In John's critique of the Anderson/Eberhardt paper, he takes them to task
for using the Coanda Effect in their explanation.
In my opinion John's arguments are flawed. Here's why. The main problem
is that John has re-defined the meaning of the term "Coanda Effect" so it
only refers to narrow jets of air and thin sheet-jets of air.
The "Coanda Effect" pertains to fluids moving across solid surfaces. It
does not apply to jets specifically. In airplane flight, the terms "flow
attachment phenomenon" and "Coanda Effect" basically mean the same thing.
But wait a minute! Isn't the definition of "Coanda Effect" open to
debate? Well, yes and no. The term has a widely accepted meaning. If we
need to change its meaning, then we need to start a new debate. If John
Denker wants to change its meaning "on the fly" as it were, as a matter of
convenience, then I see an enormous problem here.
It looks very clear to me that John Denker has re-defined the common
meaning of "Coanda Effect" for no good reason. He has done so in order to
support his side of his battle against his opponents.
Science is not about battles with opponents. The tactics we use in
fighting opponents frequently go against the high standards required in a
science discussion, and the goal of fighting with opponents is totally
different than the goal of science, which is a search for "truth", or at
least for insights and clear vision.
The problem appears to be habitual. John has re-defined "reaction engine"
so that it doesn't apply to airplane propellors. John has re-defined
"force" in order that he can claim that there is a force between the
high-flying airplane and the earth. He has also re-defined "Coanda
Effect" so that he can say that the Anderson/Eberhardt paper is wrong
about how "Coanda Effect" applies to wings and flight.
As a third party in the "Denker vs. Anderson/Eberhardt" debate, it is my
judgement that John Denker is using illegal debating tactics which are
unworthy of anyone calling himself a scientist. Harsh words? Very. Very
very harsh, and I stop and think deeply on this topic before sending this
message. Yet send it I do. By going after Anderson/Eberhardt's work,
John Denker has set himself up as an enemy of truth, insight, and clear
vision. Sounds hokey! But I am deadly serious. It is the reason why I
am participating in this "flamewar."
Again I must reiterate: if John Denker had never gone to Dr. Cesar Levy
and attempted to have him remove the links to the Anderson/Eberhardt
paper, I would not have seen any good reason enter the fray. John is
welcome to his unconventional interpretation of science. (Don't forget,
Bill Beaty supports unconventional science a little bit.) It is when his
interpretation of science causes him to make harmful moves against others
that bystanders should take firm action.
I don't love beating up on people. Flamewars are deeply revolting to me,
as are most forms of fighting. But when I see the things I see occuring
here, I will not hold myself back. It's like seeing a playground bulley
beating up another child, and outsiders should take action to stop it.
Some things are a matter of honor and integrity, and if I *were* to keep
silent, I see that it would damage my own integrity.