Is Negative Drag a Real Concept in Fluid Dynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mista_chewey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Drag
AI Thread Summary
Negative drag is not a recognized concept in fluid dynamics, as drag is defined as a force opposing an object's motion through a fluid. Thrust, which propels an object forward, is fundamentally different from drag and cannot be equated to negative drag. The term "negative drag" is misleading and lacks a proper mathematical or engineering basis. While both thrust and drag are forces, they serve opposite functions in fluid dynamics. Therefore, the understanding that thrust and drag are distinct and not interchangeable is accurate.
mista_chewey
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
my first post but i had to get this out before i explode!
this has been bugging me to hell

on this other forum i visit. there are a bunch of people insisting on "negative drag"
is there such a thing?

from what i understand drag is a force acting on an object moving through a fluid.
and thrust is a force propelling the object through the liquid.

so negative drag would be a force enacted on the object by the fluid in the direction of movement. so the object will be propelling itself wouldn't it?

there is also another statement that says "thrust IS negative drag"
thrust is constantly trying to over come drag so how can they be the same thing?

so is it the same thing?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Negative drag is not a proper term. The word "drag" has a very specific meaning associated with it along with a mathematical/engineering definition. The engineering definition alone prevents the usage in the way that you are saying. There is absolutely no reason to use a term like "negative drag." Would any of these people say something like "you need to negative push to open the door?"

They are the same thing in that they are both forces, but that is the extent of their similarities.
 
so my understanding of thrust and drag is correct right?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top