Some basic electronics and unlearning the wrong

[Pano]

Welcome to the forum, William. Or is it Bill?

You must have been watching your website traffic to find us so quickly.

[Ron E]

perhaps the long disclaimer would not be needed if the approach were less provocative?

[Conrad Hoffman]

Hey, Mr. Beaty, I'm impressed- how did you find us so quickly? I've known about the site for a long time and have always enjoyed it. As an example of why I think the sorts of explanations on the site are needed, I was confused about AF, RF, UHF and such for many years. I had never been clearly taught that the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum, and the same rules govern everything. On casual examination, the working rules and "rules of thumb" are different. Audio people speak one language, hams speak another and telecom people a third. Even after grasping it, it took a long time to be comfortable and confident that what I was thinking was correct.

IMO, the fundamentals have to be solid before one can talk about the audibility of various things like skin effect and cable properties, so I think the site reference is valuable here.

As for errors, I don't know of any, but find it helps acceptance to keep the possibility open and not present things as absolutes; thus my mention.

[wbeaty]

Originally Posted by Pano

Welcome to the forum, William. Or is it Bill?

You must have been watching your website traffic to find us so quickly.

Bill B.

Yep, if there's nothing else to do I can merge into the flow of stumbleupon and google search. Big unexplained pulse of diyaudio comes by, then get slashdotted in the dreaded Reddit vortex.

[Richard Ellis]

Im paraphrasing here' The airflow across the top of the airfoil must be heading downward off the trailing edge to "push down" to apply lift'

Say what??? Airfoils are airfoils, not aquatic propellers.
I think this guy is a little nuts!

__________________________________________________ _____Rick.........

[a.wayne]

Originally Posted by Ron E

Ha! I see the man himself is here. Joined today in fact.
I found quite early in life that if I questioned anyone about conceptual details, I would run out of answers quite quickly. That, and a few good teachers, helped to develop a healthy sense of skepticism about what was being taught and what teachers actually knew. Often a misconception such as the ones he claims are hurtful were the reason I looked further and increased my understanding on a topic. These are like doors opened along the path of education.

Huh,,,Say what ...? ..

[wbeaty]

Originally Posted by Richard Ellis

Say what??? Airfoils are airfoils, not aquatic propellers.
I think this guy is a little nuts!

Um. The equations behind the fluid dynamics for air and for water are identical. The cross section of ships propellors have airfoil shapes. If you disagree, Main CFD Forum -- CFD Online Discussion Forums is a group which will set you straight.

And what's with the namecalling? I'm only here hours, and already someone is delivering personal insults. Not a good sign at all.

[wintermute]

Richard, By all means question the content but don't make it personal.

Tony.

[Johno]

Hi Bill, got to say that I agree with your sentiments and enjoyed your website.

I recall all through high school physics and college electronics the consternation I felt as overly-simplified concepts were successively replaced by bigger, more sophisticated and presumably more accurate concepts. And the math became more and more challenging.

[jcx]

I haven't looked elswhere on the site but the airfoil discussion agrees well with me - I have long complained that Newton force law should be taught 1st as the fundamental principle - "throw mass down" to generate lift
the fluid dynamics details are secondary to me, a clever way to most eficiently "throw mass down"