Quote:
Originally Posted by instarx
Gee, aerohaed. When I posted this exact article to EM in 2008 because I thought people might like to read about new trends in automotive edge design you thought it was useless, deceptive, poorly written and had absolutely nothing new in it (you so kindly informed me that there is nothing new in aerodynamics because it has been fully understood since 1800). It was my first original post to EM and you skewered me for being so naive to think it might be of interest.
Nice to know that you now think the article was a "game changer" and "moves the whole issue of aerodynamic drag further into the light." Although I won't go that far, I'm glad to know that I was right and the article was interesting after all.
|
instarx,please accept my apology,I was under the understanding that Frank's article was 'current.'
In the context of broader knowledge the article might be useless,deceptive,and poorly written although having an understanding of journalist-speak I no longer have to forgive their ignorance of their subject matter.
Personally,I've never had a journalist 'get it right,' so my expectations are reduced to zero now that I better understand the media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was never my intent to 'skewer' you nor anyone who contributes.My angst was directed at the article,not the messenger.Again,my apology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It IS my opinion that the article brings very little new information to the plate,and that must be taken within the context that I've been actively looking for 'something new' for 35 years.
The article brings nothing beyond what Hucho et al reported on back in 1976.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Ryland asked specifically about the 'box' I attempted to bring a historical context to his query.
As far as fluid mechanics goes,there is very little new under the sun.You will witness that all high performance structures share a resemblance to Sir George Caylay's trout.If all of Leonardo da Vinci's papers had survived we could probably move the timeline back to the 1500s.Or dugout canoes,2000 years ago.Samarian naval architecture?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If The New York Times printed a rebuttal to the article that would be great.Short of that,whenever I run across 'media' accounts related to aerodynamics I feel a personal responsibility to throw a caution flag on the play if I think they have mis-stepped the physical world.
The US is only losing $38-billion a year to aerodynamic drag.Who's the Times to give a care.They COULD make a difference but they have no obligation to do so.