Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
1) Over the past weeks there's been an underlying theme running through your correspondence.
2) If you've conducted measurements on the road with instrumentation, we are to take that as gospel.
3) If 'real' scientists, who came before you conducted tests with instrumentation, under clinical conditions, and published the results, all that is to be completely discounted.
4) Hucho's text is a compilation of results from empirical testing, conducted with laboratory-grade instrumentation, dating back to 1922.
5) My citations have to do with quotes, tables, or charts published by Hucho, Schlichting, Von Mises,Prandtl, Kamm-Fachsenfeld, Hoerner, Tamai, Abbott and Von Doenhoff, and others, whom I presume published the materials so that no individual would ever have to duplicate efforts, wasting time accomplishing redundant operations.
6) I don't know why you bought books, but I bought mine to profit from. I certainly am not in a position to replicate 98-years worth of research. The books have been a rich treasure trove of knowledge.
7) There is nothing 'theoretical' about anything I've posted. Everything was proven long ago.
8) You may be confusing 'hypothesis' for 'theory.' Only after a hypothesis is proven may it be used for theory. Students are introduced to 'theory' so they'll understand the underlying logic of formulae they may use on a day-to day basis. Like the' Theory of Gurgling Stomachs.' It's meal time, go eat something.
|
Your usual mix of red herrings, strawman arguments and irrelevant points.
Since they so comprehensively disprove your fallacious applications of theory, I would expect you to shortly suggest all on-road aero measurements are useless or deceptive. After all, you've already done that with tufting.
It must be a bit difficult when reality doesn't match your theories!