-hard to agree...Earth's gravity is what creates pressure.
Exactly, the kenetic energy of molecules of air is much higher than the gravitational attraction between them. If it weren't for the gravitational attraction of earth the atmosphere would just fly away.E kinetic=0.5 m*V^2
(1 qm of calm air have circa 150 000 J kinetic energy,
=iff work is 1sec. it can generate 150 kW power)
We do have only the ONE atmosphere,counting again for accuracy ,ONE,whew.
I'm sick of people dissing Bernoulli. If something needs to be debunked, how about incorrect understandings of Bernoulli?
Agree. I just hate it when I see people make science and engineering decisions based on math. Just makes me feel ill. Or is that inadequate, I forget.
Finally, a good explanation for why it takes so much money to fly. My plane needs very big dimes and a very long stack. I am trying to imagine flying through a stack of silver dollars thirty feet in diameter and a hundred miles long just to get a hamburger.Instead of Bernoulli, lets talk Newton, more to the point let’s quote him and say Force = mass x acceleration. Lift is the force that hold airplanes in the sky, so what are the mass and acceleration needed to do that? The best way I’ve found to explain lift from an airplane wing is to get a roll of dimes and imagine the wingspan is equal to the diameter of a dime. Further, imagine that the air (represented by the diameter and thickness of the dime, hence the mass of air) acted upon by the wing.
Imagine the nose of the airplane flying down the centerline of the stack of dimes and as the wing passes through each dime it is deflected downward a small amount with a small acceleration. Here the volume of the dime could be thought of as an air mass (in slugs or kilos) that is pushed down by the wing. To push that air mass down it must be accelerated. Force (lift) = mass (air) x acceleration needed to displace the air.
To fly slow, the dimes (air mass) must be accelerated down faster per unit time than they would be if the airplane were flying fast. This analogy helps explain induced drag at low speed vs. that at high speed.
Is that not the article from the OP? Since we have come full circle, surely this is proof of circulation. The conversation goes fast, "over-the-top", then it goes backwards for a while (relative to where it should be going), and then we're back where we started at the stagnation point.