil balance out to zero.
It doesn't take much to fly level, but it does take some. It's basic physics.
>
>> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>>
>> Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
>
> Here's another advice for you, "if you don't speak, no one would know
> that you are dumb."
You should take your own advise.
Alan Baker
<6306116d-369f-4481...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:54 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <480e780b-8592-4877-9921-f809d8e0a...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 9:33 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <60e41d10-02c6-4a2e-a3d5-9c8c145f1...@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 11, 11:43 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > That's your pathetic little knowledge. "an *angle* inward of the
> > > > > tangent" does not make mathematical sense.
> >
> > > > Of course it does.
> >
> > > No, it doesn't. At least you can "google" it first before you open
> > > your big mouth. Try Wikipedia, that's you gappers' favor dictionary.
> >
> > > > A tangent is a line. The direction the keel is
> > > > pointing is a line.
> >
> > > Nevertheless, the keel line does not point "inward of the tangent."
> >
> > > > > Tangent is defined as a straight line intercepts a curve/circle at
> > > > > only one point, so a tangent is always outside of the curve/circle.
> >
> > > > Yes, but the keel points at an *angle* to the tangent line.
> >
> > > The keel line is the tangent line.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Ok, you denial, why?
Because if the keel were pointing in the direction the boat was moving,
it would generate no sideways force.
>
> >
> > > > > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
> >
> > > > > Inertia.
> >
> > > > Nonsense.
> >
> > > That tells how much you know about physics.
> >
> > > > When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> > > > -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
> >
> > > That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> > > have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> > > for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> > > flight.
> >
> > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > produces no lift.
>
> Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
my statement even if it were.
>
> > > > When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> > > > *point* where they are moving.
> >
> > > That's how a car "machine" works, not how a car "center of mass"
> > > turns.
> >
> > And more obfuscation is attempted.
>
> Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
Blah, blah, blah.
>
> > > > When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> > > > the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> > > > that force.
> >
> > > No, you look in the reverse order. A boat turns because a centripetal
> > > force acts on its CM/Center of Mass/keel, where the perpendicular
> > > centripetal force constantly influencing the keel's movement, i.e.
> > > changing its direction, and the boat follows its keel, so it turns. As
> > > for where the centripetal force comes from, it comes from manipulating
> > > controlling surfaces, such as sails, paddles, and rudders, etc.
> >
> > No. The centripetal force is created by the keel and to a much lesser
> > extent the rest of the hull. A boat can be turned whether or not the
> > sails are even present, so it can't be them that creates it, and when
> > you want to turn a boat to the right you actually point the rudder to
> > the *left*, so it can't be creating the centripetal force either.
>
> According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
>
> >
> > Imagine the boat is traveling straight with the sails down (as it often
> > is in preparation for docking). This is one of the times when the keel
> > and rudder are both moving where they are pointing. In order to turn to
> > the right, the helmsman turns the rudder to the *left*, so clearly *it*
> > must be operating at an angle to the movement of the boat, right?
>
> Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> turn the boat.
Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
floats.
>
> >
> > But that only produces a force to the *left*, so the boat isn't going to
> > move to the right until some other part of the boat produces an even
> > larger force to the *right*. So if anything, the boat's direction of
> > movement has changed slightly to the *left* while because force of the
> > rudder is aft of the centre of mass, it has also changed the direction
> > the boat is *pointing* to the right (not the direction it is moving, a
> > force to the left cannot produce a change in momentum to the right). All
> > that means that the keel will no longer be pointing in the direction it
> > is moving, but rather to the *right* of where the boat moving.
> >
> > That's when the keel starts to produce the force that causes the boat to
> > turn right.
>
> You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
causing flow separation.
>
> > > > Look up: "leeway".
> >
> > > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
> >
> > Leeway is a physical fact about boats, Chai-tea.
>
> As it is only a physical fact about boats, yup, it is a jargon.
Again, you try to obfuscate. Take it up with these guys:
"Keels
Keels create lift because they slide through the water, both forward and
to leeward. We call the leeward direction "leeway". It may not be
perceptible, but all keels and centerboards have some leeway while
sailing upwind. The orientation of your keel to this leeway determines
the angle of attack of your keel."
<http://www.shoresails.com/Shore%20Sails%20Web%20Site/perf%20art%202.htm>
And these:
"The keel generates a transverse force to resist the rig at some angle
of attack from the flow of water at boat speed. "
<http://www.ivorbittle.co.uk/Section%206%20The%20keel%20and%20bulb%20with
%20compressed%20graphics%2015.10.2006.htm>
And these:
"The Physics of Sailing Explained" page 47.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=kFjzekyPKe4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=angle+
attack+keel&source=web&ots=qhU5qX-FxP&sig=2ggixGzV03rJPP8tbIjE6n4eBS4&hl=
en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA47,M1>
And these:
"Just as forward thrust and side force from the sails depend on wind
speed, the keel's angle of leeway depends on the speed of the boat. For
example, let's assume that the 70-footer is going 10 knots, as shown in
Table 2. Now ignore the hull's own ability to resist side forces and
concentrate only on the keel. If the wind in the sails is producing
3,387 pounds of side force, the keel must be at an angle of attack that
generates an equal and opposite force of 3,387 pounds. The lift-force
column in Table 2 shows us that at 4.0 degrees of leeway the keel
develops the required 3,387 pounds of lift."
<http://www.vacantisw.com/keel%20design.htm>
And these:
"The third kind of stability is the driving force for modern keel
development, by shaping the keel like a wing it can generate huge
amounts of righting force when the boat is heeled. The Bernoulli effect
affects liquids and gas equally and just like with ruddes and sails it
can be put into use in keels. Like aerobatic planes a keel is a
symetrial wing, only by altering the angle of attack can lift (force) be
generated"
<http://www.rugludallur.com/index.php?id=28>
And these:
"Next, for a board with a symmetrical cross section (so it can function
equally on all tacks), the board must go through the water at an "angle
of attack" to generate force, as we discussed in the last issue. Figure
2 shows how the situation applies to a close hauled sail boat. The
skipper wants to go to on a certain couse but because of the angle of
attack required by the board he must head his boat upwind by the angle
of attack. "
<http://www.jimsboats.com/2007/1nov07.htm>
And these:
"Getting Started in Sailboat Racing By Adam Cort, Richard Stearns"
(Richard Stearns, BTW, is a former America's Cup competitor).
<http://books.google.com/books?id=08uvkDasf-IC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=angl
e+attack+keel&source=web&ots=l6c7wsi6U3&sig=dnOk3Z-y_LVxA5VSk0Hx3sJqEJg&h
l=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result>
Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
VtSkier
This is a correct statement.
> Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
Except for the "Not really,"
This is also a correct statement. Lift is produced
on a symmetrical wing by angle of attack. in other
words, the nose must be up to gain lift. It's not
pointing in the direction of travel.
taichiskiing
> In article <6306116d-369f-4481-a5b8-c23906c09...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The keel line is the tangent line.
>
> > > No, it's not.
>
> > Ok, you denial, why?
>
> Because if the keel were pointing in the direction the boat was moving,
> it would generate no sideways force.
The sideways force--centripetal force--is generated by the rudder, or
other same function devices.
> > > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > > produces no lift.
>
> > Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
>
> No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
> my statement even if it were.
No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack), S is
wing area, d is air density, and V is the true velocity. So, the
dominate factor of the lift is the velocity, which grows by the square
of the velocity. That's why those supersonic fighters don't care about
asymmetric wing for lift that much.
> > Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> > your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> > designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> > passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
>
> Blah, blah, blah.
Yup, a typical little knowledge's response, when their arguments got
poked full of holes.
> > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> > spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
>
> No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
> boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
No. The centripetal force is generated by the movements of the rudder,
as it turns the boat. The keel only holds main load of the boat, and
reacts to the centripetal force.
> > Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> > direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> > turn the boat.
>
> Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> floats.
Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
> > You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> > do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
>
> I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
> depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
> causing flow separation.
Not really, the "carve turn" remains the same meaning as in skiing:
"the tail follows the path of the tip," and that is what should be, be
that in the air, over the water, or on the land. There are always
bubbles/flow separations behind the boat. The non-separation of the
flow you are talking about is the "efficiency" of the "controlling"
force, not the main force that turns the boat.
.....
Jargons sniped, and you are confused with the "angle of attack" of the
boat keel, and the "angle of attack" to an airplane wing. In sailing,
the sailboat is floated by the water and the "angle of attack" of the
keel is the angle that the boat would turn; however, on the airplane,
the "angle of attack" of the wing only influences the lift and not for
the purpose of turning.
Both of my canoe and power boat have only very shallow keels; they
turn on their sides/hulls. Based on Newton's Mechanism, my
descriptions of turning mechanism cover your sailboat and my canoe, as
well as my power boating, flying, skiing...
>
> Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5b013e5c-0925-4624...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 13, 11:48 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:480e780b-8592-4877...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > > What prevents a sailboat from not *pointing* where it is *moving*?
>
> >> >> > Inertia.
>
> >> >> Nonsense.
>
> >> > That tells how much you know about physics.
>
> >> >> When a plane flies the wings operate at an "angle of attack"
> >> >> -- i.e. they do not *point* in the direction they are moving.
>
> >> > That depends on the airplane and wing design. Most aerobatic airplanes
> >> > have a symmetric wing cord profile, so the airplane remains "neutral"
> >> > for aerobatic maneuvers, the wings point where they move in horizontal
> >> > flight.
>
> >> A symmetrical airfoil will have no lift unless it has an angle of attack. No
> >> angle - no lift. Your knowledge lack is showing, like many of your statements
> >> here.
>
> > Laughable. Have you ever seen a "flying lawn mower" flying? Yup,
> > someone is marketing these odd shape flying machines as remote radio
> > controlled flying toys. And he said, if you've got a big enough engine/
> > power, you can fly anything.
>
> And that has exactly what to do with symmetrical airfoils?
That's exactly it; your "No angle - no lift" doesn't hold water. Lift
is not can only be produced by "angle of attack."
> >> If a symmetrical airfoil could have lift without angle of attack, which way
> >> would it lift? How does it know which way is up?
>
> > Most supersonic fighters have symmetrical airfoils.
>
> And angle of attack, unless they are in a zero-G flight.
Read my response to Alan Baker.
> >> Try thinking before you spew.
>
> > A good advice to yourself.
>
> You are laughable.
You are pathetic.
> >> >> When a car turns, the tires operate at a "slip angle" -- they don't
> >> >> *point* where they are moving.
>
> >> >> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
> >> >> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
> >> >> that force.
>
> >> Yes. The same as the symmetrical airfoil.
>
> > Nonsense. If a symmetrical airfoil generates "no lift," where's the
> > force for turning come from? If a boat does turn by the force
> > generated by "angle of attack," according Bernoulli's fluid dynamic
> > (if you know what it is,) the turn should be in the opposite
> > direction, as the pressure on the outside (in relation to the turn) of
> > the keel is less than the inside of the keel.
>
> The angle of attack makes it produce lift. the forces the airfoil produces are
> directly related to the angle of attack - both positive and negative.
>
> Without angle of attack, forces on the symmetrical airfoil balance out to zero.
> It doesn't take much to fly level, but it does take some. It's basic physics.
Sounds logical, but really, you know nothing about either sailing or
flying. Care to elaborate how "angle of attack" produces lift?
> >> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>
> >> Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
>
> > Here's another advice for you, "if you don't speak, no one would know
> > that you are dumb."
>
> You should take your own advise.
That only makes you "dumber."
:)
IS
Alan Baker
<124f512b-b4fe-4142...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 12:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <6306116d-369f-4481-a5b8-c23906c09...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The keel line is the tangent line.
> >
> > > > No, it's not.
> >
> > > Ok, you denial, why?
> >
> > Because if the keel were pointing in the direction the boat was moving,
> > it would generate no sideways force.
>
> The sideways force--centripetal force--is generated by the rudder, or
> other same function devices.
The rudder points in the opposite direction to the turn of the boat. How
can that possibly create centripetal force for the turn?
>
> > > > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > > > produces no lift.
> >
> > > Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
> >
> > No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
> > my statement even if it were.
>
> No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
> just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
> given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
> Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack), S is
> wing area, d is air density, and V is the true velocity. So, the
> dominate factor of the lift is the velocity, which grows by the square
> of the velocity. That's why those supersonic fighters don't care about
> asymmetric wing for lift that much.
Even if that were true, symmetrical wings must operate at an angle of
attack to generate lift.
This is fact.
>
> > > Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> > > your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> > > designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> > > passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah.
>
> Yup, a typical little knowledge's response, when their arguments got
> poked full of holes.
You ignored my argument and substituted a bunch of gibberish.
>
> > > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> > > spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
> >
> > No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
> > boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
>
> No. The centripetal force is generated by the movements of the rudder,
> as it turns the boat. The keel only holds main load of the boat, and
> reacts to the centripetal force.
Nope. The rudder generates a force *outward* to the turn that causes the
boat as a whole to pivot *into* the turn (because the force the rudder
generates is behind the centre of mass). Once the boat has pivoted, the
keel then provides the centripetal force.
>
> > > Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> > > direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> > > turn the boat.
> >
> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > floats.
>
> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
On modern boats, the keel plays no role in holding the hull together and
can usually be removed with a few large bolts.
Just another thing you don't understand.
>
> > > You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> > > do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
> >
> > I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
> > depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
> > causing flow separation.
>
> Not really, the "carve turn" remains the same meaning as in skiing:
> "the tail follows the path of the tip," and that is what should be, be
> that in the air, over the water, or on the land. There are always
> bubbles/flow separations behind the boat. The non-separation of the
> flow you are talking about is the "efficiency" of the "controlling"
> force, not the main force that turns the boat.
The main force turning a boat is the force generated by the keel
operating at an angle of attack.
Period.
>
> .....
> Jargons sniped, and you are confused with the "angle of attack" of the
> boat keel, and the "angle of attack" to an airplane wing. In sailing,
> the sailboat is floated by the water and the "angle of attack" of the
> keel is the angle that the boat would turn; however, on the airplane,
> the "angle of attack" of the wing only influences the lift and not for
> the purpose of turning.
My examples were authoritative. End of discussion.
>
> Both of my canoe and power boat have only very shallow keels; they
> turn on their sides/hulls. Based on Newton's Mechanism, my
> descriptions of turning mechanism cover your sailboat and my canoe, as
> well as my power boating, flying, skiing...
Your description of how a keel operates is simply wrong.
>
> >
> > Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
>
> I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
Actual understanding of how these things work.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Bob F
On a symmetrical airfoil angle of attack is required. This is obvious to anyone
who really thinks about it. On a non-symmetrical airfoil, this may not be the
case.
>
>> >> If a symmetrical airfoil could have lift without angle of attack, which
>> >> way
>> >> would it lift? How does it know which way is up?
>>
>> > Most supersonic fighters have symmetrical airfoils.
>>
>> And angle of attack, unless they are in a zero-G flight.
>
> Read my response to Alan Baker.
>
>> >> Try thinking before you spew.
>>
>> > A good advice to yourself.
>>
>> You are laughable.
>
> You are pathetic.
>
>> >> >> When a boat turns and at any other time it creates a lateral force from
>> >> >> the water, its underwater foils operate at an angle of attack to create
>> >> >> that force.
>>
>> >> Yes. The same as the symmetrical airfoil.
>>
>> > Nonsense. If a symmetrical airfoil generates "no lift," where's the
>> > force for turning come from? If a boat does turn by the force
>> > generated by "angle of attack," according Bernoulli's fluid dynamic
>> > (if you know what it is,) the turn should be in the opposite
>> > direction, as the pressure on the outside (in relation to the turn) of
>> > the keel is less than the inside of the keel.
>>
>> The angle of attack makes it produce lift. the forces the airfoil produces
>> are
>> directly related to the angle of attack - both positive and negative.
>>
>> Without angle of attack, forces on the symmetrical airfoil balance out to
>> zero.
>> It doesn't take much to fly level, but it does take some. It's basic physics.
>
> Sounds logical, but really, you know nothing about either sailing or
> flying. Care to elaborate how "angle of attack" produces lift?
It changes the flow of air over and under the wing, causing the pressure above
the wing to be less than the pressure under the wing to maintain level flight.
A symmetrical airfoil is symmetrical. The shape is the same on both top and
bottom. If it has zero angle of attack, why should it somehow decide that the
forces generated shoud be upward? It doesn't. It gets upward forces because
something is different in the air flow over and under the wing. That difference
is produced by the angle of attack.
Turn the airplane upside down with zero angle of attack. What will it do?
>
>> >> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>>
>> >> Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
>>
>> > Here's another advice for you, "if you don't speak, no one would know
>> > that you are dumb."
>>
>> You should take your own advise.
>
> That only makes you "dumber."
You are not only an asshole, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that you are a
stupid one.
Bob F
>
> No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
> just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
> given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
> Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack)
Exactly - angle of attack is a clear part of the equasion. Symmetrical airfoils
require a positive angle for upward lift. Non-symmetrical airfoils may not, but
their lift will increase as the angle increases. Symmetrical airfoils will
produce equal forces up or down with equal positive or negative angles of
attack. Non-symmetrical airfoils may have drastically different forces up or
down for the same positive or negative angles of attack.
Take a symmetrical airfoil plane flying level with 0 angle of attack. Now, turn
it upside down with the same angle. What is it going to do? And why?
bdubya
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Not really, a boat, without its own power, will track straight
>following the keel, even in crosswind; i.e. it will track straight at
>an angle to the crosswind.
No.
A boat with no power will, (absent significant wave action) turn
more-or-less broadside to the wind, and will then travel DOWNWIND, at
close to ninety degrees to the keel. It won't go very fast, but it
will travel pretty much perpendicular to the keel. (Unless the hull
is as full of holes as your arguments here, in which case it will
settle gently to the bottom, kicking up a cloud of pseudo-mystical
self-serving mumbo-jumbo as it settles onto its side.)
bw
Dave Cartman
<124f512b-b4fe-4142...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > floats.
>
> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
It doesn't keep him from pretending to be an expert again.
Dave
Yabahoobs
> In article
> <124f512b-b4fe-4142-9a6b-57639df6f...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > > floats.
>
> > Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>
> I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
>
> It doesn't keep him from pretending to be an expert again.
>
> Dave
I'd love to see him and Jeff have a "Physics-Off". Both claim to be
near-experts in Newtonian mechanics...Both claim to know the ins and
outs of flight mechanics...
Bob F
"Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vern93-A87419....@82-136-209-74.ip.telfort.nl...
He seems to fall pretty well into the classic "know-it-all" classification.
Never a pleasent person to be around.
Norm
"Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
>> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
>> > floats.
>>
>> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>
> I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
>
I think you're right. Could he be thinking of the rudder?
Of course in the unpartitioned world of Tai Chi Speak, maybe the keel
becomes part of the rudder. Or vice versa?
taichiskiing
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 12:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <6306116d-369f-4481-a5b8-c23906c09...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The keel line is the tangent line.
>
> > > > > No, it's not.
>
> > > > Ok, you denial, why?
>
> > > Because if the keel were pointing in the direction the boat was moving,
> > > it would generate no sideways force.
>
> > The sideways force--centripetal force--is generated by the rudder, or
> > other same function devices.
>
> The rudder points in the opposite direction to the turn of the boat. How
> can that possibly create centripetal force for the turn?
No. You move the "handle" of the rudder to the opposite direction,
while the rudder itself points to the same direction as the turn of
the boat. That is, when you move the handle to the left, the rudder
moves to the right and turns the keel pointing to the right. Once/when
the keel moves out its original direction, the centripetal force
begins.
> > > > > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > > > > produces no lift.
>
> > > > Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
>
> > > No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
> > > my statement even if it were.
>
> > No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
> > just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
> > given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
> > Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack), S is
> > wing area, d is air density, and V is the true velocity. So, the
> > dominate factor of the lift is the velocity, which grows by the square
> > of the velocity. That's why those supersonic fighters don't care about
> > asymmetric wing for lift that much.
>
> Even if that were true, symmetrical wings must operate at an angle of
> attack to generate lift.
>
> This is fact.
Not really, given the lift equation, the lift is mostly generated by
"thrust"; that's why you can fly a lawn mower if you give it a big
enough engine.
> > > > Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> > > > your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> > > > designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> > > > passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
>
> > > Blah, blah, blah.
>
> > Yup, a typical little knowledge's response, when their arguments got
> > poked full of holes.
>
> You ignored my argument and substituted a bunch of gibberish.
Not really, it is your argument that has been proved as a bunch of
gibberish.
> > > > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> > > > spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
>
> > > No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
> > > boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
>
> > No. The centripetal force is generated by the movements of the rudder,
> > as it turns the boat. The keel only holds main load of the boat, and
> > reacts to the centripetal force.
>
> Nope. The rudder generates a force *outward* to the turn that causes the
> boat as a whole to pivot *into* the turn (because the force the rudder
> generates is behind the centre of mass). Once the boat has pivoted, the
> keel then provides the centripetal force.
No, the turn rate of the boat is controlled/affected by the rudder
movements, so the centripetal force is direct related/generated by the
rudder, as well as paddle for the canoe and oars for a rowboat. The
keel is only on the receiving end of the centripetal force.
> > > > Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> > > > direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> > > > turn the boat.
>
> > > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > > floats.
>
> > Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>
> On modern boats, the keel plays no role in holding the hull together and
> can usually be removed with a few large bolts.
>
> Just another thing you don't understand.
Really? Or you don't know that all ancient Chinese designed/built
boats have no keel, while Western built the boats from the keel up?
> > > > You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> > > > do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
>
> > > I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
> > > depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
> > > causing flow separation.
>
> > Not really, the "carve turn" remains the same meaning as in skiing:
> > "the tail follows the path of the tip," and that is what should be, be
> > that in the air, over the water, or on the land. There are always
> > bubbles/flow separations behind the boat. The non-separation of the
> > flow you are talking about is the "efficiency" of the "controlling"
> > force, not the main force that turns the boat.
>
> The main force turning a boat is the force generated by the keel
> operating at an angle of attack.
>
> Period.
Nothing "period" about it, when a boat has no keel, what generates the
centripetal force?
> > .....
> > Jargons sniped, and you are confused with the "angle of attack" of the
> > boat keel, and the "angle of attack" to an airplane wing. In sailing,
> > the sailboat is floated by the water and the "angle of attack" of the
> > keel is the angle that the boat would turn; however, on the airplane,
> > the "angle of attack" of the wing only influences the lift and not for
> > the purpose of turning.
>
> My examples were authoritative. End of discussion.
There's nothing authoritative about it with some sailing jargons in
the boating world, even less in the whole physics world.
> > Both of my canoe and power boat have only very shallow keels; they
> > turn on their sides/hulls. Based on Newton's Mechanism, my
> > descriptions of turning mechanism cover your sailboat and my canoe, as
> > well as my power boating, flying, skiing...
>
> Your description of how a keel operates is simply wrong.
Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
> > > Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
>
> > I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
>
> Actual understanding of how these things work.
You may learn the mechanics how to operate a sailboat, but lack of
understanding on "how," "why," and "when"--a low level knowledge.
:)
IS
Alan Baker
<440c1f18-aad6-499c...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 5:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <124f512b-b4fe-4142-9a6b-57639df6f...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 14, 12:05 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <6306116d-369f-4481-a5b8-c23906c09...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > The keel line is the tangent line.
> >
> > > > > > No, it's not.
> >
> > > > > Ok, you denial, why?
> >
> > > > Because if the keel were pointing in the direction the boat was moving,
> > > > it would generate no sideways force.
> >
> > > The sideways force--centripetal force--is generated by the rudder, or
> > > other same function devices.
> >
> > The rudder points in the opposite direction to the turn of the boat. How
> > can that possibly create centripetal force for the turn?
>
> No. You move the "handle" of the rudder to the opposite direction,
> while the rudder itself points to the same direction as the turn of
> the boat. That is, when you move the handle to the left, the rudder
> moves to the right and turns the keel pointing to the right. Once/when
> the keel moves out its original direction, the centripetal force
> begins.
Now you're just getting stupid. Look at some pictures.
>
> > > > > > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > > > > > produces no lift.
> >
> > > > > Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
> >
> > > > No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
> > > > my statement even if it were.
> >
> > > No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
> > > just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
> > > given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
> > > Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack), S is
> > > wing area, d is air density, and V is the true velocity. So, the
> > > dominate factor of the lift is the velocity, which grows by the square
> > > of the velocity. That's why those supersonic fighters don't care about
> > > asymmetric wing for lift that much.
> >
> > Even if that were true, symmetrical wings must operate at an angle of
> > attack to generate lift.
> >
> > This is fact.
>
> Not really, given the lift equation, the lift is mostly generated by
> "thrust"; that's why you can fly a lawn mower if you give it a big
> enough engine.
Go read a book. "The Physics of Sailing" would be a good start.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=kFjzekyPKe4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=angle+
attack+keel&source=web&ots=qhU5qX-FxP&sig=2ggixGzV03rJPP8tbIjE6n4eBS4&hl=
en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA47,M1>
>
> > > > > Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> > > > > your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> > > > > designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> > > > > passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
> >
> > > > Blah, blah, blah.
> >
> > > Yup, a typical little knowledge's response, when their arguments got
> > > poked full of holes.
> >
> > You ignored my argument and substituted a bunch of gibberish.
>
> Not really, it is your argument that has been proved as a bunch of
> gibberish.
Go read a book. How about "Getting Started in Sailboat Racing"
<http://books.google.com/books?id=08uvkDasf-IC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=angl
e+attack+keel&source=web&ots=l6c7wsi6U3&sig=dnOk3Z-y_LVxA5VSk0Hx3sJqEJg&h
l=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result>
>
> > > > > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> > > > > spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
> >
> > > > No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
> > > > boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
> >
> > > No. The centripetal force is generated by the movements of the rudder,
> > > as it turns the boat. The keel only holds main load of the boat, and
> > > reacts to the centripetal force.
> >
> > Nope. The rudder generates a force *outward* to the turn that causes the
> > boat as a whole to pivot *into* the turn (because the force the rudder
> > generates is behind the centre of mass). Once the boat has pivoted, the
> > keel then provides the centripetal force.
>
> No, the turn rate of the boat is controlled/affected by the rudder
> movements, so the centripetal force is direct related/generated by the
> rudder, as well as paddle for the canoe and oars for a rowboat. The
> keel is only on the receiving end of the centripetal force.
Try turning a small boat with its centreboard raised...
>
> > > > > Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> > > > > direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> > > > > turn the boat.
> >
> > > > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > > > floats.
> >
> > > Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
> >
> > On modern boats, the keel plays no role in holding the hull together and
> > can usually be removed with a few large bolts.
> >
> > Just another thing you don't understand.
>
> Really? Or you don't know that all ancient Chinese designed/built
> boats have no keel, while Western built the boats from the keel up?
I know that *modern* sailboats aren't built that way and that keels
don't float.
>
> > > > > You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> > > > > do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
> >
> > > > I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
> > > > depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
> > > > causing flow separation.
> >
> > > Not really, the "carve turn" remains the same meaning as in skiing:
> > > "the tail follows the path of the tip," and that is what should be, be
> > > that in the air, over the water, or on the land. There are always
> > > bubbles/flow separations behind the boat. The non-separation of the
> > > flow you are talking about is the "efficiency" of the "controlling"
> > > force, not the main force that turns the boat.
> >
> > The main force turning a boat is the force generated by the keel
> > operating at an angle of attack.
> >
> > Period.
>
> Nothing "period" about it, when a boat has no keel, what generates the
> centripetal force?
The hull.
>
> > > .....
> > > Jargons sniped, and you are confused with the "angle of attack" of the
> > > boat keel, and the "angle of attack" to an airplane wing. In sailing,
> > > the sailboat is floated by the water and the "angle of attack" of the
> > > keel is the angle that the boat would turn; however, on the airplane,
> > > the "angle of attack" of the wing only influences the lift and not for
> > > the purpose of turning.
> >
> > My examples were authoritative. End of discussion.
>
> There's nothing authoritative about it with some sailing jargons in
> the boating world, even less in the whole physics world.
You're just an idiot.
>
> > > Both of my canoe and power boat have only very shallow keels; they
> > > turn on their sides/hulls. Based on Newton's Mechanism, my
> > > descriptions of turning mechanism cover your sailboat and my canoe, as
> > > well as my power boating, flying, skiing...
> >
> > Your description of how a keel operates is simply wrong.
>
> Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
It shed more than enough light. You're simply wrong.
>
> > > > Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
> >
> > > I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
> >
> > Actual understanding of how these things work.
>
> You may learn the mechanics how to operate a sailboat, but lack of
> understanding on "how," "why," and "when"--a low level knowledge.
Nope. I understand all those things. You: none of them.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Richard Henry
From his writings, it appears that the keel he has in mind is the
longest longitudinal member of a boat's construction. To most
sailboaters, the keel is the long, heavy appendage whose weight keeps
the boat upright against the force of winds athwartships. It appears
he has never seen the bottom of a modern sailing boat.
Walt
This depends on the windage characteristics of the boat. For instance,
most kayaks have the seat aft of the beam and if a person sits quietly
in the cockpit the boat will weathercock so that it's pointing into the
wind. Then it will slowly drift downwind.
Of course, if the wind has been blowing a while then there will be waves
and the wave action will tend to turn the broadside to the waves.
And speaking of windage, isn't it about that point in the season where
we get into a heated discussion of who owns crossover?
//Walt
taichiskiing
> "Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vern93-A87419....@82-136-209-74.ip.telfort.nl...
>
> > In article
> > taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> >> > floats.
>
> >> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>
> > I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
>
> > It doesn't keep him from pretending to be an expert again.
>
> He seems to fall pretty well into the classic "know-it-all" classification.
Yes, when you're enlightened in Tao, you would know/understand
everything "under the sky."
> Never a pleasent person to be around.
Why? I like that trait in a friend, and respect that trait in an
enemy. Only little knowledge hates such high quality ability, as such
trait really puts too much pressure on their little knowledge and
mutated egos.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
"Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
So you don't really know what the "angle of attack" is. An "angle of
attack" is the angle between the airfoil and the flight path.
Increasing angle of attack may increase the lift, but only to a point
before the wing stalls. What you are talking about is only wing's
lifting characteristic--"Coefficient of Lift"--which is a relative
measurement of airfoil's lifting capabilities.
>
> Turn the airplane upside down with zero angle of attack. What will it do?
It will continue to fly with less wing efficiency.
> >> >> > There is more physics than the jargons you quote.
>
> >> >> Maybe someday you will learn to understand them.
>
> >> > Here's another advice for you, "if you don't speak, no one would know
> >> > that you are dumb."
>
> >> You should take your own advise.
>
> > That only makes you "dumber."
>
> You are not only an asshole, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that you are a
> stupid one.
That only makes you a name-calling asshole; if you don't know that,
you're "dumber" than you think yourself.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
Ok, let's see how stupid you're going to be, pictures?
> > > > > > > No. A symmetrical wing that is pointing where the aircraft is moving
> > > > > > > produces no lift.
>
> > > > > > Not really, most of supersonic fighters sport symmetrical wings.
>
> > > > > No, actually. That is simply untrue, and it wouldn't change the truth of
> > > > > my statement even if it were.
>
> > > > No, you only got it partially right, but ultimately wrong. Lift is not
> > > > just simply produced by geometric shape of the wing. In fact, Lift is
> > > > given by the equation L=C*S*d/2*V*V, where C is the coefficient of the
> > > > Lift (varies with the type of airfoil used and angle of attack), S is
> > > > wing area, d is air density, and V is the true velocity. So, the
> > > > dominate factor of the lift is the velocity, which grows by the square
> > > > of the velocity. That's why those supersonic fighters don't care about
> > > > asymmetric wing for lift that much.
>
> > > Even if that were true, symmetrical wings must operate at an angle of
> > > attack to generate lift.
>
> > > This is fact.
>
> > Not really, given the lift equation, the lift is mostly generated by
> > "thrust"; that's why you can fly a lawn mower if you give it a big
> > enough engine.
>
> Go read a book. "The Physics of Sailing" would be a good start.
Back to basic, go study some fundamental physics.
<http://books.google.com/books?
id=kFjzekyPKe4C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=angle+
> attack+keel&source=web&ots=qhU5qX-FxP&sig=2ggixGzV03rJPP8tbIjE6n4eBS4&hl=
> en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA47,M1>
> > > > > > Not really, it depends on how "deep, nevertheless, mostly shallow"
> > > > > > your thinking is. All those "slip angle" and other features are
> > > > > > designed to make the car's center of gravity/CG moves smoothly, so the
> > > > > > passengers inside don't get tossed around by the turning force.
>
> > > > > Blah, blah, blah.
>
> > > > Yup, a typical little knowledge's response, when their arguments got
> > > > poked full of holes.
>
> > > You ignored my argument and substituted a bunch of gibberish.
>
> > Not really, it is your argument that has been proved as a bunch of
> > gibberish.
>
> Go read a book. How about "Getting Started in Sailboat Racing"
Back to basic, go study some fundamental physics.
>
> <http://books.google.com/books?id=08uvkDasf-IC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=angl
> e+attack+keel&source=web&ots=l6c7wsi6U3&sig=dnOk3Z-y_LVxA5VSk0Hx3sJqEJg&h
> l=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result>
> > > > > > According to Newton's Mechanism, the centripetal force is generated
> > > > > > spontaneously as the boat turns; without it, the boat won't turn.
>
> > > > > No. The centripetal force has to be generated by something. And on a
> > > > > boat, it is the keel that produces most of it.
>
> > > > No. The centripetal force is generated by the movements of the rudder,
> > > > as it turns the boat. The keel only holds main load of the boat, and
> > > > reacts to the centripetal force.
>
> > > Nope. The rudder generates a force *outward* to the turn that causes the
> > > boat as a whole to pivot *into* the turn (because the force the rudder
> > > generates is behind the centre of mass). Once the boat has pivoted, the
> > > keel then provides the centripetal force.
>
> > No, the turn rate of the boat is controlled/affected by the rudder
> > movements, so the centripetal force is direct related/generated by the
> > rudder, as well as paddle for the canoe and oars for a rowboat. The
> > keel is only on the receiving end of the centripetal force.
>
> Try turning a small boat with its centreboard raised...
If there's a rudder, it will turn.
> > > > > > Rudder is a secondary control device, and it only changes the
> > > > > > direction of the keel, but it is the keel that floats, as well as to
> > > > > > turn the boat.
>
> > > > > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> > > > > floats.
>
> > > > Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>
> > > On modern boats, the keel plays no role in holding the hull together and
> > > can usually be removed with a few large bolts.
>
> > > Just another thing you don't understand.
>
> > Really? Or you don't know that all ancient Chinese designed/built
> > boats have no keel, while Western built the boats from the keel up?
>
> I know that *modern* sailboats aren't built that way and that keels
> don't float.
Yup, that's your small domain, little knowledge.
> > > > > > You are talking about a maneuver equivalent to skiing's "pivot turn,"
> > > > > > do you know how to "carve turn" a sailboat?
>
> > > > > I'm talking about the way things are. A "carve turn" in a craft which
> > > > > depends on a foil (be it air or water) means to angle the foil without
> > > > > causing flow separation.
>
> > > > Not really, the "carve turn" remains the same meaning as in skiing:
> > > > "the tail follows the path of the tip," and that is what should be, be
> > > > that in the air, over the water, or on the land. There are always
> > > > bubbles/flow separations behind the boat. The non-separation of the
> > > > flow you are talking about is the "efficiency" of the "controlling"
> > > > force, not the main force that turns the boat.
>
> > > The main force turning a boat is the force generated by the keel
> > > operating at an angle of attack.
>
> > > Period.
>
> > Nothing "period" about it, when a boat has no keel, what generates the
> > centripetal force?
>
> The hull.
So, it is not "keel generates centripetal force"?
> > > > .....
> > > > Jargons sniped, and you are confused with the "angle of attack" of the
> > > > boat keel, and the "angle of attack" to an airplane wing. In sailing,
> > > > the sailboat is floated by the water and the "angle of attack" of the
> > > > keel is the angle that the boat would turn; however, on the airplane,
> > > > the "angle of attack" of the wing only influences the lift and not for
> > > > the purpose of turning.
>
> > > My examples were authoritative. End of discussion.
>
> > There's nothing authoritative about it with some sailing jargons in
> > the boating world, even less in the whole physics world.
>
> You're just an idiot.
No. it's only your pathetic denial when you cannot keep up the
discussion.
> > > > Both of my canoe and power boat have only very shallow keels; they
> > > > turn on their sides/hulls. Based on Newton's Mechanism, my
> > > > descriptions of turning mechanism cover your sailboat and my canoe, as
> > > > well as my power boating, flying, skiing...
>
> > > Your description of how a keel operates is simply wrong.
>
> > Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
>
> It shed more than enough light. You're simply wrong.
Yup, that's your little knowledge's denial alright.
> > > > > Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
>
> > > > I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
>
> > > Actual understanding of how these things work.
>
> > You may learn the mechanics how to operate a sailboat, but lack of
> > understanding on "how," "why," and "when"--a low level knowledge.
>
> Nope. I understand all those things. You: none of them.
Laughable, your denial makes you look really stupid.
:)
IS
Alan Baker
<25028b11-8c2d-4069...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Let's keep this simple.
You're wrong.
I'm right.
Go read a book on the subject and learn something for a change.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Walt
But what if it's on a conveyor belt?
//Walt
taichiskiing
> > Ok, let's see how stupid you're going to be, pictures?
>
> <snip>
>
> Let's keep this simple.
>
> You're wrong.
>
> I'm right.
Yup, a typical conclusion drawn by a conceited little knowledge.
>
> Go read a book on the subject and learn something for a change.
Powder day, no time to waste.
:)
IS
Alan Baker
<4d3a8fa5-1b7e-4b0b...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ok, let's see how stupid you're going to be, pictures?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Let's keep this simple.
> >
> > You're wrong.
> >
> > I'm right.
>
> Yup, a typical conclusion drawn by a conceited little knowledge.
Nope. A simple verifiable fact.
>
> >
> > Go read a book on the subject and learn something for a change.
>
> Powder day, no time to waste.
It's already wasted, Chai-tea. If that were really a consideration,
you'd never have been able to post this in the first place.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
Bob F
>> On a symmetrical airfoil angle of attack is required. This is obvious to
>> anyone
>> who really thinks about it. On a non-symmetrical airfoil, this may not be the
>> case.
>
> That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
> something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
> "Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
With a symmetrical airfoil, angle of attack is required for lift.
It seems rather clear that you are the one with deficient knowledge.
Answer these questions. Is there an angle of attack at which a symmetrical
airfoil provides no force either up or down? What angle of attack is that? Why?
>> Turn the airplane upside down with zero angle of attack. What will it do?
>
> It will continue to fly with less wing efficiency.
Why less efficiency? the wing is EXACTLY the same upside down. It is
symmetrical, right?
Imagine a plane with a symmetrical airfoil, and everything else symmetrical
also. Fuselage, rudder, elevator, everything. It looks exactly the same
rightside up as upside down. Turn it upside down. Is it going to fly less
efficiently?
Bob F
You like know-it-alls? People who claim they know the answers to everything, but
just display their stupidity with their erronious claims? You must be so stipid
you don't even know what a know-it-all is.
You are truely a unique person. Not in a good way.
Dave Cartman
<440c1f18-aad6-499c...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
> >
> > On modern boats, the keel plays no role in holding the hull together and
> > can usually be removed with a few large bolts.
> >
> > Just another thing you don't understand.
>
> Really? Or you don't know that all ancient Chinese designed/built
> boats have no keel, while Western built the boats from the keel up?
Whoa there. Are you saying the Ancient Chinese didn't have boats?
Because you were the one who said "Without the keel to hold the hull
together, you don't have a boat."
You are comically, and entertainingly stupid.
Dave Cartman
<440c1f18-aad6-499c...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Your description of how a keel operates is simply wrong.
>
> Your little knowledge doesn't shed the light.
He provided 5 sources that described the extremely well studied subject
of sailing and you simply discount it out of hand as "jargon."
>
> > > > Now why don't you actually learn something for a change.
> >
> > > I did, I got my pilot license, CFII; what do you have?
> >
> > Actual understanding of how these things work.
>
> You may learn the mechanics how to operate a sailboat, but lack of
> understanding on "how," "why," and "when"--a low level knowledge.
Tai Chi, you are comically, outrageously stupid. It may be an act, or a
troll, regardless it is very entertaining.
You spew your arrogant ignorance with abandon and refuse to accept any
facts or science, because you "feel it." I think netkooks tend to be
chock-full-o personality disorders. Can you guess yours?
Dave Cartman
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
It's "only" your small knowledge "that" centripetal force "is" direct
related/generated to the keel. I have a pilots license, do you? How
"much" do you want to bet?
Dave Cartman
<25028b11-8c2d-4069...@a37g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I know that *modern* sailboats aren't built that way and that keels
> > don't float.
>
> Yup, that's your small domain, little knowledge.
So in your "BIG domain," "LARGE knowledge," modern sailboats ARE built
that way and their keels DO float?
I may just see a netkook award in your future.
Dave Cartman
<7caa5973-c02c-49ed...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
> something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
> "Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
Oh yeah. See how high your airplane gets without it.
Dave Cartman
<7caa5973-c02c-49ed...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You are not only an asshole, but it is rapidly becoming apparent that you
> > are a
> > stupid one.
>
> That only makes you a name-calling asshole; if you don't know that,
> you're "dumber" than you think yourself.
If that's the case, doesn't that mean, by virtue of your predilection
for name calling that you are a "little knowledge, gaper, gapper,
blacker, name calling asshole?"
Dave Cartman
<264c9341-0a2d-42c9...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > He seems to fall pretty well into the classic "know-it-all" classification.
>
> Yes, when you're enlightened in Tao, you would know/understand
> everything "under the sky."
Maybe, but when you suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you
just think you ' know/understand everything "under the sky." '
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS0065
2
(this is actually a little more readable and as accurate)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_Personality_Disorder
bdubya
<thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
>"Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
.......and in the same post...
> An "angle of
>attack" is the angle between the airfoil and the flight path.
So...which is it?
bw
Norm
"Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
>>
>> "Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
>>
>> >> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
>> >> > floats.
>> >>
>> >> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
>> >
>> > I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I think you're right. Could he be thinking of the rudder?
>> Of course in the unpartitioned world of Tai Chi Speak, maybe the keel
>> becomes part of the rudder. Or vice versa?
>
> It's "only" your small knowledge "that" centripetal force "is" direct
> related/generated to the keel. I have a pilots license, do you? How
> "much" do you want to bet?
Generated "TO" the keel?
All force emanates "FROM" the keel. The Keel "RULES"
(The keel is that thingy that spins on the bottom of the motor, right?)
I had a hunting license once. It was tourist season but apparently...
Lets not dig that one up again.
Norm
"Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
>> > I know that *modern* sailboats aren't built that way and that keels
>> > don't float.
>>
>> Yup, that's your small domain, little knowledge.
>
> So in your "BIG domain," "LARGE knowledge," modern sailboats ARE built
> that way and their keels DO float?
>
> I may just see a netkook award in your future.
I'll see your netkook award and raise you a meeting to spew youe shit in
person!
Dave Cartman
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> "Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
>
> >>
> >> "Dave Cartman" <ver...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vern93-
> >>
> >> >> > Actually, the keel is always made of steel or even lead and it never
> >> >> > floats.
> >> >>
> >> >> Without the keel to hold the hull together, you don't have a boat.
> >> >
> >> > I honestly don't think he knows what a keel is.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I think you're right. Could he be thinking of the rudder?
> >> Of course in the unpartitioned world of Tai Chi Speak, maybe the keel
> >> becomes part of the rudder. Or vice versa?
> >
> > It's "only" your small knowledge "that" centripetal force "is" direct
> > related/generated to the keel. I have a pilots license, do you? How
> > "much" do you want to bet?
>
>
> Generated "TO" the keel?
>
> All force emanates "FROM" the keel. The Keel "RULES"
> (The keel is that thingy that spins on the bottom of the motor, right?)
That's just your small knowledge. The keel is stationary. The universe
moves past it.
taichiskiing
> In article <4d3a8fa5-1b7e-4b0b-9263-dffbc9872...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 9:08 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ok, let's see how stupid you're going to be, pictures?
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Let's keep this simple.
>
> > > You're wrong.
>
> > > I'm right.
>
> > Yup, a typical conclusion drawn by a conceited little knowledge.
>
> Nope. A simple verifiable fact.
Yes, it is a simple verifiable fact, when you contradict Newton's
Mechanism, you are wrong. And that's also the fact of science/physics.
> > > Go read a book on the subject and learn something for a change.
>
> > Powder day, no time to waste.
>
> It's already wasted, Chai-tea. If that were really a consideration,
> you'd never have been able to post this in the first place.
To expose that you are a little knowledge? Not really, actually, it's
time well spent.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7caa5973-c02c-49ed...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> On a symmetrical airfoil angle of attack is required. This is obvious to
> >> anyone who really thinks about it. On a non-symmetrical airfoil,
> >> this may not be the case.
>
> > That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
> > something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
> > "Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
>
> With a symmetrical airfoil, angle of attack is required for lift.
"Required" is too much a requirement. A flying lawn mower has neither
"wing" nor "angle of attack."
> >> A symmetrical airfoil is symmetrical. The shape is the same on both top and
> >> bottom. If it has zero angle of attack, why should it somehow decide that the
> >> forces generated shoud be upward? It doesn't. It gets upward forces because
> >> something is different in the air flow over and under the wing. That
> >> difference
> >> is produced by the angle of attack.
>
> > So you don't really know what the "angle of attack" is. An "angle of
> > attack" is the angle between the airfoil and the flight path.
> > Increasing angle of attack may increase the lift, but only to a point
> > before the wing stalls. What you are talking about is only wing's
> > lifting characteristic--"Coefficient of Lift"--which is a relative
> > measurement of airfoil's lifting capabilities.
>
> It seems rather clear that you are the one with deficient knowledge.
Not sure what makes it clear, your little knowledge or you don't read
beyond your skull.
>
> Answer these questions.
Question answered, but you don't have what it takes to comprehend the
answer.
> Is there an angle of attack at which a symmetrical
> airfoil provides no force either up or down? What angle of attack is that? Why?
Read my previous answer on "what" is an "angle of attack" above.
>
> >> Turn the airplane upside down with zero angle of attack. What will it do?
>
> > It will continue to fly with less wing efficiency.
>
> Why less efficiency? the wing is EXACTLY the same upside down. It is
> symmetrical, right?
>
> Imagine a plane with a symmetrical airfoil, and everything else symmetrical
> also. Fuselage, rudder, elevator, everything. It looks exactly the same
> rightside up as upside down. Turn it upside down. Is it going to fly less
> efficiently?
Yes, you can build an airplane to fly upside down and right side up
with equal efficiency, but it would not be the airplane you described,
and a perfectly symmetric airplane, (not sure if one can be built,)
will be very difficult to fly.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:264c9341-0a2d-42c9...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 15, 12:36 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> He seems to fall pretty well into the classic "know-it-all" classification.
>
> > Yes, when you're enlightened in Tao, you would know/understand
> > everything "under the sky."
>
> >> Never a pleasent person to be around.
>
> > Why? I like that trait in a friend, and respect that trait in an
> > enemy. Only little knowledge hates such high quality ability, as such
> > trait really puts too much pressure on their little knowledge and
> > mutated egos.
>
> You like know-it-alls? People who claim they know the answers to everything, but
> just display their stupidity with their erronious claims?
Like the way you gappers think you "know-it-all"?
> You must be so stipid you don't even know what a know-it-all is.
"stipid," what's that? I did say that incompetent people make
misspells when under stress.
>
> You are truely a unique person. Not in a good way.
Yup, my friends like me, my opponents respect me, and gapers hate
that, "too much pressure on their little knowledge and mutated egos."
:)
IS
Evojeesus
wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:16 pm,Evojeesus<evojee...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 5:57 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting [in the wind] and
> > > fishing.
> > So you ski 110 days a year and spend most of the summer on the water?
> > How many days a year does that leave for intellectual pursuits?
> "Intellectual pursuits," eh? Sounds intellectual. So, how does your
> life come about? Are you intellectual, powerful, wealthy... content?
Yeah man I spend 220+ days a year doing mentally satisfying things and
being paid for doing them...i'd still like to get to ski more than I
do now but one cannot have everything :-)
Bob F
> On Dec 16, 9:36 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:264c9341-0a2d-42c9...@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Dec 15, 12:36 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> He seems to fall pretty well into the classic "know-it-all"
>> >> classification.
>>
>> > Yes, when you're enlightened in Tao, you would know/understand
>> > everything "under the sky."
>>
>> >> Never a pleasent person to be around.
>>
>> > Why? I like that trait in a friend, and respect that trait in an
>> > enemy. Only little knowledge hates such high quality ability, as such
>> > trait really puts too much pressure on their little knowledge and
>> > mutated egos.
>>
>> You like know-it-alls? People who claim they know the answers to everything,
>> but
>> just display their stupidity with their erronious claims?
>
> Like the way you gappers think you "know-it-all"?
>
>> You must be so stipid you don't even know what a know-it-all is.
>
> "stipid," what's that? I did say that incompetent people make
> misspells when under stress.
That's a typo.
If you think a simple typo, which you quickly understood, was a problem, imagine
everyone here trying to make sense of your mutilated english gibbering.
>
>>
>> You are truely a unique person. Not in a good way.
>
> Yup, my friends like me, my opponents respect me, and gapers hate
> that, "too much pressure on their little knowledge and mutated egos."
LOL! The idiot IS nevers learns.
Dave Cartman
<51227357-8c9f-4a2e...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You must be so stipid you don't even know what a know-it-all is.
>
> "stipid," what's that? I did say that incompetent people make
> misspells when under stress.
Rule #1 of Internet spelling lames: DO NOT HAVE MISSPELLINGS OF YOUR OWN
WHEN CRITICIZING SOMEONE FOR A TYPO. It makes you look like a hooooge
moran.
> >
> > You are truely a unique person. Not in a good way.
>
> Yup, my friends like me, my opponents respect me, and gapers hate
> that, "too much pressure on their little knowledge and mutated egos."
It's like someone used Babelfish to convert from English to Chinese to
Gibberish and back to English one of Scott's rants about being well
liked and admired by *his* legions of invisible fans and only disliked
by people who are jealous of how totally AWESOME he is.
Dude, near as I can tell, the big difference between you and our other
resident netkook is, he knows proper grammar and punctuation and uses a
spell checker.
Yabahoobs
> In article
> <51227357-8c9f-4a2e-a3b9-b0d66a514...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Spell checkers don't alert to broken English, improper verb tenses
etc... Only "the true knowledge" can allow Itchy to improve.
Dave Cartman
<5a734ef1-2fd4-432c...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > With a symmetrical airfoil, angle of attack is required for lift.
>
> "Required" is too much a requirement. A flying lawn mower has neither
> "wing" nor "angle of attack."
Would it be possible to post a link to these amazing "flying lawn
mowers" of yours that fly without an airfoil?
Nevermind, I found it:
http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/flying-lawn-mower.html
And here's a phrase from the Web site that tells you EVERYTHING you need
to know about this amazing, magic, doesn't need an angle of attack,
wingless, all thrust, flying lawn mower. Are you sitting comfortably?
Then let's begin.
"thick aerofoil wing"
What's that? It's not really a "flying lawnmower?" It's an airplane
disguised as a lawn mower? It looks like your small, partitioned mind
and little knowledge saw only what it wanted to see. I think I'll
repeat the that phrase so you can be sure to look it up in your old
flying textbook.
"thick aerofoil wing"
I'll also say this again: You are comically stupid.
> Not sure what makes it clear, your little knowledge or you don't read
> beyond your skull.
There. That's what I LOVE about netkooks! Being unimaginably
skullcrushingly stupid AND critising with abandon those who are trying
to explain to them why they are wrong.
Netkook on, netkook!
Dave
VtSkier
> On Dec 16, 9:33 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7caa5973-c02c-49ed...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> On a symmetrical airfoil angle of attack is required. This is obvious to
>>>> anyone who really thinks about it. On a non-symmetrical airfoil,
>>>> this may not be the case.
>>> That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
>>> something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
>>> "Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
>> With a symmetrical airfoil, angle of attack is required for lift.
>
> "Required" is too much a requirement. A flying lawn mower has neither
> "wing" nor "angle of attack."
IS, a flying lawn mower doesn't use an airfoil. Your
argument is a straw man.
The statement is talking about a symetrical airfoil,
not a flying lawn mower.
taichiskiing
:)
IS
On Dec 17, 12:50 pm, Dave Cartman <ver...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <5a734ef1-2fd4-432c-8651-25a3bfd8a...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing
Sounds pretty incompetent bunch, don't they?
> >> You are truely a unique person. Not in a good way.
>
> > Yup, my friends like me, my opponents respect me, and gapers hate
> > that, "too much pressure on their little knowledge and mutated egos."
>
> LOL! The idiot IS nevers learns.
"nevers"? Yup, a little knowledge never learn, especially when it's
under the pressure.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> taichiskiing wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 9:33 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:7caa5973-c02c-49ed...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> On a symmetrical airfoil angle of attack is required. This is obvious to
> >>>> anyone who really thinks about it. On a non-
> >>>> symmetrical airfoil, this may not be the case.
>
> >>> That's you layman talks about jargons to pretend that you know
> >>> something about it. Angle of attack is only a relative measure of
> >>> "Coefficient of Lift," not the main source of power/force for lifting.
> >> With a symmetrical airfoil, angle of attack is required for lift.
>
> > "Required" is too much a requirement. A flying lawn mower has neither
> > "wing" nor "angle of attack."
>
> IS, a flying lawn mower doesn't use an airfoil. Your
> argument is a straw man.
>
> The statement is talking about a symetrical airfoil,
> not a flying lawn mower.
Wrong questions, wrong answers, and wrong crowds.
:)
IS
taichiskiing
> On Dec 13, 5:44 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 12, 1:16 pm,Evojeesus<evojee...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 11, 5:57 pm, taichiskiing <thedreamofbutter...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm a canoeist, and I spend most summer over the water drifting [in the wind] and
> > > > fishing.
> > > So you ski 110 days a year and spend most of the summer on the water?
> > > How many days a year does that leave for intellectual pursuits?
> > "Intellectual pursuits," eh? Sounds intellectual. So, how does your
> > life come about? Are you intellectual, powerful, wealthy... content?
>
> Yeah man I spend 220+ days a year doing mentally satisfying things and
> being paid for doing them...
Sounds boring, what do you do for the "mentally satisfying things"?
> i'd still like to get to ski more than I
> do now but one cannot have everything :-)
Nothing by chance, I have chased the snow all over the north America.
Pursue your dream; when your dream dies, life is just a long
struggle.
And the meaning of life in the end is only what you can remember.
:)
IS
samvaknin
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4923
Narcissists as Drama Queens
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4948
The Narcissist as Know-it-all
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/narcissisticabuse/message/4945
Hi,
For a more detailed view of pathological narcissism and the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) - click on these links:
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders12.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders13.html
http://samvak.tripod.com/personalitydisorders14.html
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/narcissismglance.html
Other Personality Disorders
http://malignantselflove.tripod.com/faqpd.html
Pathological Narcissism diagnosed with Other Mental Health Disorders
Dave Cartman
<fc021805-a2f3-484f...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
taichiskiing <thedreamo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Talking about "netkook," I let this post to speak for itself.
>
> :)
> IS
I take it that is your version of "you're insane get help now" that
Scott posts when he has just been embarrassed and doesn't want to
confront it?
Or did you have another type of "flying lawn mower" in mind? You know,
the kind you described with your "superiour" intellect and "enlightened"
perception?
The kind that of 'flying lawn mower (that) has neither wing" nor "angle
of attack."' You know, the kind that doesn't make it clear that you
have now idea what you are talking about and you only see what you are
prepared to see and have no grasp on the actual physics of the world
around you. "It's a magic flying lawn mower and its mere existence
proves you don't need an wing to generate lift." OOPS! :)
Dude, a less netkooky netkook would slink away for a couple of days
after something like that and hope everyone forgot it, but you aren't
that kind of netkook, are you?
Dave
PS - you are comically stupid.
bdubya
wrote:
>
>The kind that of 'flying lawn mower (that) has neither wing" nor "angle
>of attack."'
I've seen those. But they all involve a catapult or trebuchet, and
have no relevance to the discussion at hand.
bw