In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Tue, 5 Apr 2005 16:46:12
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Thanks. I have now derived the formula for myself, so I understand
where it comes from, and what the various constants mean. I have
also applied the same derivation principle to an active vortex
that it constantly
At 4:52 PM 4/6/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
Perhaps needless to say, we missed out on that free lunch again!
:)
Nuts! I had no other plans.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:33:55
-0900:
Hi Horace,
Thanks. I have now derived the formula for myself, so I understand
where it comes from, and what the various constants mean. I have
also applied the same derivation principle to an active vortex
that it
The interesting series of posts regarding this subject is fascinating.
Anyone sitting in the middle of a tornado or hurricane can testify that the
forces generated are awesome and certainly didn't come from the effect of
gravity of falling water. A water vortex performs an interesting "
At 4:55 PM 4/1/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In short, is h the distance up from the bottom of the tank, or the
distance down from the surface?
The variable h is the distance up from the bottom of the tank in the
equations I provided. However, I should note that the equation from
Feynman's
Greetings to all members
Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:43:54
However when the water rotates, a dip forms at the middle, which can drop right down to the floor of the tank at sufficiently high w.
A non-physcist 's visualization of solitonic
Greetings to all members
A non-physcist 's visualization of solitonic vortices is at URL:
1. http://lewfh.tripod.com/themindthingthegiftofvisualization/
2.
http://lewfh.tripod.com/coloursarecodedfrequenciesinphotonicbandgapcrystalstructures/id4.html
With regards
Lew
FHLew wrote:
Greetings to
Mr. Lew, and everyone else:
I just now went to the first URL listed below in your
posting - apparently on your own website. I
immediately got a couple of pop-ups followed by
several Trojan virus alerts / blocked hits. Please be
careful.
NR
--- FHLew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings to all
Thanks Nick. I will be careful.
With regards
Lew
Nick Reiter wrote:
Mr. Lew, and everyone else:
I just now went to the first URL listed below in your
posting - apparently on your own website. I
immediately got a couple of pop-ups followed by
several Trojan virus alerts / blocked hits. Please
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:53:41
-0900:
Hi Horace,
I'm having some trouble understanding this formula. If it's meant
to give the relationship between the absolute height of the water
surface at any radius, then it seems to say that at w=0, h= h0,
i.e. h0 is the
At 9:46 PM 3/31/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:53:41
-0900:
Hi Horace,
I'm having some trouble understanding this formula. If it's meant
to give the relationship between the absolute height of the water
surface at any radius, then it
At 9:46 PM 3/31/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:53:41
-0900:
Hi Horace,
I'm having some trouble understanding this formula. If it's meant
to give the relationship between the absolute height of the water
surface at any radius, then it
Thank you for your patience Robin. Here's one more try at a complete answer.
At 9:46 PM 3/31/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:53:41
-0900:
Hi Horace,
I'm having some trouble understanding this formula. If it's meant
to give the
and another link on vortex
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/vortex.htm
Richard
Blank Bkgrd.gif
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:43:54
-0900:
Hi Horace,
[snip]
I'm having some trouble understanding this formula. If it's meant
to give the relationship between the absolute height of the water
surface at any radius, then it seems to say that at w=0, h= h0,
i.e. h0 is
At 4:55 PM 4/1/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:43:54
However when the water rotates, a dip forms at the middle, which
can drop right down to the floor of the tank at sufficiently high
w. However, according to the formula, for any w 0, h
In reply to RC Macaulay's message of Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:34:11
-0600:
Hi Richard,
[snip]
I saw a pic of the collapse of a tiny bubble in a SL experiment. A vortex was
visible extending into center of the sphere at the moment of collapse..hmm.
I think the picture you saw was the one from
At 7:39 AM 3/14/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:22:03
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
Given the complexity of the equations for ASCII representation, I
have placed a Mathcad document (24 kB) and a gif version thereof
(36 kB), for readers without
I assumed in the prior analysis that the initial angular velocity is small.
If the angular velocity of the initial condition is high then the initial
condition integration of angular momentum and energy also has to be outside
the boundary established by
h = (w^2/2g) x R + h0
It is possible
Correction follows. Sorry!
The shape of the final equilibrium surface is:
h = (w^2/2g) x R^2 + h0
where h is height, w is angular velocity, g = 9.80665 m/s^2, and R is radius.
Using R1 as the radius of the hole, R2 as radius of of tank, we have h = 0
at the radius R1 when equlilbrium is
Been following this thread with interest. I remain
amazed at the statue of this group and the insight expressed on such a range of
subjects.
I'm waiting on the next step.. that being ..explain the
energy unleashed in a tornado or hurricane.
Water drains, hurricanes, tornados, galaxies,
At 4:16 PM 3/11/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:31:22
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
mv1r1 = mv2r2, i.e. v2 = v1 x r1/r2. (m is the same before and
after, because we are dealing in both cases with the identical
chunk of water).
Yes, you are certainly
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:45:11
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
direction the water goes down the drain. Any angular momentum exhibited by
the vortex must be there initially, and some of that is lost by transfer to
the tank bottom.
In all cases the overall angular momentum
At 11:29 AM 3/12/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:45:11
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
direction the water goes down the drain. Any angular momentum exhibited by
the vortex must be there initially, and some of that is lost by transfer to
the tank
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Wed, 9 Mar 2005 00:31:22
-0900:
Hi,
[snip]
mv1r1 = mv2r2, i.e. v2 = v1 x r1/r2. (m is the same before and
after, because we are dealing in both cases with the identical
chunk of water).
Yes, you are certainly right about this. Momentum is conserved. The
It would be pretty neat to have a long time do this experiment right on the
equator to see if it is possible to obtain a vortex flow with only radial
motion visible.
Regards,
Horace Heffner
Let me try this one more time.
At 4:47 PM 3/7/5, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
The question is, where does the energy come from to increase the
velocity of the water?
If the water is stationary to start with, then it comes from the
change in height of the water as it leaves the tank, and the
a large amount of the energy that forms is from the friction between
the water and the air bubbling up. as well as the coriolis force
(though theres barely any there). in fact, if you perform this
experiment in near vacuum, with teh water at a stand still, it will
NOT form a vortex.
On Mon, 07
28 matches
Mail list logo
