About pressure ,accessoires and obstructing our view.

Daniel Bernoulli , h multiplicated with rho, for fuel

When we have a pressure of 7 psi(g) how much is h when rho is 700 gram / dm3?


Cees

Easy, about 7 m, but there's a sqeezed tank and the regulator.
And that's static and not Bernoulli, and that Bernoulli is considered a Swiss.
And that's an example of what I mean. If you would really want to show something you wouldn't ask questions or riddles. What is your point?

Static pressure is also Bernoulli (static + dynamic pressure is constant), but I did read your post in the thread of Ed Kazmirski's Taurus, about the pusher and I did get the impression you did not understand you will find the fuel in your POV without a pressure regulator.

Cees

No, and 7 psi is not even 0.5 bar. But I wonder how Ed put the nipple into the underside of the shaft housing and how he got the left-hand crankshaft. On the Veco 45, there is no such swelling in the cast part like on my OS 19. I think Ed did it himself in his machine shop, and for him it was easier to make a new crankshaft than a left-hand propeller. Did you read the paragraph about Ed making Nylon parts in the interview I posted the link to?

BTW, I wonder if the ribs in the baby bottle were really able to stand the pressure. Why not simply a round bottle, or even a bubble tank?

No? What no!

No Bernoulli, no not understanding.
So you really want to go back to "start" in this game? I would prefer proceeding. How about my question?

UStik,

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"


Daniel Bernoulli was a Dutch-born member of the Swiss mathematical family. His most important work considered the basic properties of fluid flow, pressure, density and velocity, and gave the Bernoulli principle.

Cees

Proceed, proceed!

UStik,

What question?
Cees


Edit to make the post atractive, tank pressure controller Ed did not have, so these controllers they did use did get "out of fashion!".

post #354 (actually 2 questions)

UStik,


I count 5 questions?
And when I read the last question and the post of the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus:

Than it's clear I did start my own thead; Redesign and reconstruction of the Oldest Taurus on Earth, because you are running round in circles.

Cees

Especially number 3, maybe no 5.

UStik,

Do you know that we cannot see you are "on line".
As long as I cannot see this I think I can edit my post to reduce "stamps".

This was the second time you send me a new letter while I was editing!
Read one post "back in time for the answer on you last post.

You have my answer before you ask!!!!! lol

Cees

No.

Where is an answer? I see only riddles again, Mr. F. U. Kilroy!

Cees,

You obviously have no clue about what is going on with the lenses, POV and such, and have no inclination to listen to anybody who works with this regularly. If you could do what you are trying, you could be a surveyor and never have to leave your office. But there must be a reason that surveyors actually exist and make a (good) living...

I tried to help you, but you already gave the jury a verdict before they heard any evidence.

Andy

UStik,


Question 1; This question you did generate yourself, has nothing to do with the Ed Kazmirski Taurus. The pressure was 7 psi so the connection was in the backplate!

Question 2; This question you did generate yourself, has nothing to do with the Ed Kazmirski's Taurus. How about pusher props? Look post 43 page 2 from Neilrether, in the thread Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, the movie from Beldium, after you do see Fly Ed.

Question 3; No comment.

Question 4; This question you did generate yourself, has nothing to do with the Ed Kazmirski’s Taurus, why do you think Ed did use a pressurized fueltank in the Taurus?

Question 5; We did read Post 224 page 9, which plane, which engine and which tank ?

Found on a C/L newsgroup.

Ray

Just a couple comments: First, about 20 years ago, I competed in one of the last Chicago Model Masters C/L events, held at Kickapoo Woods, near Riverdale, Illinois. Toward the end of the event, someone mentioned that Ed Kazmirski was flying in the adjacent R/C field.

Now, Ed hadn't been too active flying R/C, since proportional gear came out. He claimed he could never get used to it, and preferred the old reed transmitters.

I walked over, and he was flying a Taurus pattern ship with a venerable K&B 45 engine, but with a whale of a baseball-bat thick wing. Between flights, he commented that he was experimenting with a 33% wing thickness!

I began to spout Carl Goldberg's teachings, of which he was well aware. He explained that he wanted to try a setup with LOTS of drag, to slow down the airplane, especially in nose-down maneuvers....

Cees

Cees, I'm really concerned about you! I can just see you running round in circles. Did you sniff too much fuel? You are raving! But just watch the question marks, then it's easy.

But just watch the question marks, then it's easy. Why

Cees

Andy,


Andy ,

I did not find any measurable pincushion distortion or barrel distortion.
Result is, Gemme Fricius is my man and I can forget all your lenses, because: What have I to do when there is no distorsion? Nothing !.
Even when I did find distorsion I would have build my plane by recalculating the picture first, no problem for me.
Maybe UStik would have helped me, he probably has contact with Johann Wiesel in Augsburg and I can ask Antony van Leeuwenhoek or Christiaan Huygens.
What I understand from you is you did read a lot but cannot help me. You are more the pilot and I am the engineer.

Cees

Cees,

I'm an engineer, too. Tested out of the electronics classes and most of my freshman year + some others along the way, double-majored in computer science (systems development, and scientific applications - mostly math), with a math minor (5 hours would have given a triple major - CS/Sys, CS/Sci, and Math). You are totally missing the point. There absolutely MUST be some distortion - geometrically impossible NOT to have some. Plus I graduated early.

To demonstrate it very easily, get yourself a tapered-wing airplane. Get yourself a camera with a 50-70mm lens. Get lots of light. Now, position yourself just outside one wingtip and 0.5m above it. Put the center of your focus on the wing where the fuselage would be (works great with the fuse there, too). CLICK.

Print it. Now measure the root, and both tips. Tell me there's no distortion. All the lines are straight, but your close tip will probably measure LARGER than its root.

Because you know your location, the lens, and the subject you can figure out exactly the distortion. Take another picture from above and behind the tail, centering on the canopy. Voila!

Then please post your pictures and measurements here.

Andy

Andy,
Here is my picture (rev A), what you explain is depth!
And that's no problem for the Camera Obscura!
When there is no distortion you have an optimal presentation of depth and distances (dimensions) on any place of the picture!
It is what I did tell you, you did read a lot but cannot help me.

Your post 365:
If you could do what you are trying, you could be a surveyor and never have to leave your office. But there must be a reason that surveyors actually exist and make a (good) living...

So now I know what you are thinking and better than your wife!!!
Answer? We do not "trying", that is a waste of time, we start with "do".
That was the reason I did start building the Wester Taurus.

Cees

In your language "depth" is called "perspective", but that's not distortion of a lense.
When using a Camera Obscura (or pinhole camera) WITHOUT A LENSE, you get infinite depth-of-field.
My first method with the threads did have visible distortion I did have to count with, that was the reason to did use the second method with the laser.
For the second method I did use two independed masks and is of course much more accurate!


Cees

Wow, Pride and Prejudice in this forum!

But Cees, on your side it's more Vanity Fair. No, I won't try to help you anymore as long as you keep swamping us with all these irrelevant things and that name dropping. This is a discussion forum and not an arena for show-offs. You don't need help in what you're doing but you would need help in understanding others and explaining. Since you're putting down each and any advice it might help you not to take others for a fool. Your last post is a good start!

And Andy, among us engineers, maybe you unintentionally fueled Cees' "reactions" by introducing lenses and surveyors what worked like Cees' "analogies" in this context. Seems to me there was simply a misunderstanding of the term distortion when Cees took it as lens distortion and you meant perspective. As far as I can see he did nothing else but reconstruct the perspective making use of the clues in the picture, especially the symmetry of crate and airplane.

Take your own example of the tapered wing seen from a wingtip: Measure the root chord and both tip chord lengths, calculate the mean tip chord and the tip/root ratio. If you now know the root to be 12" you also know the tip chord length. Dihedral would make it a bit more complicated but not impossible. That's what Cees did, and in the first place he checked that Ed used a flawless lens and a small aperture. Later, when checking his measurements, he replaced the sagging string by a straight laser beam (quite an effort for a Dutch cheapskate).

I would have asked him for an error estimation, but I didn't dare to in fear of new complications. Anyway, I didn't see any error in his procedure, the more since it's a standard method of surveying or photogrammetry, your two-picture method being another one. They are just very tedious without any utilities. I wish I had a good photogrammetry software (or 3ds Max which is said to have something like the first method), would be much easier also to reconstruct the Simla geometry, but they are expensive.

And Cees, I still wish I had the full-resolution crate picture!

Gents,

When speaking about the fuel tanks for the Taurus I did show some fuel tank lay-outs and the result on the pressure for the spray-bar in the carb.
When we only speaking about unpressurized fuel tanks, so no connection with the crankcase or exhaust on any place we can go back further in time, Italia.

Evangelista Torricelli, 1608 – 1647 see the picture.1

Evangelista did show us, you could have a vacuum above liquid, just as we see in the fuel tank of the Smog Hog.
This is the most important physical law of all the unpressurized fuel tank systems.

When pressurized (but also unpressurized in acrobat flying and control line), Bernoulli but also Pascal becomes again important

Picture 2 shows us there is fuel flow without “sucking” of the carb (rich) when we do not have the vacuum and the fuel level is too high!
Picture 3 shows us the max vacuum that’s possible on our globe but that’s not interesting.

In my process of redesign and reconstruction I do account with the situation also Ed did know this law of Evangelista Torricelli of course.
Go take a look on the Internet for this if you did not know him yet,




is from the same country!

I think all these physical processes around our Glow Plug engines makes the traditional contest flying most interesting of all because also our inventors as Ed Kazmirski and Howard Bonner are showing us they did know these laws and processes also.

Most important to know the right fueltank configuration does give you a very stable fuel/air ratio during the period the airinlet in the tank isn’t above the fuel level.
Of course this is theoretical and we always have to do with vibrations and movement of fuel during flight but, why not use what Evangelista did tell us?
It can make you win the game! See picture 4.

If we do not show them frequently, all these important persons, I think they are all forgotten in a short time and with them the real history, performances, wins and also they did invent for us in the past.

Cees

Gents,
Ready for the painter for the large metamorfose, transfer to a real Taurus.

Cees