I am stunned. You've turned "Newtonist" on us! Welcome into the fold!
Yea Brother! :) I'm sure that Drs. Anderson and Eberhardt will be
thrilled! As well as your old enemy Jan-Olov Newborg. There truely is no
contradiction between Bernoulli and Newton, as long as the typical errors
in the Bernoulli viewpoint can be removed. Congratulations on at long
last removing them.
The only problem here is that you've done it all silently, as if you'd
been right all along. What's the big deal about saying "I'm sorry, I
guess I was wrong."
Over and over I and others have stated that as an airfoil moves forwards,
it gives a net downwards deflection to the air (it injects some downwards
momentum into parcels of air.) You've objected in the past, asserting
that upwash equals downwash, and that upwash injects upwards momentum into
the wing, while downwash also injects upwards momentum to the wing (and
therefor when upwash equals downwash, there still is a lifting force even
if the wing is not flinging any air downwards.) You describe this on http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/fly/lift.htm This is the "Bernoulli-ist"
party line and it is flawed. The "Newton-ists" fiercely object, and state
that a wing must somehow inject downwards momentum into the air as it
moves forwards, and it must leave the air parcels moving downwards after
it passes.
Now you seem to be saying that a wing must inject downwards momentum into
the air, and leave the air with an overall downwards motion after it
passes!
Hooray! The light bulb has gone on.
The only thing I dislike is your very obvious lack of any mention of
"Ooops, I guess was wrong before."
Am I gleefully crowing about your changed stance. Not exactly. This is
an important issue. Dr. Levy of that NASA website is still under the
impression that Anderson/Eberhardt's paper is horribly flawed. (And did
you contact any other webmasters as well?) The "Flaws" were in John
Denker. John Denker should try to make amends.