• Helix 🧬@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    Did they finally find that out? Last time I checked even PhDs in aerospace engineering still added “we think” at the end of their explanations.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      The wing experiment with hundreds of pressure sensors shows lower pressure on top and more on bottom.

    • 74 183.84@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      It is known yeah. Another user commented it. If you take a wing and put it in a wind tunnel you can put sensors in its wake to measure the pressure. By manipulating the fluid flow you can change the pressure. So low pressure on top and high pressure on bottom. Multiply that by the surface area and you get a force. Smaller force on top of the wing, lower force on the bottom of the wing. So the wing goes up. Of course theres some physics going on in the fluid that explains the change in pressure, but this is just a quick and simply-put explanation because I took a fat amount of zquil and am tired.

      Source: Im getting a PhD in aerospace engineering

      Edit: I had to do this in a wind tunnel during one of my undergrad courses. It was fun playing with the wind tunnels, would recommend

      • Helix 🧬@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        hm, I just read through a few publications pertaining the Navier–Stokes equations and the scientific community still didn’t seem to find out why they’re not 100% accurate even in lab conditions because of threedimensional interference, is that correct?