måndag 17 september 2012

Empty Flight Theory at Boeing

Boeing presents as a service to the community the following information on Forces of Flight/Lift/Basics:
• Lift is the upward force that counteracts gravity and enables airplanes to fly.
• Lift keeps birds, gliders, and airplanes aloft as they move forward through the air. Lift is also generated by the spinning blades of a helicopter.
• Aerodynamic lift is based on Daniel Bernoulli’s Principle, which states that the pressure of a flowing fluid or gas decreases as its velocity increases. To take advantage of this, an airplane wing, like a bird wing, is designed with a distinctive shape called an airfoil. This shape creates the greatest possible lift for the airplane.
• The shape of an airplane wing, the angle at which the wing meets the airflow, and the speed of the airplane all affect the lift.
This information is preceded by a friendly:
• Welcome to "Forces of Flight," a new Boeing program created to help classroom teachers to excite and engage students about science.
• We hope that you will find this program helpful and interesting.
• We are proud to partner with teachers who are making the effort to inspire the next generation of scientists.
• In addition to being informative, this program is intended to promote student inquiry by linking the information on the posters and web site to a series of classic hands-on physics experiments that demonstrate how the forces of flight actually work.
But what Boeing offers to young minds eager to understand why it is possible to fly, is not a correct explanation of the generation of lift, in fact no explanation at all: It is only a vague hint that somehow it is the shape of a wing that generates lift, which is directly contradicted by suggesting that it is maybe instead the angle of attack that gives (a symmetric wing) lift.

None of the natural questions from the students can be answered this way which can only teach that science is a hopeless mess which cannot excite and engage students.

The question then presents itself: Does Boeing know how a wing generates lift?

To check out I sent today the following mail to Boeing:
• On the web site The Secret of Flight I present a New Theory of Flight (submitted to AIAA) giving a new explanation of the generation of lift and drag of a wing, which is fundamentally different from classical text-book theory.
• My question: How does Boeing explain the generation of lift of a wing?
I will report the answer. Here it is:

Thank you for your message to the Boeing Web feedback box. The best source of information on The Boeing Company and our products is our public website: www.boeing.com

You can find a great deal of information using the search tool. Try clicking on the “About Us” link, which will take you to pages on history and research assistance (including an aviation reading list and related aerospace sites).

Due to the high volume of requests we receive, we cannot provide any additional information or research assistance than what can be found on our public website.

Thank you for your interest in Boeing.

Kind regards,
Boeing Webmaster

9 kommentarer:

1. when are we going to see the post: incorrect theory of flight in the book /The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow by Townsend/?

2. There is nothing about lift and drag of wings in this book, so what is the point of this comment?

3. do you mean that there is nothing incorrect in the theory of flight that AIAA defends?

4. An empty theory is neither correct nor incorrect, like zero which is neither strictly positive nor strictly negative.

5. 1. AIAA claims that in /The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow by Townsend/ you find a correct solution to the questions you address in your paper and that the popularisation of the theory exposed there is incorrect
2. you say, now in a comment, in an answer to a lorenzo from nowhere, that this is not true.
3. to AIAA and on this blog you keep on attacking various popularisations of the theory that AIAA claims being correct
4. you are clearly not an idiot

there is something i am missing

6. I don't see that Townsend treat lie and drag of a wing. Do you?
What popularizations are claimed to be correct by AIAA?
Yes, you seem to be missing something.

7. AIAA referees and editor say that you are attacking an obsolete theory and/or popularisations of the current accepted theory.
They claim you should read Townsend (i suppose they mean that what they consider to be the correct theory is in Townsend).
You do not answer to the referees and the editor: in Townsend there is nothing about the theory of flight!
You just keep on attacking the theories they claim to be incomplete (and wrong) simplifications of the "real" one.

So, my question is: why don't you tell Blaidsell that the theory of flight exposed in Townsend is also incorrect or, alternatively, as you seem to suggest that there is no theory of flight in Townsend?

To me the discussion seems like:

AIAA: the theory A that you claim to be incorrect is indeed incorrect, being a simplification of B, which is the correct theory.

Claes: ah! you agree that B is incorrect, so why don't you publish my paper that shows that A is incorrect? Look at these articles/books/websites presenting A! You see, A is wrong. I have now proved that B is wrong by showing that people believe A is right. You must publish my paper because the freedom of science demands it, every thing else is censorship. Send an order to my colleagues at KTH to come and speak with me about A, so i can prove them wrong.

AIAA: Well, Claes, you see A is indeed wrong, in the sense that it is a simplification of B. At the first sight A sounds convincing, but with a bit of intelligence, of course, you understand it is wrong. The thing is that the correct theory is B. Why don't you study B before claiming that you have falsified the current theory of flight?

Anders: Claes, couldn't you be content with just showing a new way of computing drag and lift? Why do you have to make every single work you do like a revolutionary new discovery that changes they way we look at mathematics, physics, philosophy, metaphysics .... Can't you be satisfied with having done a remarkable job?

Claes: Anders, you have already applied censorship on my work. B is wrong, as both AIAA-referees cannot avoid mentioning in their reports and wrong theories are unstable and will not lift.

Claes: Dear AIAA since we agree that B is wrong, why do you defend it?

8. I am not saying that our work is revolutionary. I just tell what we have done and can do. If you don't see it