View Single Post
05-22-2020, 07:48 PM   #4 (permalink)
JulianEdgar
Master EcoModder

Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,095
Thanks: 67
Thanked 912 Times in 597 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aerohead *We know that all wings can produce zero lift.Yes? (I gave you 118 examples). *The lowest pressure on an automobile occurs just ahead of the windshield header. *All the air on the car would like to go to the low pressure area near windshield header. *On the aft-body,the only reason air isn't flowing forwards to the windshield header is because kinetic energy from inviscid flow is attacking and energizing the TBL, all the way to the body 'wall.' *If the aft-body slope exceeds 22-23-degrees,the inviscid flow can no longer impart enough energy to the TBL to prevent stall,reversion,eddy formation,then full-blown turbulence.The air at the wall boundary is already at rest.The pressure rise presented by the radical downslope would demand (from the Bernoulli Theorem) that the flow decelerate.Since the flow at the wall is already zero,that's impossible. Which results in counterflow on the roof,moving forwards towards the windshield,rolling up into eddies,then turbulence,lifting off the roof as separation.At this point the flow is lost and all the kinetic energy of the turbulence is converted to heat,through viscous attrition,downstream. If the roofline were streamlined,there'd be no separation,no turbulence,no lost energy. Smoke flow images of the 911 would really help. Beetle images clearly show the separation. Smoke flow images of the Volkhart V2 Saggitta,very similar to the 1939 Porsche 60K10 also show the separation. I believe that you'd see the separation on the 911,you'd see the attached longitudinal vortices,which would explain the illusion of 'attached flow' with the tufts. The roof acts as a deceleration ramp,allowing the air to resume its position and original,local barometric pressure as it possessed before encountering the car in the first place. With a streamlined roof,the air would be at the same pressure as the nose,minus the skin friction loss. This high pressure,'slow' air would not generate the lift as one might imagine and it's the reason Volkswagen Group no longer builds a car like the 1st-gen 911. A spoiler spoils lift.Lift is a function of low pressure acting 'over' a portion of the body.All separation should be at the back of the car. If it's not,it's in a lower pressure regime,as it's at a higher velocity.The closer you get to the windshield the lower the pressure and the higher the lift. All streamline filaments about the body are isoenergetic. They possess exactly the same amount of energy.They can be mostly high velocity and low pressure, visa versa,or somewhere in between. I recommend you review your text on fluid mechanics or Hucho's treatment of it in his second edition. It's imperative that you understand Bernoulli.
Well, you could write lots of stuff that justifies your position on a purely theoretical basis - or you could just look at:
• the tuft images from Porsche
• the actual on-road measurements I have made.

Statements like "Which results in counterflow on the roof,moving forwards towards the windshield,rolling up into eddies,then turbulence,lifting off the roof as separation" are simply rubbish. No tuft testing shows flow separation on the roof on any modern car. None.

(But then a moment ago you explained away the Porsche tuft testing because it didn't match your theory. Those tufts were just an "illusion of 'attached flow'". Talk about mental gymnastics!)

Honestly, why don't you get away from the keyboard and measure some pressures and flows on real cars on real roads? You will very quickly find those measurements don't support your theory.

(You say you have my book. Look on page 80. More measured pressures that don't match your theory!)

 The Following User Says Thank You to JulianEdgar For This Useful Post: aerohead (05-27-2020)