About Claes Johnson

Professor Claes Johnson teaches Applied Mathematics at KTH in Stockholm.
He uses to attract attention with strident proclamations like this ones:
- All classical theories about flight are wrong (that is: Kutta, Jukowsky, Prandtl, circulation, all of them are wrong)
- D'Alembert paradox was finally solved by him
- He is the author of "The New (and right) Theory of Flight", published in 2008
- While he would deserve the Nobel prize, he would reject it because of his discrepancy with the committee
- Global warming is a scam
His excellent sense of humor and love for teaching can be verified on his youtube channel.
He is a prolific author and blogger, many of his books can be downloaded for free.
As I can't criticize his theories from a scientifical point of view, then I can enjoy the reading, and must recognize that some concepts are much clearer for me now, like the original limitations of potential flow, and how circulation comes into the game.
For those having interest, some links:

Home Page:
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/

C.J. blogspot:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.ar/

Books for download (including "The Secret of Flight" and "The Secret of Sailing")
http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/book.html

C.J. youtube channel (interesting, and funny!)
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYdnvg9xjyimycHsX2WSsLQ/videos

-

 

The guy seems to be a bit of a crank.

I'm a little confused exactly where he fits in at KTH. I went to his home page at http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ --

if I click "Research" then "About", I get a list of people that doesn't include him

if I go to http://www.csc.kth.se and switch to English then do their personnel search, I can't find him.

Everyone knows they are wrong.

That doesn't mean they aren't good or that they're based in the wrong approach, which they clearly aren't, seeing as though they work so well.

D'Alembert paradox was solved in the 19th century. (c.f., the work of Navier, Stokes, and others).

His link to anarticle on his fluid model seems to be dead and his link to his powerpoint doesn't present his model mathematically, though it does hint that it is inviscid and incompressible (which would make D'Alembert's paradox relevant). I'm sure I could hunt, but it's telling I'd have to.

As best as I can determine from the hints, his model depends on turbulence to induce lift. This seems to be extremely strange in the presence of ample laminar experiments with induced lifts and due to the rather obvious impact of viscous forces.

I cannot imagine being in a situation where I imagined it would reflect well on me to say, "I would not accept a Nobel prize!" What could be the context for that seeming anything but supremely unflattering?

The irony of http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatethermoslayer.pdf was more than minor (ignoring the real rigor in the field, possibly willfully). Johnson simultaneously criticizes the entire field of climate science for being hopelessly simple, but then proceeds to hand-wave his entire approach.

 

Attached his D'Alembert document

-