NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Prop-walk.
From: Gary Harkins
Date: 2003 Apr 22, 22:56 EDT
From: Gary Harkins
Date: 2003 Apr 22, 22:56 EDT
In a message dated 4/22/2003 4:14:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, daveweilacher@EARTHLINK.NET writes:
I like some of your other theories, but water is incompressible so it is not more dense at the bottom of the prop. I used to like the theory that the bottom of the prop was working against water that is under more pressure, not more dense just under more pressure, but some MIT types convinced me that wasn't a valid theory. They didn't offer a valid theory of their own however!
Gary Harkins C400 #140 "Cygnus"
Website http://www.hometown.aol.com/htycgary/myhomepage/index.html
Harbour Towne Marina, Muskegon, Michigan Slip C-28
Harbour Towne Yacht Club, Life Member
C400 National Association
United States Power Squadrons-JN
NRA Life Member
MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners)
JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
Here are some guesses. The bottom end of the prop is more efficient than the top half. The water is more dense by 3% of an atmosphere at the bottom than at the top.
I like some of your other theories, but water is incompressible so it is not more dense at the bottom of the prop. I used to like the theory that the bottom of the prop was working against water that is under more pressure, not more dense just under more pressure, but some MIT types convinced me that wasn't a valid theory. They didn't offer a valid theory of their own however!
Gary Harkins C400 #140 "Cygnus"
Website http://www.hometown.aol.com/htycgary/myhomepage/index.html
Harbour Towne Marina, Muskegon, Michigan Slip C-28
Harbour Towne Yacht Club, Life Member
C400 National Association
United States Power Squadrons-JN
NRA Life Member
MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners)
JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
