Quote:
Originally Posted by orbywan
I can't imagine why you would be burned out after all of that.  Your log is the perfect example of why it is so hard to get definite numbers as to what is 'signal' (accurate data) and what is 'noise' (inaccurate numbers due to wind, hills, road surface, crap).
I'm curious Phil, have you shopped around at all to see what facilities, if any, are available nationwide for wind tunnel testing besides the $2,000 an hour guys?
While we're on the subject, just for fun, what do you think it would cost to build a wind tunnel big enough to test your truck and trailer in? I'm talking an econo version, not so cheap the data would be suspect, but a cost effective version that would still yield useful numbers.
Second thought; what do you think it would cost to build a wind tunnel just big enough for a compact car, glass on all sides so you can observe smoke testing?
What would something like that use for a wind generator? |
Clocks running out so I'm hurrying.
I think the GM tunnel is 60,000 horsepower.It's in Hucho's book.All of them are in there.That's what we're talking about for really good scientific numbers which would hold up to peer review.
The vehicle should not exceed 5% of the test section cross-sectional area,so they've got to be pretty 'big.'
Turbulent boundary layer and constant Cd requires at least 20 mph wind in the tunnel.
Area X velocity would give CFM.Then we need to overcome wall friction.