|
Hi Folks,
Your inputs have really helped me get my thoughts around the idea that I was trying to present; Thank you. In order to clarify the idea, I think it time to summarize what I was attempting to present?
What I have presented was actually misrepresented as a canard (wing). In actuality, it is a truncated bubble; a leading edge add-on. If it were placed materially above the top or side edge, then yes, it would be a thin-plate wing. But in its near-height with the box surface, it is only a leading edge radius, with two exceptions: it is a truncated radius; it has a venturi nozzle (the slot) in a spot that “may” be situated to help control the boundary layer and delay a separation along the box edge. It materially should not affect the cross sectional flow area as a canard or Flugel-type turning vane might?
I have only a few more speculations;
1. Truncated leading edge radii won't work as well as full frontal bubbles; if you have the room, go for the full bubble with large radii.
2. The cross-sectional flow area of the truncated leading edge might only handle about twice the cross sectional area of the box-body, so larger box areas need larger devices.
3. These truncated devices need strong construction and solid mounting.
4. The underneath device (the inner arc) is critical to nozzle performance, and nozzle throat inlet-to-outlet area is probably critical but may not optimized in the presented design.
Without flow testing of some type, further discussions may lead some astray. I don’t wish for my rhetoric here to fool anyone that this may be a solution without testing.
My original and final agenda is/was for someone to take an interest as prove or disprove the idea in testing. We all know how not-intuitive vehicular flows can be.
Flow software, anyone?
Kind Regards,
Butch Kuhn
|