Origin of Harada - discussion

[Zaphod]

The turbines create thrust, which creates a velocity relative to the surrounding airspeed. The force from frisction exerted on the air by the airfoil creates a rotation to the air around the airfoil. A rotation of air around a solid body creates an upwards force on that body. This force counteracts the downwards force of gravity, allowing the plane to stay airborne.

Saying that the turbines keep it up is like saying gravity creates electricity. Sure, gravity causes water to fall on one side of a generator axel, causing it to spin. It is this rotational movement within the generator, and the change of magnetic fields in a conductor that creates electricity.

Without the trust created by the turbines, the plane wouldn't stay airborne... so the turbines keep it up.

You just described the process by which the turbines function. That doesn't negate that the turbines are what keeps them up (or propellers, depending on the type of aircraft).

turbines alone don't make or keep anything airborn. why do you argue just to argue even when you have not footing to argue with?

[Dr. Solar]

The turbines create thrust, which creates a velocity relative to the surrounding airspeed. The force from frisction exerted on the air by the airfoil creates a rotation to the air around the airfoil. A rotation of air around a solid body creates an upwards force on that body. This force counteracts the downwards force of gravity, allowing the plane to stay airborne.

Saying that the turbines keep it up is like saying gravity creates electricity. Sure, gravity causes water to fall on one side of a generator axel, causing it to spin. It is this rotational movement within the generator, and the change of magnetic fields in a conductor that creates electricity.

Without the trust created by the turbines, the plane wouldn't stay airborne... so the turbines keep it up.

You just described the process by which the turbines function. That doesn't negate that the turbines are what keeps them up (or propellers, depending on the type of aircraft).

turbines alone don't make or keep anything airborn. why do you argue just to argue even when you have not footing to argue with?

MotA teaches us patience.

[ManofTheAtom]

The turbines create thrust, which creates a velocity relative to the surrounding airspeed. The force from frisction exerted on the air by the airfoil creates a rotation to the air around the airfoil. A rotation of air around a solid body creates an upwards force on that body. This force counteracts the downwards force of gravity, allowing the plane to stay airborne.

Saying that the turbines keep it up is like saying gravity creates electricity. Sure, gravity causes water to fall on one side of a generator axel, causing it to spin. It is this rotational movement within the generator, and the change of magnetic fields in a conductor that creates electricity.

Without the trust created by the turbines, the plane wouldn't stay airborne... so the turbines keep it up.

You just described the process by which the turbines function. That doesn't negate that the turbines are what keeps them up (or propellers, depending on the type of aircraft).

turbines alone don't make or keep anything airborn. why do you argue just to argue even when you have not footing to argue with?

So planes can fly without turbines or propellers?

Cool

No, wait, they can't. They need one or the other, thus turbines keep the planes up.

[myron]

wow

[Dr. Solar]

How come tanks with turbine engines don't fly?

How come the turbine engine I experimented with in college didn't fly?

How come jets that have ramjets can fly? There is no propeller or turbine in those.

Can planes with turbines still fly without wings? If the turbine makes them fly, they should, right?

What about gliders? How do they fly? They don't have a propeller, turbine, rocket, turboprop, or anything of the sort.

Have you ever made a paper airplane?

You were asking for it, MOTA

[myron]

(hint) The shape of an airplane wing is such that air flowing over it travels at a different rate than air flowing under it...this difference in air flow results in a change in pressure creating a component of force perpendicular to the relative wind...

[ManofTheAtom]

I'm gonna ask ONE more time.

Are you guys saying that airplanes can fly WITHOUT turbines? That they can stay afloat in the air (thus defying the law of gravity by NOT falling to the ground) without the benefit of a turbine and/or propeller?

What I said, which keeps going over your head, was

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?

It could be as simple as what makes an airplane stay up in the air, negating the law of gravity.

Explain it to me then, because in my aeronautical engineering class, I remember it not being that simple

Really, refresh my memory.

The turbines keep it up.

That's how they stay up. The process involved might be complex, but that's the gist of it, and there's a science behind it.

Same goes for Solar, where the science is E=m2 and the reactor is like the turbines.

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

Now you're saying that I must be wrong and that airplanes don't need turbines to stay up, that it must be something else.

That's weird.

Do you have magic airplanes over there? Hell, do you have airplanes, period? Maybe you have magic rugs...

So, to recap what should be very simple yet you're having trouble grasping.

REGARDLESS of the process involved, it is the TURBINES that keep the airplanes up in the air, thus allowing them to negate the law of gravity and stay up in the air.

Maybe I'm missing something and it's not the turbines that do it, or are even needed at all.

Can planes really fly without turbines? That's what you guys are saying...

Or maybe (and most likely) you're just being a$$holes...

[X-O HoboJoe]

I'm gonna ask ONE more time.

Are you guys saying that airplanes can fly WITHOUT turbines? That they can stay afloat in the air (thus defying the law of gravity by NOT falling to the ground) without the benefit of a turbine and/or propeller?

What I said, which keeps going over your head, was

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?

It could be as simple as what makes an airplane stay up in the air, negating the law of gravity.

Explain it to me then, because in my aeronautical engineering class, I remember it not being that simple

Really, refresh my memory.

The turbines keep it up.

That's how they stay up. The process involved might be complex, but that's the gist of it, and there's a science behind it.

Same goes for Solar, where the science is E=m2 and the reactor is like the turbines.

The only thing left to answer is the question of how the process turned Phil into energy (how he turned back is easily answered. Once he became energy, he willed himself back into a man).

Now you're saying that I must be wrong and that airplanes don't need turbines to stay up, that it must be something else.

That's weird.

Do you have magic airplanes over there? Hell, do you have airplanes, period? Maybe you have magic rugs...

So, to recap what should be very simple yet you're having trouble grasping.

REGARDLESS of the process involved, it is the TURBINES that keep the airplanes up in the air, thus allowing them to negate the law of gravity and stay up in the air.

Maybe I'm missing something and it's not the turbines that do it, or are even needed at all.

Can planes really fly without turbines? That's what you guys are saying...

Or maybe (and most likely) you're just being a$$holes...

Gliders have no engines (but are a *SQUEE* to get off the ground.)

The plane stays gets up in the air and stays up due to force from the air pushing on the wing. The wing shape is designed to cause more force on the bottom of the wing (up) than the top of the wing (down). Engines of any sort only increase the speed force vectors giving more control to the pilot over how much lift is being generated by the wings (same principle as why you should accelerate when you have a tire blow out rather than hit the breaks: more vehicle control.)

So, the analogy really doesn't fit in here, but why would Phil care? He can fly on his own.

[greg]

Bernoulli > Burdin

[Chiclo]

Bernoulli > Burdin

[myron]

Bernoulli > Burdin

ssswwweeeeeetttt...

[ManofTheAtom]

Gliders have no engines (but are a *SQUEE* to get off the ground.)

The said thing here is that you quoted what I said but didn't actually read it.

I didn't say gliders, I said airplanes...

The plane stays gets up in the air and stays up due to force from the air pushing on the wing. The wing shape is designed to cause more force on the bottom of the wing (up) than the top of the wing (down). Engines of any sort only increase the speed force vectors giving more control to the pilot over how much lift is being generated by the wings (same principle as why you should accelerate when you have a tire blow out rather than hit the breaks: more vehicle control.)

Again, I said that REGARLESS of the process, the turbine is what keeps the airplane in the air.

[Chiclo]

Then what keeps an airplane without a turbine or propeller (a glider) in the air?

[ManofTheAtom]

Then what keeps an airplane without a turbine or propeller (a glider) in the air?

Depends.

Gliders ride hot air something or other (I forget the exact word) to attain higher altitudes. Without the hot air they fall back to the ground.

The hot air somethingorother takes the place of the turbine.

What you're saying is that airplanes don't need turbines to fly, that they can do it without them.

These must be magic airplanes.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Gliders have no engines (but are a *SQUEE* to get off the ground.)

The said thing here is that you quoted what I said but didn't actually read it.

I didn't say gliders, I said airplanes...

The plane stays gets up in the air and stays up due to force from the air pushing on the wing. The wing shape is designed to cause more force on the bottom of the wing (up) than the top of the wing (down). Engines of any sort only increase the speed force vectors giving more control to the pilot over how much lift is being generated by the wings (same principle as why you should accelerate when you have a tire blow out rather than hit the breaks: more vehicle control.)

Again, I said that REGARLESS of the process, the turbine is what keeps the airplane in the air.

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

[X-O HoboJoe]

Then what keeps an airplane without a turbine or propeller (a glider) in the air?

Depends.

Gliders ride hot air something or other (I forget the exact word) to attain higher altitudes. Without the hot air they fall back to the ground.

The hot air somethingorother takes the place of the turbine.

What you're saying is that airplanes don't need turbines to fly, that they can do it without them.

These must be magic airplanes.

No, but I once held a Cosmic Aeroplane. It was beautiful.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Bernoulli > Burdin

[ManofTheAtom]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

[X-O HoboJoe]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

Nope, that's me being logical, the only one having a ban-worthy meltdown here is you.

OK, take it a step further -- fixed-wing vs. rotory-wing (actually the rotory-wing is a lot closer to what you're claiming to be correct. There ain't no gliding heliocopters fo' sure.)

[ManofTheAtom]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

Nope, that's me being logical, the only one having a ban-worthy meltdown here is you.

OK, take it a step further -- fixed-wing vs. rotory-wing (actually the rotory-wing is a lot closer to what you're claiming to be correct. There ain't no gliding heliocopters fo' sure.)

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

[X-O HoboJoe]

Then what keeps an airplane without a turbine or propeller (a glider) in the air?

Depends.

Are you suggesting that adult diapers are capable of self-sustained flight?

[X-O HoboJoe]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

Nope, that's me being logical, the only one having a ban-worthy meltdown here is you.

OK, take it a step further -- fixed-wing vs. rotory-wing (actually the rotory-wing is a lot closer to what you're claiming to be correct. There ain't no gliding heliocopters fo' sure.)

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

No, you are mistaken and either too proud or stupid to admit it.

Must be Tuesday.

[myron]

[Dr. Solar]

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

So we have reached the conclusion that airplanes with turbine engines require turbines to fly.

That is correct.

I think part of the problem here is that when you say "airplane", you mean "turbine-powered jet". When we read airplane, we think "fixed-wing aircraft", which is the definition most people in the world would think of, which doesn't necessarily require a turbine engine.

The problem here is with accuracy and assumptions.

[ManofTheAtom]

1.) A glider IS an airplane.

2.) No, the engine is NOT what keeps the plane in the air. Look at the word itself if that helps: "Air-Plane" The air part is obvious, so where are they getting the plane from?

3.) What keeps a helio in the air?

That's you being an *SQUEE*, because you know very well that I'm talking about airplanes WITH turbines. Gliders don't have them.

Nope, that's me being logical, the only one having a ban-worthy meltdown here is you.

OK, take it a step further -- fixed-wing vs. rotory-wing (actually the rotory-wing is a lot closer to what you're claiming to be correct. There ain't no gliding heliocopters fo' sure.)

No, it's definitely you being an *SQUEE*.

If I had wanted to talk about gliders, I wouldn't have mentioned turbines or called them airplanes, I'd have said gliders.

The conversation is about airplanes with turbines.

I say airplanes need turbines to fly, you say they don't.

Your planes are magical.

No, you are mistaken and either too proud or stupid to admit it.

Must be Tuesday.

So airplanes don't need turbines to fly?

They must fly on pixie dust.