Re: what pushes up on the *wing*?

[John Denker <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

At 08:55 PM 8/20/99 -0700, William Beaty wrote:
> Do you still assert that the circulation creates upwash, and that this
> upwash then drives the wing upwards?

I do.

> That's what you seem to say in
> http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/lift.htm   Has your position on this
> issue changed significantly?

It has not changed.

> I'm seriously trying to understand the physics, and if your reasoning
> about the lifting force is based on a violation of Newton's laws, then we
> really need to discuss this.

 * My statements are based on careful numerical simulations, the results of
which I have made available to everyone in an easy-to-visualize form.
 * My statements are supported by detailed calculations.
 * My statements are supported by well-known experimental results.
 * My statements are consistent with standard theory as set forth in
engineering textbooks.

In contrast,
  * On two occasions you have offered counter-theories that were amenable
to quantitative analysis.  I analyzed them and showed them to be defective.
  * You told me you have not done any numerical simulations.
  * You told me you have not done any experiments.
  * You told me you have not read the engineering textbooks.

Therefore I have no idea what basis you could possibly have for calling
into question my statements.  All I see are vaporous aspersions.  You
"think" I have violated the third law.  Prove it!  Add up the momenta and
show they don't balance.  Or do an experiment to show that there is not a
high pressure region under the chin of the wing where the upwash hits it as
shown in my diagrams.  The burden of proof is on you.  You have all the
methods of physics at your disposal.

You say you have "defeated" my wing-length arguments.  But after more than
a year of discussions you have not gotten around to analyzing the
formation-flight situation.  That involves double the wingspan *and* double
the weight.  Please stop dodging the issue by considering the case of
double the wingspan with no increase in weight;  that does not address the
key point.