• Doug [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the two of you are having different arguments together.

    You’re saying it’s a contributing factor and they’re saying it’s not the cause. Both of these things can be true.

    We are taught in school that planes can fly because of the shape of the wing. That isn’t necessarily true even if it does have influence. It can happen without the wing shape. It may happen more effectively with it, but that wasn’t the claim.

    You can both be right here.

    • agamemnonymous
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou.

      The science textbook deep state has been trying to teach you for Decades that air flows faster over the top of an airplane wing because the path over the top is longer, and that generates lower pressure, and therefore lift. It’s always been nonsense! Airplane wings generate lift by directly, unambiguously pushing air down, by being angled relative to the incoming air stream (called an angle of attack). This is why completely flat wings on balsa wood gliders and paper airplanes function perfectly well.

      Bernoulli has nothing to do with it!

      The claim I see here is not that the Bernoulli effect isn’t the primary source of lift, but that it isn’t involved at all. They double down later saying that airfoils are used over flat wings exclusively to combat turbulence.

      And my claim was simply that there has been some debate on the topic among experts, because there has.