Welcome to Fractal Forums

Hi i am Felix from Munich.

currently i am doing a research study about Fluids with Fractals.
My idea came when i have done some research about Aerodynamics with Airplanes.
There i discovered, that the principle of lift is commonly misunderstood.

First i figured out, that the core principles of classical Fluid dynamics are
interpreted wrong, thus it comes to weird conclusions in the interpretation.
Even experts today debate about the real reason of lift and are not clear
which physical principle is responsible:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html)

So there is actually no common and derivable model in aerodynamics which describe the
core Behaviour of Fluid, compared to newtonian principles for technical mechanics.
You only can analyze through several newtonian methods with an incremental render step
how the fluid behaves next. but this differential method can not describe Fluids
they just look for divergence. Its "try and error" fluid dynamics.
We also know that try and error algorithms are highly render consuming,
so is this method.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Rayleigh-Taylor_instability.jpg/220px-Rayleigh-Taylor_instability.jpg)(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/CFD_Shuttle.jpg/220px-CFD_Shuttle.jpg)

Newtonian methods are commonly used, when you do not know the function on which the
behaviour is based on. but to really understand fluids. you have to find the true derivable
principle of Fluids. And therefore you need an Explaination which is mechanically correct.

So Normally when you try to understand Physics of flow the first what you learn is Bernoulli.
But Bernoulli explains forces and energy with an pressure field called dynamic pressure.
it claims this acceleration comes when there are obstacles  in the way.

(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Bernoulli_01_s.jpg)

Like in a tube system where there is a narrow cross section = a (venturi) vent, included.
But the first question would be, why should the Fluid accelerate itself just because there is an obstacle?
Well wou say it's obvious, because the real example shows it works, but the Bernoulli principle
doesn't include this by definition.

Due the 3rd law of Newton, the actio = reactio principle, mass doesn't move by itself.
The acceleration field - claimed to be existing - has no origin of existence.
it's commonly said: just because there is motion in a system it is claimed to exist.
An its Force is proportional to velocity^2
But motion is not a REASON of Force it's a REACTION of an EXTERNAL force

Imagine a ball (mass) on a ramp. The potential energy of the height-level of the ramp is equivalent to
the static Pressure. So You say it's obvious when the ball goes down the ramp it accelerates and
potential energy gets converted in kinetic energy. in this example the ball (mass) moves in the gravity field.
But the gravity field is not caused by the balls motion it's an external Field

(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Gravity_Field_480.jpg)

if this would be true, that a mass can create it's own acceleration, then also "Baron von Münchhausen"
(a famous fairytale teller like the brothers Grimm from Germany) could pull himself out of a swamp
(a story he once told about himself)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/thumb/6/64/M%C3%BCnchhausen-Sumpf-Hosemann.PNG/217px-M%C3%BCnchhausen-Sumpf-Hosemann.PNG)

The Bernoulli principle assumes that by that measuring metod he used:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Venturifixed2.PNG/300px-Venturifixed2.PNG)
He would gain a true respond on the conditions existing in the fluid. But this assumption is
unfortunately irritating.
Before discovering the measuring effect in quantum mechanics, nobody ever thought that
values measured are an illusion. But in Fluid dynamics these features apply as well. the values
indicated in the measurement-tubes do not indicate the true conditions inside.
This low pressure measured in the cross section is an result of newton's inertial effect
caused by the centripetal force
The second axiom of Newton says: normally when a moved body wants to change direction. In our case
the measurement unit, it has to apply an additionally force. This force missing is our dynamic pressure
phenomenon.
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Bernoulli_Zentripetal_3en_480.jpg)

in a short equation you can show that the dynamic pressure equals centripetal force:

(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Bernoulli_Radial_03_480.jpg)

The centripetal equation also indicates, that the pressure is not only proportional to the
velocity^2 but also to the radius of the measuring tube used.

Examples in reality prove this assumption. For example, a bridge pole in a strong river current:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/BridgePole_in_Flood_01.jpg)

So finally when you fix the explanation of the phenomenons of Fluids, explained on a venturi vent,
you no longer accept this behavior to be true:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Venturi.gif/220px-Venturi.gif)
because we saw this would violate against Newtons Laws of Mechanics.
instead there is a constant acceleration through the vent, with a global
pressure drop. As a contradictionary force of acceleration you always get a
resistance force. The energy potential of the pressure drop is remaining kinetic
But inside Turbulence. Due the average flow speed is lower, so fast fluids mix with slow fluid.
and kinetic energy is trapped locally in vortices.

Turbulence is a mandatory effect to understand what is happening inside,
otherwise you come to misleading conclusions making wrong idealizations:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Hyperbolic_04_480.jpg)

The resistance is again mandatory due acceleration of inertial mass. Inertial behavior
as a reaction force of acceleration is the reason of any resistor, who is not based on
mechanical friction.

instead the energy is conserved in kinetic energy within turbulence
and thus higher entropy state.
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/EnergyBalance_01en_480.jpg)

Now by really understanding Fluid dynamics based on Newtons principle, this builds a
totally new Platform. You can from there now argue, that by this behaviour.
Fluid creates Fractal bodies as a correct Answer on mechanical behaviour of Fluids



Where i am Working on and where i look for support:
To develop a true Fluid dynamic Simulation you have to see fluid no longer like Bernoulli
but rather a Fractal Body who develops Fractal branched Force Field like a Tree:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Hyperbolic_05en_450.jpg)
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/tree_figure_horizontal.jpg)

when being accelerated through a global pressure drop
Fluid forms hyperbolic shapes in a system.
If the surface doesn't follow the hyperbolic behavior, it creates turbulent
boundary layers to support the statics. The ideal hyperbolic Form becomes instable
at the border.
higher friction is created through absorbing of kinetic energy into vortices for the boundary layer
who brace the statics.
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Hyperbolic_03_640.jpg)

Finally thats the reason why birds raise their feathers on the upper side when landing.
because the Stream tries to brace the statics. of the fluent body.
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/pelikan_stall_480.jpg)

i published a Movie explaining this principles in Detail:
http://www.youtube.com/v/AgljP95ukHo?version=3&hl=de_DE

More details can be found in my pre-released publication (in german only - sorry):
http://www.shaker.de/de/content/catalogue/index.asp?lang=de&ID=8&ISBN=OND-00000-0000104&search=yes (http://www.shaker.de/de/content/catalogue/index.asp?lang=de&ID=8&ISBN=OND-00000-0000104&search=yes)
the final publication will be online soon.

The Airfoil Project was now awarded with the german innovation Prize
"Querdenker-Award" in Nov 2012:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Q_Banner_Gewinner-Erfinder_320.jpg)

Now i want to build an fractal algorithm to push this idea further.
I will soon open a thread linking to a Github project...
But also other interested Forum visitors are encouraged to develop their own fractal algorithm
out of this idea.

Hmm.
The article you linked does nowhere state that the typical theories of fluid-dynamics are wrong. All it says is, that fluid dynamics are often severely missunderstood by interpreting the underlying theories incorrectly.
In particular it states that both the Bernouli- and Newton-camp are right but look at the problem slightly differently and both keep conservation of mass out of the system, which is rectified by the Euler Equations (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/eulereqs.html) and can be refined even more by also including viscosity which gives rise to the Navier-Stokes-equations (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/nseqs.html).

Either of those sets of equations lead to a variety of fractal systems, so yes, self-similarity is involved in this, but I don't see how that requires an entirely new theory as you seem to claim to have come up with.

The wing structure you came up with is really nice and seems to work very well, however again, I'm not sure wether that actually requires a new theory. (That being said, I am almost certain, I've seen that idea before somewhere. I could very well be wrong though...)

Comming up with a new algorithm, however, seems very reasonable to me. Maybe you get a breakthrough algorithm that fundamentally works in the generated vortices' symmetry groups, including the self-similar ones, potentially really helping to speed up the involved computational processes...

I wouldn't want to fly a glider with your wing design. It seems to me that it creates a much higher drag in the speed range (far) above stalling. As far as I know, the air flow will detach from the wing at much higher speeds then stall speed, which would lift your dynamic thingies and create a serious increase in drag long before stalling is imminent. Your movie proves it: The non-dynamic wing flies at a much better angle until stall, while your dynamic design shows a gradually deteriorating glide path. I wonder what would happen if you throw both gliders off a cliff with -say- a thousand meters to spare. I would put my money on the conventional stalling design if we were to bet on the distance covered. Providing it doesn't spin, of course...

I'm not sure what you try to prove by comparing a venturi to a ball in a gravity field. Of course you will need energy to put fluid through a tube, but if you do, and there is a reduction in diameter, the speed of the fluid will increase and the pressure will decrease, which is nicely described by Bernoulli's law. Your way of measuring pressure will surely have an effect on the actual measured pressure (especially if you use tubes that have the same diameter as the throat of the venturi...), but that does not invalidate Bernoulli's law.

I do wonder though what you mean by developing a fractal algorithm? Do you want to develop a fast iterative process to solve the Navier-Stokes equations?

Hi Madman,

thanks for these critics, it really gives me some taste of reality that not all people see the advantage at once and like it. Although you the first who gave that kind of critical respond.
It's good to be critical and give sceptical respond, that we not create a myth at the end. That's what i really want to avoid. Therefore I would like to encourage also others to be skeptical of states by someone if they create contradictions in your imagination. to keep it scientific and not mystical.

But as it is tradition in science you have to now argue with falsification and not only beliefs. Because yet we are only talking about beliefs.
So it would be the next task to falsify these experiments with other experiments which prove misleading conclusions, if you want to give your belief evident value.

But first to your critics of that design.
1.) As mentioned, it is the first Prototype who needs lots of improvements.
2.) Are there a wide range of researches who give evidence of that principle. unfortunately all the following researches quoted are in German language (there was no english publication found either):
- University Bremen: http://bionik.fbsm.hs-bremen.de/elearning_aerodynamik/inh/moe.html (http://bionik.fbsm.hs-bremen.de/elearning_aerodynamik/inh/moe.html)
- Bionik institute Berlin: http://www.bionik.tu-berlin.de/user/giani/klappen/evo.html (http://www.bionik.tu-berlin.de/user/giani/klappen/evo.html)
- CFD Phd Thesis: http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2003/542/pdf/schatz_markus.pdf (http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2003/542/pdf/schatz_markus.pdf)
- DLR research: http://www.dlr.de/at/Portaldata/2/Resources/dokumente/at/promotion_meyer.pdf (http://www.dlr.de/at/Portaldata/2/Resources/dokumente/at/promotion_meyer.pdf)
- DLR short description: http://www.dlr.de/at/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1557/2184_read-3664/ (http://www.dlr.de/at/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1557/2184_read-3664/)
- some researches from Johannes Huser: http://www.geier-segelflug.de/bionik.htm (http://www.geier-segelflug.de/bionik.htm)

but i can take away your first concerns, there are more videos with longer flights which show that it works quite fine :)
http://www.youtube.com/v/VHdwjqHAemY?version=3&hl=de_DE


1.) Bernoulli measured just an inertia effect in the Fluid. the interpretation of the origin of this effect is wrong, because there occurs feedback in the measuring units which are not included in the consideration.
2.) The aceleration Field stated has no origin. i gave the example with the ball because gravity field is an external field and it's origin is external.
3.) otherwhise it would also be possible that "Baron von Münchhausen" could pull himself out of the swamp on his own hair.
4.) you invented a perpetuum mobile :)
5.) Newtons second law of inertia is violated.
6.) In Technical mechanics forces have to be applied external not internal.
7.) force flow has to be continuous. in technical mecanics acceleration happens only  if the statics don't equalize. In Bernoullis explainaition you have oponing forces no motion would ever happen.
8.) due acceleration through the narrow cross section, there has to be a contradictionary force, which is missing.
10.) there has to be a pressure drop, otherwhise no motion would happen, because forces would compensate.
11.) but where does the energy go of the accelerating force?
12.) it stays kinetic, because energy conservation is maintained through turbulence and increasing entropy.
13.) Bernoulli violates against hydraulic law.
14.) the equation is made on the asumtion that there is an INTERNAL pressure drop but has ignored the diameter downsizing like in the hydraulic law which would equalize the acceleration forces and energy.

15.) Bernoulli Flow law must be called, Münchhausen Law because it states facts. which would make that tale of Münchhausen possible:
(http://rundhain.ricohofmann.de/page0/page21/page20/files/page20_1.jpg)

hi Kram1032,

i know navie-stokes, as meontioned in the beginning. but the critics on navier-stokes are these, that they cannot draw a mecanical derivation. it's a method that looks on divergence.
the euler equation is just a method with a vector field explaining unsteady motions. All these Algorithms are guessing the next concluding result by newtonian methods.
but newtonian methods are classically used if you have a function you don't know it's real mathematic behaviour: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method)

my attempt here is: find the function, fluid motion is based on and which the navier-stokes is currently always guessing.
Bernoulli is not capable, due several mechanical violations in the conclusion.

also the NASA link shows that both groups are just assuming.
- the Bernoulli group think it's Bernoulli because they noticed some negative pressure on wings as well.
- the Newton group say, well it must happen some impulse change due downwash of Air.
but both groups cannot explain why.

Instead the answer is quite simple: it's inertia in combination with vacuum.
Lift is then created if the small vaccum on the surface remains, as long the inertia is stronger to keep the air predominantly laminar on the surface.
But if the vacuum is stronger due higher angle of attack, then the inertia can pull air backwards in the vacuum and let it collapse.
then constant downwash is interrupted the only force what remains then is Drag.
The plane drops from the sky.


Yet there is no mechanical derivable theory to explain mechanics on fluids (except divergence through navier-stokes)

here i want to show that in fluids happen instable moments which collapse in a fractal static. with this method you can develop an fractal algorithm to find the ionstable moments where fluid is changing into another stable condition.
instead of using the salami tactic of navier-stokes:
(http://images.derstandard.at/2009/01/09/1231172343512.jpg)

Instead:
- i want to predict instable moments in fluid statics through a fractal algorithm.
- it's kind of a finite-volume method but with fractals not a grid mesh.
- inside these instable moments there is immaterial information amplified, which can give evidence for the emergence phenomenon
- as well as an intelligent and immaterial information field who steers the instabilities. so the instabilities display that immaterial information field.

Cool, this has to be the first time someone posted a Salami picture to a fractal related forum. ;)
Someone has to take a record of this, for history.

freshNfunky, I'm really sorry, I could be very wrong with this, but simply by the way you style your replies, you seem all too much like a hyper-excited messer-upper of established knowledge.
It's rare that this happens for anything else than special or general relativism or quantum mechanics but it still happens a lot.

If, however, you are onto something here, I'd love to hear a more precise explanation of your theories, rather than just how apparently wrong all previous theories are.
I don't see how bernoulli's law breaks any part of newtonian physics. Especially how it is supposed to produce a perpetuum mobile.

If you come up with a new approach to solve some equations more quickly than ever - maybe even to find an analytic solution to them - I'm all ears. But please - again, that's just how it seems, I could easily be wrong - don't just claim the other theories to be wrong without explaining in more detail, in clear cut sentences, also using predictions your theory makes that bernouli's law doesn't or vice-versa, how your own theory works.

Also, please leave out weird metaphors of Salami or a Münchhausen tale many of us (me included) probably aren't even familiar with. - Especially the Münchhausen tale seems to be applied in a way that states, all previous theories are dellusional and/or stupid. - Both of which they clearly aren't because they served us quite well so far.
They may or may not tell us the full picture but either way, in the scope of what they tell us, they work splendidly.

If your theory is just "as good as" the already established, it won't help much. - It'll likely end up being somehow related to / expressable in the already existing framework. If it's actually better, e.g. if it is able to correctly predict things the other theories can't or if it leads to a framework with the same results but greatly improved performance, then that's great. As said. I'm all ears.

Yes!

you finally fueling the Conversation to make it a Discussion with some energy!
i like it
 :D


can you please specify more what you mean with this sentence?
Do you think Quantum Mechanic or relativism is Superphysics with extra rules and
who is nothing for puny humans?
I Doubt because the world can be explained actually quite simple. If the model is correct.
Like with Copernicus. Before him astronomy was like Quantum Physics today.
But today the solution is so simple that even kids understand it.
Just because he used another model.

Science lives from falsification. If there comes someone who falsifies QFM or ART
these theories are void like any other model in the past like flat earth or geocentric
world model.


if you would have read the text thoroughly till the end it will have explained you everything.

in the text i layed out, that the measuring units itself are a part of the fluid system and
which is modifying the conditions.
because fluid is not a rigid thing like a gear who transports forces straightforward.
therefore every system who has a degree of fredom >1 has internal feedbacks

if you put this in concern the dynamic pressure becomes an inertia effect.

the explaination of the bernoulli field is without an origin. velocity is a reaction of
force inequality and not the origin of a force.

like in Münchhausen how can mass accelerate itself? it is not possible.


if you would have read properly then you would know, that i explained and
proved it precisely with a lot of images and examples and as much this
forum is capable for this kind of discussion.


well current research tell something different
the meaning of turbulence is yet not really understood. Still there are lots of
approaching models out there who work with
idealizations to get hold of the complexity in Turbulences. Here is a list of turbulence
models who try to solve it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics#Turbulence_models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics#Turbulence_models)


It's not an existent framework. It interprets the phenomenons differently.
because i do not want to look for divergence in a 4D-Grid (=Time&Space)

Navier-Strokes is approaching fluid dynamics by divergence rules.
but it cannot solve the underlying mechanic functions who drive the fluid behaviour.
it's a emergency solution.

instead fluid is not completly non-linear. it collapses from one instable moment to the next.
in between you could use quasi-analytic functions based on fractals.
they would not only point out where the next instable moment happens but also when.
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Fractal_vs_Divergence.jpg)

If Bernoulli is physically correct, then why does this work?

http://www.youtube.com/v/anoQ2Gd9JBg?version=3&hl=de_DE

Hmm, you seem to be very convinced of yourself FnF. Comparing yourself with Copernicus, stating that Bernoulli is wrong and that Navier-Stokes is just a very rough, unsophisticated model is bold to say the least. But are you prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

Let's start with something simple. You state that your dynamic wing counters stalling. That means you will be able to fly much slower then a conventional glider (or any other plane, but in your thesis, comparsion is best done with gliders, don't you think?), while keeping all the benefits at higher speed. In fact, that means you will absolutely outperform a normal glider if you slightly modify the design with your "turbulence operated flaps" (for lack of a better name... I was thinking about calling them post-it memo's but that sounds a bit disrespectful).

So I propose a dare: We fly two similar gliders. I fly the conventional model and you fly the modified model with post-it memo's turbulence operated flaps. We fly the same track at (nearly) the same time. There's a holding point at the top of every thermal where the better performer waits for the other. When we meet we decide together which course we will fly next. Assuming you will be able to launch at all, I still expect to do a lot of waiting... 

@freshNfunky I read your post thoroughly, thank you very much.
All my concerns still apply and are even reinforced by this latest reply.

No I do not think QM or GR are superphysics. All I was saying is that so many people who simply don't understand the underlying theories at all try to come up with some weird explanations that either actually make things more complicated than they really are or explain the already explained but fail to predict anything new or, most often, directly contradict some phenomena that already are covered by existing, established theories.

It's true that science is all about falsification. And if you look into what QM and GR managed to predict or hold up against, you'll find that those are the two most accurately measured theories out there. Their predictions work up to many orders of magnitude. Something that allowed us to get to work things like the atomic clock and GPS. - There simply is no example out there which doesn't work, unless you go all the way to systems that actually need both theories at once. Unifying the two will be the next major improvement of the fundamentals of physics.

Though the only reason I brought them up is that what you seem to do here with Bernoulli's law is very similar to what other people usually do with QM and GR: Reinterpret or replace them with some nonsense that simply doesn't hold any water.

The explanations you give may be verbous but they aren't precise or useful.
For instance, you claim to try to accurately describe stream flows through some kind of fractal procedure.
Sounds fine. Could you give us a worked example? Could you show us with a simple toy problem - something not unlike what's depicted in one of your pictures, say, this one:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Hyperbolic_05en_450.jpg)
- how your theory works?
And I'm not asking for a verbous explanation. I'm asking for a step-by-step calculation. I'm asking for the math behind it.
Where are the instable moments in a problem like that and how do you find them?

I'm well aware that the current standards of fluid dynamics are complex, difficult and often hard to analyse. I also am aware of the fractal structure of turbulences. So I'm confident that there may be some sort of fractal algorithm that greatly improves what's already done.
What renders me concerned isn't your idea of a fractal algorithm. It's much rather the way you present it to us.

As of the video you posted: what exactly are you trying to show with that?

So to summarize:
Give us a worked example of your approach, please.

All of these fractal pseudo-science thingies never go anywhere :tease: There, I said it :P

Maybe this will help deciding: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Hi,

allright, at the moment i do not have so much time drawing for any equation a little picture.
But i am shure theses images posted here are enough to bring the point across.

1.) if you have a dynamic situation in mechanics it means there is inequality in forces
the remaining inequality is acceleration.
(http://matheplanet.com/matheplanet/nuke/html/uploads/5/8636_Bild1.JPG)

2.) if you constantly accelerate a certain Volume per time through a cross section with space A
you have a resistance as contradictionary force: Power= F*velocity
(http://electroww.com/image/cache/data/Resistors-Products/1-2-watt-resistor-electroww-buy-online-50x50.JPG)

4.) your system would instantly come to a halt if you compensate acceleration, because
inequality of force is no longer given. so this situation is physically impossible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Venturi.gif/220px-Venturi.gif)

5.) Due the constat resistance in the venturi tube as mentioned in 2.)
and to keep the flow running at velocity v you have to have a global pressure drop equal to
an electric ciruit.
which means constant acceleration through the narror cross section:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Hyperbolic_03_640.jpg)

6.) by acceleration the same mass flows constantly through smaller cross sections.
so the ideal flow shape would be a hyperbolic shape
according to the Hydraulic law pressure remains while creating the same work per volume
according to differntial per time and flow Q = V/t
A1 = Big ;    A2 = small
s1 = short/t; s2 = long/t
F1/A1 = p0  ; F2/A2 = p0
W = F1*s1 W= F2*s2
So the acceleration through the cross section is a hydraulic lever

7) if the pressure drops but speed is reduced, a gap of potential vs. kinetic energy would happen.
But the accelerated fluid cannot just be slowed down to the old speed, just by increasing diameter.
Every experiment in an ink tank shows the flow will not slow down, but instead creates turbulence.
http://www.youtube.com/v/KS-GSLrkf30?version=3&hl=de_DE

although the average speed is the same than before the energy is stored kinetically inside vortices
increasing entropy:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/EnergyBalance_01en_480.jpg)

beacuse of newtons law of inertia you cannot just go back to the old speed.

8.) so why is there measured anyway a lower static pressure?
it's because nobody thinks of that situation: by putting an additionally hole in the system you modify it.
therefore interaction CANNOT BE AVOIDED on the measuring unit where it creates a local interaction:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Bernoulli_Radial_03_480.jpg)

Due newtons 2nd law of inertia a moved mass cannot change direction instantly. the additional acceleration
has to come from the pressure potential.
so the dynamic pressure assumed is an inertia effect of the centripetal force used to apply force in the
measuring unit:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Bernoulli_Zentripetal_3en_480.jpg)

9.) the Dynamic pressure equation can be converted into Centripetal Force:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/Zentripetal_Equation.jpg)

it further shows that the result is relative to the diameter used.
real examples validate this:
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/BridgePole_in_Flood_01.jpg)

Facit:
by this theory it can be shown that fluid mechanics can be calculated very easy by

• newtons inertia effects and vacuum forces. by nature shaping vortices.
• it also enables correct mechanical derivation which wasn't possible before
• it also shows the connection to resistance and inertia
• it shows how kinetic energy is stored in turbulence producing an additional vortex inertia
• vortices have features of quasi particles
• even many features known from quantums can be assigned to vortices. such as field(spin), gravity(vacuum), pairing, inertia(mass) =kinetic energy etc.

Fractal brancing
it happens when the surrounding system has not the ideal hyperbolic shapes.
additional hyperbolic branches turn off filling the geometry inbetween with a turbulent boundary layer
to brace the statics.

this physic is so simple that even highschool kids can understand it.

1.) challenge accepted.

2.) some nice example who else is using post-it wings: Mother Nature ;)
i doubt that any conventional wing can Compede with this. Because this is stall prevention at it's highest Level.

http://www.youtube.com/v/LA6XSrM0V_0?version=3&hl=de_DE

3.) have you read the reseach documents about it i collected for you? (unfortunately there was no english publication i could find)

@ Lyc: Haha, nice list! :D - who's that "Einstien"-person they mention though?
I think I was fairly generous when summing this case here up to 125 points. Though I didn't yet consider the latest installment. It probably pushes this over the 200s.

@freshNfunky: If you want a great explanation on birdflight and the way wings work during it, maybe check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKokxPRtck&list=PLjHf9jaFs8XXzMYTcmb4B2ANJYJJDkEIW&index=1&feature=plpp_video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jKokxPRtck&list=PLjHf9jaFs8XXzMYTcmb4B2ANJYJJDkEIW&index=1&feature=plpp_video)
You still haven't worked through an example using your own theory.
Do you really believe, people never thought of the effects of the change in a system by altering its geometry like that?
You have the habbit of posting videos, thinking they speak for themselves when they really don't.

Please stop explaining the same vauge stuff over and over.
Take a system - any system you like - where your "theory" is actually applicable and show us the entire calculation along with your results - that is, interpretable values rather than a list of things your idea could improve. Show us your theory at work. Do not fall back on how wrong what ever measurement system may be.
If your theory has any value, it can stand on its own and shine. Try not to even mention any unrelated branch of physics or any branch of pyhsics you're trying to "debunk".
If you toyed around with this idea so much, you sure have a toy problem to use it on.

200 Poits on the crackpot-Score, is that all you got? c'mon :)

First to say thanks for the link. it's a nice and informative video
But states no new facts which i do not know yet. I am currently creating some simulation which i hope i can post
in the next respond who can explain many mysteries like the downward thrust (~ minute 3:00).
E.g. the downward thrust is created by vortices the wings create first on the back side
and then uses them to push themselves over it.

The stored extra momentum in vortices is known.
Even Wildwater-Kayakers use vortex momentum to  paddle against the wildwater-stream

let's first claryfy something. The bernoulli Equation is right till that point, that it's is only an Equation which
gives the direct connection between speed in the tube and the measurement in the unit
It is not an explanation what REAL mechanics happens in the stream but people really think this equation explains it.
that is the big mistake of interpretation of reallity, resulting in wrong conclusions.

But let's come to your statements.
You sound that you might have some more or less profound knowledge of Quantum Mechanics and General Relative Theory.

But seriously, if someone states he understands QFM but cannot follow physical arguments on a highscool level,
it's rather not, that i have doubt on his knowledge, but it indicates an intention of celebrating some kind of scientific ideology,
which makes him not very scientific and open-minded at all. Rather to some dogmatic disciple of some ideas
and worshiping a certain world model, like a pseudo religion.

You always claim it cannot be true, but you make no single effort by disproving the statements i put up here!!!
Its a very defensive strategy!

if you want to make science then come and falsify it - please!

i can provide for you another physical evidence with the momentum conservation.
this graph explains how a OPEN venturi vent works based on Newton mechanics.

(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/momentum_conservation_01_800.jpg)

So instead a measuring Unit in a Stream is nothing else than a CLOSED venturi vent.
who creates vortices inside, instead of a Flow into the main stream.

meanwhile have this video which validates the momentum behaviour:
http://www.youtube.com/v/7IIoDxbOJAs?version=3&hl=de_DE

Next time i also create a graph what shows, that a mesuring unit must actually INCREASE pressure
with the bernoulli explaination
because it represents an VERY SHORT AND TEMPORARY INCREASE OF THE CROSS SECTION

I am not impressed of that crackpot rating.

It rather is an indirect compliment that indicates that i shake your world model and it confuses you.
Or why then you go in that intense conversation if it doesn't impress you?

Maybe i am pretty overbearing with my theories. i don't have a problem with that. because some people
need a little earthquake in their world model  :evil1:

   I can´t say I understand the full ideas discussed, but I´m sure there´s a fractal structure anywhere we look, or a recursive procedure, if you prefer, so I´m interested in seeing how far this leads.

I don't think you understood what I'm asking for, yet.

Can you give a toy model which you can apply your apparent algorithm on? - Can you give us a full numeric example using your approach?
Or how about some clear pseudo-code?

It's really hard to falsify something you don't even have information on that could be put to any form of test, no matter what outcome.

Great! If we are talking the same language that is. I'm talking about real-life gliders, no models. With two similar gliders I mean, for instance, two  LS-4's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolladen-Schneider_LS4), where one is unmodified and the other is modified with your enhancements. For certain types (like the LS-4  ;D) I can supply the unmodified one. When could your prototype be ready and certified??


I had a fleeting look at them and the CL/CD curves were interesting enough. That gave me the idea to propose a real life test.

sorry Felix, but this
is wrong.
since F=dp/dt (where p is the momentum - and motion means momentum), there is force where p changes.
and this will basically be the case at every (classical) interaction between two or more objects.

also well let me try this: imagine a traffic jam, caused by road works. the velocity v1 of the cars just before the construction area is obviously determined by the velocity v2 of the cars passing the narrow point.
you might say: "well, if i pick one car, it could move with always with velocity v2." but this would only work if some nice drivers wait and let that car pass trough.
there might be this case, but it wont make a difference if you are just counting how many cars can pass in a given timespan.
replace the cars with fluid or gas particles and the road with the tube and we have the answer to your question.

this should hopefully clear up two things:
- the equations you are mentioning are describing the whole system, not individual particles. and used like this they are correct.
- you are talking about a system consisting of many particles/bodys. there is no "the fluid"/itself you could reefere to like a single object.

to give another example of how a many-body system can accelerate "itself": blow up a balloon and let it go without knoting. well, you might notice, the air will accelerate right out of the balloon. you seem to misunderstand the concepts of pressure.

i hope thats enough "falsification", without going further than the first few lines, since i cant find any concrete formulation of your "theory".
you should work on a scientific proof that your wings with "turbulence operated flaps" is giving a benefit, eg. via the proposed real life test, if you are not capable of a formal proof.

also i dont really see this it is not unusual to observe chaotic behavior there, since you are dealing with a many-body system, but i dont see the use in calling chaos "Fractal bodies".
Are you trying to find a fractal formula for describing this specific chaotic behavior? well good luck then. i hope you succeed, it would contribute a lot to fluid physics.

1.) well as you can clearly see in my graph above, that i DID exactly this. In the graph i displayed how the momentum in a Fluid is interchanged in an
inelastic collision  
2.) Also: F=m*a
so without a reaction force you have only motion if mass is exposed to a acceleration field. Motion happens only if you apply additional EXTERNAL forces to a mass.
Have you ever solved mechanic equations? if there is an inequality in the mecanical forces, the remaining forces causes acceleration.

third law of newton says: every force must have a contradictionary force. in dynamics it's the acceleration who gives the contradictionary force to pressure drop
where
p=F/A

only in an External Gravity Field there happens a spontaneus motion without an external force. but this external field again is caused by the earths mass.

Bernoulli claims the existence of a acceleration field like gravity, but as third law of newton claims an origin, there is None!

It's an old example explaining bernoulli. but hey. where is the pressure AFTER the traffic jam?
if bernoulli is right, then the traffic jam should come back after the obstacle (e.g. closed lane due roadworks or accident)

you just gave an example of flow speed equal to source free divergent flow

Q=V/s   -> Q= A*v

A1*v1 = A2*v2

But this doesn't answer my question of the origin of the field in Bernoulli.
the acceleration field can only be explained if there is a global pressure drop. equal to the acceleration needed to pass the narrow cross section as contradictionary force.

Instead what is criticized here is not volume and mass conservated flow of incompressible Fluids,
But the definition of acceleration fields. Due Newton. This pressure drop like explained in Bernoulli cannot be compensated, otherwhise it would violate against Newtons third law.

Ok. Easy to falsify this.

1.) your balloon has a higher pressure inside than the environment outside.
2.)  if you claim the above to be right, then the air should also go through the entrance of the balloon if i take a needle and blast it ;)
as proved quite obvious, your air will no longer go through the entrance of your broken balloon because i compensated the pressure between
internal volume to external volume.
3.) the acceleration and thus pressure of the air inside the balloon is caused by the spring force of the balloon gum.
4.) so the origin of the balloon's acceleration is therefore the potential energy stored in the spring force of the balloons gum.

5.) take an old balloon where the spring force of the gum has released. would it accelerate the air the same way out of the balloon
like a new balloon? NO.


- i see no falsification delivered here. where did you falsify my statements so far?
- it's rather the point, that i could prove, that your balloon and your traffic examples did so far not work (take a needle and test it  :D )
- the questions i posed were not answered: "where comes the origin of an acceleration in bernouli's model when all forces are compensated? - impossible mechanics!"


well if you read the statements properly you would know why.
instead of solving a caotic system based on non linear equations i render the internal statics up to the point where they become instable.
it would be a new method finding instable moments in a emergent system.
the non-linear behaviour in my model is defined not internally but due externall information into the system.

by this it can be explained that all physically systems are amplifiers of external information.

...as there is still a long way to go, these statements in this thread are just the fundament of that "new house".

Here everything is explained in a video:
http://www.youtube.com/v/lBdpZlLybcY?version=3&hl=de_DE

The gliding season of 2013 is coming closer FnF... Still waiting for a place and time for the challenge!

Interesting, I think you could somehow have a point against Bernoulli, but honestly I don't full understand your ideas.

Nexlideplease?  ;D

Realy nice presentation with video. I kind of like this idea, probably becouse fractals involved.
But for the proof of this concept it lacks some rigid proof. Such as two small plane models equal in all parameters exept one with "feathered" wing thrown at equal force/ released from same height but flying different lenght/time or something like that.  :surf:

I hope we will avoid straw men and ad hominem argumentation and stick to examining the principles.

I am sure the principle of conservation of dynamic pressure and header pressure is sound.
The Bernoulli set up for his experiment needs to be examined to answer the question of where the pressure gradient comes from.
One also needs to differentiate between hydrostatic pressure  in a dynamic flow and stall pressure in a dynamic flow.

The interesting point that Felix is making is that the principle is a first order approximation. The more accurate description involves feedback pressures and vorticity in the flow. This is in fact recognised already in fluid dynamics, but usually only discussed in compressible flows in this particular way. However it is known and studied in incompressible flows like the venturri flow.

Is anybody here a fluid mechanic? The goal is to describe or model the flow of fluids in the boundary layer, and then to describe the impact of that flow on the surrounding fluid whether in flow or not, including the propagation of that impact.

The proposition is that this is a fractal pattern of vorticular  flows  entrained in the free flowing fluid and interacting with a boundary which may or may not have boundary layer characteristics of flow.

The free flow region has traditionally relied on iterating grid conditions, until Runge Kutte. Felix is proposing establishing a fractal pattern to describe the potential flow resultant and then iterating the potential solution to an increasingly more accurate one, where regions of instability describe where the flow will derive its extra details from.

His first guess, based on Newtonian mechanics, is that hyperbolic streamlines may form the skeleton of the result, with branches of more detail coming from these. A hyperbolic geometric fractal might be a good start to see what is possible.

some comparisons of planes: one with adaptive profile, one without
and also windtunnel tests comparing profiles at the end of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Nbk8zSRCytA?hl=de_DE&version=3

Nice video! Seems to indicate that smaller turbulent vortices evenly distributed lead to a greater stability in the superstructure. Like a storm wall breaking waves into smaller wavelets.

Doing more work in the flow to maintain or conserve matter means a less turbulent flight. The energy used to rock the wing is instead used to stabilise it!

1. The model that stalls has its center of gravity too much to the rear. The only thing that all your post-it memo's do is move the center of gravity to the front. Adding a little weight to the nose would generate the same result (and probably have your model fly a lot farther...).

2. The reason that your modified wing design doesn't move as much as the unmodified design in your "wind tunnel" is that it is much heavier then the unmodified design, which makes it difficult to follow the turbulent flow that exists in (the exit of) your "wind tunnel".

Please tell me where I'm wrong FnF

1.) it is explained in the movie why plane goes into rear weight. Because it's not pitched and further is related to the cruising speed and how much lift is created.

2.) much heavier? Sure!:  :D
(http://public.felixschaller.com/wing_profile/compare_weight.jpg)

Although it sounds a reasonable explanation, it is not fluid mechanical. The behaviour of the first aerofoil follows classic wing generated turbulence, which the wind tunnel generated turbulence would only exacerbate.

Weight forces do not promote aerofoil stability!

mass, however, DOES hinder accellerations of any kinds and thus could potentially slow down any wing movement.
F=m a or a=F/m - the higher the mass, the stronger Force you need to give the same accelleration.

It at the very least requires a test. Try making the same two designs but with at least almost equal mass in each case.

your concerns in Honour. But please explain how stating a physical formula about forces and their corelation between mass
and acceleration, adds a certain agrument into this question of self-regulation of a profile? where do you see 2 gramms acting
to lead into this kind of reasonable difference, rather than adding a 'little' inertia of factor 1.1?
how can 2 gramms be able to damp turbulence this way?

While the conventional profile quickly gets in to an uncontrollable behaviour you state adding two gramms would fix this?
ok maybe i will have time to make an additional wind tunnel test adding the missing two gramms to proove,
that it is not just weight who causes this self-regulating behaivour...

It's not only the absolute mass, but also where you put it. You put all mass before the lift point, moving the center of gravity to the front, thus stabilizing the design.

Your explanation why your unmodified glider stalls is untrue. I can make your unmodified model perform perfectly without active steering by modifying the center of gravity and maybe a wee bit of tweaking on the stabilizer...

BTW, when are you ready for the real life test I proposed? I'm waiting for a date/time and a place! (In case you forgot, see reply #17 in this thread).

My five cents

regarding additional weight that is obviously not placed to stabilize the plane, i mean by placing additional weight on the planes would you expect such behaviour?

Making those flares thinner and weigh more would certainly flow into a final design, nevertheless it proves somehow the concept

i personally am not an expert at this but i have folded many paper planes in my life and when folding the back of a wing up it is performing a loop, this effect is in my eyes what we observe here due to the flexibility of the upward fold it does not perform a loop but just stabilizes the horizontal direction. . .

that is so far correct to keep the plane stable at a certain cruising speed. but the nose will rise if you increase speed and thus lift.
it's thus just a matter of speed if this effect takes place or not and the outbalancing of the center of gravity makes it just better to steer and stable at its
general cruising speed.

The test performed in the wind tunnel is also independent where you put the center of gravity. you can attach the threads at the nose or further to the
trailing edge. the result will be always simmilar.

location: nearby munich germany, time: unknown in the future. Due i am currently very buisy with developing, creating presentations articles asf.
this is not an excuse but rather trying to sort important things from unimportant in my dense scedule.

Madman, because you do fly i think you have some intuitive data that will be very useful.

Turbulence is the big issue in fluid mechanics, and key to better understanding how aerofoils actually behave under stress in flight.
Have you actually flown through turbulence? What is it like, and what corrective behaviours do you have to follow?

Do you have any intuitive solutions to aerofoil design that would make control through these surfaces easier?

In Aerohydrodynamics we are still at that stage where intuition computes better and faster than CFD!

How would you increase speed on a glider if you have stable flight and no active steering?


Not true. If you move the threads further to the nose, both designs will be more stable. The lighter design will look more instable though, because it follows the turbulent flow better (less inertial effects).


Okay, that's fair. Although you may want to reevaluate the importance of a real world test  ;D


Yup, I've been on the wrong side of Pic de Bure in the Alps during Mistral... I think that qualifies as flying through turbulence  :embarrass: I lost 4 meters of Mylar sealing there... No big issue, but the sound of ripping tape freaked me out for a second  :dink:. There's only one thing you can do if you fall out of the sky and that is to push the stick forward ( I know, it sounds a little counter-intuitive).


Nope, I think we've passed the point in time where intuitive solutions work for better controls. The thing that counts is to keep the boundary layer on the aerofoil, especially at your control surfaces, at all times, preferably at low speed. FnF's tests show the boundary layer letting go. The big question is if it is just an indicator (like taping yarn on your wing that show the moment/place and time when the boundary layer disappears) or if it actually reduces the effect of losing the boundary layer. If the latter is the case, the added drag by adding the "post-it memo's" will have to be eliminated at normal or high speeds to create any benefits in aerofoil design.

downhill, motor, you have many options ;) we'll leave the motor out for now. what remains is the downhill speed.
sorry all tests independant of the thread positions were almost equal in showing the same fluttering effect.
a almost fully developed laminar and unseparated boundary layer is only guaranteed if your wing is free of any dead flies and you keep the designated speed limit. laminar profiles are only suited for their designated speed. outside the designed cruising speed the ideal aerodynamic body is variing, also when cruising curves or flying through turbulence. your rigid profile no longer develops an attached boundary layer but starts to detach. the more smooth and rigit, the more sensitive your airfoil reacts. finally a rigit airfoil will always be worse, because it cannot adapt its ideal aerodynamic body according to the current situation. It also fails in turbulent environments like usual in konvection flights during soaring.

Further in this stage of attack angle shown in the video you will have boundary layer separation on the adaptive and classic airfoil. but with the classical profile it's much more sensitive which then creates the fluttering effect because the normal airfoil can't hold the air and stalls. it's also called dynamic Stall. Different to the adaptive airfoil which still can create lift at these angles. The idea behind the postits lifting up in critical situations is to increase Ca_max and further to control turbulence, which is well demonstrated. drag only counts in normal flight which so far shows no negative results.

the final L/D diagrams will come soon.

Now we're Talking sense! Thanks, both of you! It gives me insights and connections.

OK, let me try to understand you FnF...

When I'm flying, I am not linked to the ground, so how am I going to increase downhill speed? If I'm in a stable flight, nothing will change unless I disturb my flight. If the design of my glider is good and stable, disturbances caused by air turbulence will cause a change in flight pattern, but the glider will in the end return to a state of equilibrium. In fact, when I'm flying with beginning pupils, I often tell them to let go of the stick since the glider will fly more stable when they don't mess around with the controls  ;D

If that is true, then that substantiates the theory that the effect is caused by inertia and not by aerodynamic effects. Although I would expect some increase in stability if you moved the axis more to the front...

OK, now for the somewhat more difficult part...

There's a lot of truth in what you say here. Dead flies and raindrops can create havoc to the airflow around wings, especially around older profile designs. The problem is that that's an issue at all speeds, but gets worse at higher speeds. And that's the reason why I don't believe that your theory will work. I admit, I have no idea what your post-its do at low speed. They may or may not improve stalling behavior. The C_L/C_D curves in some of your links show some improvement there. The bad thing is that they will increase drag at higher speeds as much as dead flies will. And in the end, performance at high (cruising) speeds is just more important then at low (landing) speeds.

It is incredible that the flap of a butterfly wing could cause a tornado somewhere in the atmosphere, but dead flies can make a glider drop out of the skies!

The confidence you have in a good aerofoil design belies the fact that the stability is very much dependent on a limited set of atmospheric circumstances, and your ability to know what to do if those change detrimentally. I guess that assessment applies to most things we humans love to do!

You identify 2 goals :speed and stability. Can a single surface meet both optimally, or can a variable surface do that better?

That's putting it a bit strongly, but it doesn't improve the glide slope...  :dink:


I did not say that a variable aerofoil profile wouldn't be better. In fact, I can adjust my profile to the speed I'm flying by selecting different flap settings. If you look at airliners, they have even more tricks to be able to use the same wing over a (much) larger speed range, like fowler flaps and slats. I have my doubts however about having turbulence decide what my profile should be. That's also why the comparison to landing birds goes astray; the reason that a bird has his wings almost perpendicular to the airflow during landing is to reduce energy and speed fast, so it is able to land without breaking its legs... The fact that turbulence causes some feathers to stand out in all directions is not a goal, but an effect, contrary to what FnF wants us to believe.

Fresh and Funky, please try a flight of your glider with one wing normal and the other modified, of course the wings should be weigh balanced.

Madman how do you predict the flight path?
FreshnFunky how do you predict the flight path?
Then lets see the video evidence. :embarrass:

(http://www.felixschaller.com/images/blog/Measurements_01/other_Thumbs/CACW_Interpretation_01_sm.jpg)

Die polar diagrams are now evaluated.
Evaluation and publication here:
http://www.felixschaller.com/index.php/blog/blog-news/30-general-news/83-measurements-01