Forums: Skydiving Disciplines: Freeflying:
An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook

 


fedykin  (D License)

Feb 10, 2008, 10:10 AM
Post #1 of 10 (3576 views)
Shortcut
     An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook  

hey everyone thats on facebook, go onto the group atmonauti... very interesting debate on whether or not tracing exists, or whether or not everything with an angle is atmo. like to hear everyones point of view!
cheers
p


freefli

Feb 11, 2008, 10:07 PM
Post #2 of 10 (3433 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [fedykin] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

dictionary definition

angled flight--what skydivers do when they can't fly straight down.

synonyms--automosnotty, whosbeennaughty, whosyourmommy, autmonotgonnahappen, autmonono, outofcontrolflying, gay, lame, European flight, protractor flying, 42 43 whatever it takes, death defying, maniacle, ludricrous, slanted flying, jumping wit my 45's, bad tracking, autmodummy, and others.....

I'm open to hearing more synonyms....


Honestly, why debate it? just do it.

Just my point of view, like you askedWink

Feel free to discuss......


(This post was edited by freefli on Feb 11, 2008, 10:09 PM)


Halfpastniner  (D 30747)

Feb 12, 2008, 4:28 PM
Post #3 of 10 (3359 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [freefli] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

How about "Supermanning.....Dat Hoe?"


fedykin  (D License)

Feb 21, 2008, 4:46 PM
Post #4 of 10 (3193 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [freefli] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

fair one!

sorry to say that Marco Tiezzi has deleted all of the posts on there. Really odd that he took off all of the posts that dont coincide with his point of view. Sly

funny guy!


Vins

Feb 22, 2008, 8:41 AM
Post #5 of 10 (3153 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [fedykin] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

I followed the debate on atmonauti daily on facebook and find it very interesting, and from what I can see , nothing has been deleted from facebook, some of the post have just been moved to another Topic, more related to the discussion. The only post been deleted, and not by Marco Tiezzi, are the ones of Andy Newell deleted by himself when he was asked to prove his affirmations. Who is the funny guy, Piers Roberts?

Vins


fedykin  (D License)

Feb 23, 2008, 12:01 AM
Post #6 of 10 (3100 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Vins] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

No posts deleted...hmmm. is that why theres over a dozen slots there saying 'POST DELETED'. Andy Newell didnt remove his post or quit the group, he was removed with his posts. As was I.

Seems odd that the two people that disagreed with Tiezzi were removed.

Whats that all about? Removing someone because they have a different point of view. Is that open and engaging behavior.


(This post was edited by skymama on Feb 24, 2008, 4:30 AM)


Vins

Feb 23, 2008, 7:52 AM
Post #7 of 10 (3068 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [fedykin] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

In reply to:
No posts deleted...hmmm. is that why theres over a dozen slots there saying 'POST DELETED'.

I repeat that no uncomfortable post have been deleted, only the ones with offensive contents towards person, as you keep on doing here. Your post are still there, but if you feel that any of your written related to the discussion have been deleted, I invite you to post them in this public place where we have no possibility to delete anything.

Vins


fedykin  (D License)

Feb 23, 2008, 9:13 AM
Post #8 of 10 (3059 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [Vins] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

well Vins, the posts deleted were the ones where i was debating whether or not lift can be generated by a human body, which no one could on hard scientific terms refute.

but hey according to marco cicco ' science is an attempt to confuse people'....

everyone have a look at the forum and have a look at the bit that says 'post deleted'. Tiezzi refers to statemtents that ive made without having the whole context of the argument there.


(This post was edited by skymama on Feb 23, 2008, 12:45 PM)


marcoT

Feb 24, 2008, 4:01 AM
Post #9 of 10 (3017 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [fedykin] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

The posts that Piers Roberts is talking about are not deleted.
Stated that he doesn’t prove his accuse by posting the censored post ( but changing every time argument) , I will attach here making a copy and paste of his facebook post and of the answer he received.
(here the link to verify the post are there : http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9908361758&topic=3933 )

Post #21
2 repliesPiers Roberts (no network) replied to Marco's post
on Feb 10, 2008 at 10:07 AM.
Okay... point by point lets examine the counter argument

no.1- The defination of atmonauti. Interesting definiton, lets take that apart. As someone who works with artillery mathematics day to day i can have a look at the variables you are discussing such a 'lift' and 'drag' and subsequently as they relate to your definition of atmo.

All of my equations are publicly available, if you'd like to check them, go to www.grc.nasa.gov

'Lift occurs when a moving flow of gas is turned by a solid object. The flow is turned in one direction, and the lift is generated in the opposite direction, according to Newton's Third Law of action and reaction. Because air is a gas and the molecules are free to move about, any solid surface can deflect a flow. For an aircraft wing, both the upper and lower surfaces contribute to the flow turning. Neglecting the upper surface's part in turning the flow leads to an incorrect theory of lift'

Lift is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid. There must be motion between the object and the fluid: no motion, no lift. It makes no difference whether the object moves through a static fluid, or the fluid moves past a static solid object. Lift acts perpendicular to the motion. Drag acts in the direction opposed to the motion.

Because lift and drag are both aerodynamic forces, the ratio of lift to drag is an indication of the aerodynamic efficiency of the airplane. Aerodynamicists call the lift to drag ratio the L/D ratio, pronounced "L over D ratio." An airplane has a high L/D ratio if it produces a large amount of lift or a small amount of drag. Under cruise conditions lift is equal to weight. A high lift aircraft can carry a large payload. Under cruise conditions thrust is equal to drag. A low drag aircraft requires low thrust. Thrust is produced by burning a fuel and a low thrust aircraft requires small amounts of fuel be burned. As discussed on the maximum flight time page, low fuel usage allows an aircraft to stay aloft for a long time, and that means the aircraft can fly long range missions. So an aircraft with a high L/D ratio can carry a large payload, for a long time, over a long distance. For glider aircraft with no engines, a high L/D ratio again produces a long range aircraft by reducing the steady state glide angle at which the glider descends.

The lift equation indicates that the lift L is equal to one half the air density r times the square of the velocity V times the wing area A times the lift coefficient Cl:

L = .5 * Cl * r * V^2 * A

Similarly, the drag equation relates the aircraft drag D to a drag coefficient Cd:

D = .5 * Cd * r * V^2 * A

Dividing these two equations give:

L/D = Cl/ Cd

Interestingly a few years back a series of experiemtents commissioned by NASA and used by speed skydivers on the human body as it travels through the atmosphere were very revealing about how we can define whether or not a human generates 'lift' or 'drag' by your definition atmonauti is primarily concerned with non mechanic lift to generate flight.

The main variable in this equation is a human being, the atmospheric density at different altitudes which we'll hold constant for the purpose pf this discussion.

when we apply the sum of these two equations to the matter at hand L/D = Cl/ Cd , human beings create more drag than lift due to the irregualar surface(skin surface friction) and the very high density in relation to surface area(way worse than the space shuttle in reentry!).

The broadest conclusion of this is that human beings do not generate lift, but drag. Drag which is usefull in creating steering force which in turn is angular deflection.

Conclusion as it relates to the Atmonauti Definition- As human beings travelling though the atmosphere are incapable of generating lift, the before mentioned definition becomes irrelevant, and should merrit further examination to be relevant.

So ill leave your definition at that....interesting, though scientifically impossible. If you disagree, dispute the mathematics. They are beyond dispute, proven, used and accepted by mathematicians and physicists worldwide.

Think ive got you on that one Marco.

------------------
Note and ulterior question :
A part a copy and paste from Nasa site , of aerodynamics text and formulation ,
- Can you also past the specific Nasa documentations of what you say :” … a series of experiemtents commissioned by NASA and used by speed skydivers … “ (it will be also interesting to watch which kind of technique they have use during these experiments)
- Avoiding your personal conclusion , can you also paste the Nasa documents where read the conclusion of human impossible lift generation ?

Or may be are “top secret” documents , and only you can read it ?

----------------
Marco Tiezzi (Italy) replied to Piers's post
on Feb 11, 2008 at 9:10 AM.
…..
Now let’s talk about the lift :
You say that you talk and analize the phisic phenomenum happen . So please , if you say there is not lift , esplicate me why the rig on the shoulders go UP and FORWARD . Yes because in your precedent explaination ( where you say that we have the loose harnes ), you have forget to esplicate why the rig go also FORWARD respect the direction , not only up …. See the pictures of this particular , in attach ……
If is as you have esplicate with matematic complex argument , the rig will go up and backward due to the drag, not FORWARD !
Esplicate also why , if the lift do not exist , in which way is possible that a tandem atmonauti with-out drogue fly with vertical speed around 170-180 Km/h ( 125 – 130 miles per hour) almost less than with the drogue .
As you wrote : “ im putting the cold hard facts of physics forward …… “ , I’m very looking forward to see your complex calculation to explicate this phisic action of the rig going forward , and during the atmo-tandem

-------------------------
Piers Roberts (no network) replied to Marco's post
on Feb 11, 2008 at 12:33 PM.
…..
The Rig Phenominum- Again, look at the anchor points where a rig loads onto your body. Even with lumbar 'comfy' straps(javelin has got great ones, mirage OK) rigs dont fit to the body particularly well due to our curvy features + we move about quiet a bit. When tracking, atmo 'ing whatever... a gap appears which catches air. The rear of the rig pivots off of your lower back when catches air.

Using logic such as 'I see a rig move up, therefore it is creating lift'. Is a bit like saying 'I am driving a car, therefore cheese at the shops will cost £2.25'. One statement and bit of data doesnt support the conclusion. Id really like to continue debating this with you Marco, but find data that directly and quantitatively supports your conclusion. Otherwise, its not too far off of heresay.

Tandems going slower etc...Greater surface area exposed to the relative wind. For the same reason when tracking or going really slow flat(hug that beach ball!) you go slower.

Im afraid from a scientific point of view, it is impossible for a human being to create lift through free fall. The equations used to come to this conclusion form the basis of our understanding about flight, the basis of all aerodynamics. If these equations are wrong, then for the past 100 years scientists all over the world have been using the wrong variables.
But heh Marco, who knows, the whole body of scientific reasearch, 1000's of Ph.D's, the whole field of aerodynamics is wrong, and maybe your right....

-------------------------

Marco Tiezzi (Italy) replied to Piers's post
on Feb 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM.

…..
5) Piers Robert have try in all the way to demonstrate that atmonauti technique doesn’t create any lift .
In front of the easy request to demonstrate why during the frontmonaut flight , the rig go up and forward ( for the clear lift generate by the body ) , he answer giving a very funny explanation of loose harness and direction of the air moving the rig . Forgetting completely to give an answer at the main effect of the rig going FORWARD respect the wind direction . Solicited to answer about this real physic effect , he still answer talking about the rig only going up , completely ignoring the fact that the rig go FORWARD . Again a demonstration of the ability of this person, to change topic .

In front of the easy request to demonstrate why during the backmonaut flight , the shirt have the tendency to go up and forward ( for the clear lift generate by the body ) , he do not answer with any kind of explanation , and he just joke about this, demonstrate all his destabilizing attitude show in all his posts .

In front of the easy request to demonstrate why during the atmo-tandem , the vertical speed without the drogue , is from 170 to 180 Km/h ( for the clear lift generate by the body ) , he answer in a really ridiculous way , saying : “Tandems going slower etc...Greater surface area exposed to the relative wind. For the same reason when tracking or going really slow flat(hug that beach ball!) you go slower” .
Everybody in the world know the reason of why the tandem use the drogue . Probably not Piers that ignore that two bodies on the same surface they will increase the speed arrive to terminal velocity around 300 km/h … He still talking about “scientific point of view “ , and he gives a not so serious and incorrect answer …..

Censure ?
… look more like you still have to answer or detailed something there …. But probably for you is better change argument trying with censure and other off topic arguments.
Marco Tiezzi


Premier skymama  (D 26699)
Moderator
Feb 24, 2008, 4:29 AM
Post #10 of 10 (3011 views)
Shortcut
     Re: [marcoT] An interesting debate on angled flight on facebook [In reply to]  

Enough.



Forums : Skydiving Disciplines : Freeflying

 


Search for (options)