Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

No argument there exx but you still have to push against the wind to get lift don't you,

The engine provides the wind, and your forward momentum. If you fly into a head wind you stay aloft just fine, but your forward motion gets the windspeed coming at you subtracted from it.

comming down that could be drag because your getting lift when your trying to fall but I think thats is what flaps are for to change the wind direction( I should have said flow here shouldn't have I) so your not getting lift and the wind is pushing you down.

You are correct. But I'd really ask dirt or chet. They are professionals.

I could be wrong, like I said I don't know but it seams to me you get lift going up you take it away going down everything is equal except gravity, your pushing up against gravity going up gravity is helping you come down hence more energy to get up the come down meaning more fuel.

Yes, but a plane is not like a rocket.

Forward momentum lessens a planes weight from the lift provided by the wings.

You're not pushing against gravity, you are weighing not enough to be attracted to the earth (provided by the planes lifting ability) as long as you go forward at greater than a certain speed.

That speed is called stall speed and that is the point where air does not travel fast enough over the wing and what was once a flying machine, is now a rock way up high in the air.

(Not really like a rock, sometimes you have maneuverability from the speed of your descent, but a lot like a rock in that you are falling and can't stop that unless you can "make your wind" with the engine.)

Just some [mis]informational education man.
But do your own homework, I may have been wrong.

I *THINK* dirt meant that the thickness (pressure) of the atmosphere costs more to manipulate with the engines because it is indeed thicker.

Think of air as oil.

Up high, the oil is warm and runs like water.

Down low the oil is cold and behaves like syrup.

But that is an oversimplification. it's just one of those little things I do.

Thats how I see it but If I'm wrong in this instance its cool I can live with that because as I said I know nothing about it.
Take Care Exx
Graham

No worries man.

Just trying to broaden your horizons.
Seems like it's a popular thing to do lately.

Take care Graham

[exxcomm0n]

@ Graham

Again, no worries.

I'm a jack of(f) all trades, but a master of none (well maybe 1, but lets not get into that here).

But it doesn't always have to be that way.

Keep learning, always.

Take care Graham

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
I like this subject it gets me thinking and at the risk of sounding stupid again what happens with glyders or hang glyders, they need alot of energy to get up but once up they start to come down the only way to keep them up is to input more energy, they are also bassed on lift, a plane falling will hit the ground unless you input energy to get it back up.
Seams to me no matter what lift you have it wont keep anything in the air because gravity is pushing down on it you need to input power to keep it up against gravity, in other words you need to push against gravity to keep something up even if it has lift and if this is so then it takes more energy to get it up then for it to come down, more energy means more fuel.
Even knowing nothing about avionics I still can't see how it takes less fuel to go up then come down because I know nothing this is logic at work.
Take Care All
Graham

[exxcomm0n]

@ Graham

You're close.

A glider is able to fly because of wind.

It is light and doesn't have the weight that a plane does and therefore is easier to "make light". It only takes the energy of the wind to do it.

But a glider is JUST like a kite.

If you have no wind, you fall.

...and sometimes you can have too much wind (a thermal).

A thermal is a patch of hot rising air that if it captures your glider can lift it very far because now your gliders wing surface area is acting like a very poor balloon because all the air around you is moving up to and you have a broad surface in direct conflict with that rise that you are holding on to.
.
I've heard horror stories of inexperienced hang gliders being stuck in thermals for hours and not able to descend, because they didn't know the "tricks" to defeat the thermal lift and get out of it.


If you were actually pushing against gravity, you would weight MORE.
Your weight from regular gravitational attraction and your weight from the"push" under your feet pushing against gravity.

Like an astronaut in a rocket.

About the gas thing, I would wait and ask Dirt as, like I said, he's a professional.

Take care Graham

[sm0ky2]

Smoky2:
Am I looking at this correctly?  You have the green arrow on the left pointing up.  Do you mean to say that gravity pushes up on the left side?  The way it is offset, the right side would tend to overpower the left side, but I think gravity would also pull down on the left side.
Spaghetti Brain

You are correct - in that gravity pulls "down" on that end, but it is doing so LESS than it is on the other end, - AND since both ends are connected by the same rod/lever, the gravity pulling down (more) on the long end, pushes the short end "up".

Purepower is partially correct - in saying that extending the rods increases angular momentum.
--leverage is actually DECREASED by extending the rods. (something i recently realized when looking at it again)

If you have one arm with the fulcrum centered:  say each half of the arm is 5 inches.
    the arm slides 1 inch to the right. so you have  4:6   OK??

NOW extend the arms by an additional 4 inches, rod centered you have 9 inches on either side.
    the arm slides 1 inch to the right. so you have 7:10  <-- LESS LEVERAGE!!!

However: since angular momentum is increasing, AND Angular momentum = T*t

This causes both Torque AND Time to increase. = meaning the wheel slows down, but has more "power".

which is what is shown in Rusty's video.  Also, i am inclined to agree with Archer, when he said that Rusty doesnt have enough weights - but i would add the comment:  doesnt have enough weights for the length of the extended arms.
So , Rusty::  either shorten the arms, or increase the weight (to the limit of the magnets).
  i wouldn't take that "33%" as an absolute, it may be only an approximate, or could very well be a unique dimension to archer's original wheel. The ratio of total rod length : to: extension may change along a scale as the diameter of the wheel changes. (at least my mind thinks it would make sense that way)