Quote:
Originally Posted by JulianEdgar
I am sorry, but that's all just so much rubbish.
Translation: the tufts show what is happening. You don't like it, so the tufts must actually be showing something else.
Translation: here is my theory, so what the tufts actually show must be wrong.
Translation: here is my theory, so what the tufts actually show must be wrong.
Translation: here is my bizarre theory of how spoilers work.
Translation: here is my even more bizarre theory, based apparently on the notion aircraft wings don't exist.
No, I know from measuring actual pressures on real cars (you could try it some time) that would definitely not be the case.
Translation: more of my bizarre theory, one not supported by textbooks from Barnard, Scibor-Rylski, et al.
Um, they vetted my book. They have already spoken!
I don't think so.
I think you've got used to quoting Hucho incorrectly, as you did above, and few people have bothered checking on the actual quotes. So far, nearly every time I have checked, it's wrong. It's a bit like someone who believes in a flat earth referencing Encyclopedia Britannica pages that mention the word 'earth'.
|
1) your ' ignoratio elenchi' explanation of the photograph is a logic fail.
2) you're offering a simple falsehood to explain a complicated truth.
3) the tuft orientation is actually an artifact of a phenomenon which is counterfactual to your ' folk knowledge', as Carl Sagan has referred to it.
3) I've volunteered a scientific/ fluid mechanics explanation which actually addresses the 'science' of what you're observing, however you seem to prefer to 'rule out the 'other'', 'familiarization avoidance', continued maintenance of ancient assumptions,' challenging any novel, potentially heretical position, and attempt to neutralize any opposition.
4) One of your 'theories' on how spoilers work hit the mark: ' Another way in which a rear spoiler on a sedan can reduce lift and drag is to simply promote flow reattachment.' ( page 195 of your book)
5) As to aircraft wings, I don't believe that you actually understand how they work. I offered you a number of texts which could compensate for that, however you've openly rejected all of them ,then spit in my face as an added thank you.
6) I made my living for almost six years, nationwide, measuring pressures. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering Technology from Texas Tech University. The reason I went to college was to study fluid mechanics, and specifically road vehicle aerodynamics. And ' RACE CAR Engineering & Mechanics', by Paul Van Valkenburgh, published by the author, 1986, offers a superior method for measuring pressure profiles if you'd like to check that out.
7) I was happy to pay $ 500 / hour, and obtain actual front and rear lift data from a laboratory, normalized for local atmospheric conditions, an SAE requirement. I've had both a closed test section and open test section wind tunnel at home for decades and I know my way around with barometers,anemometers, flow hoods, smoke generators, sling-psychrometers, psychrometric charts, Pitot-tubes, Mercury- manometers, oil-filled U-Tube and Inclined manometers, and MAGNEHELICs.
7) I've no first hand knowledge of what you submitted for vetting. If your 'world renowned aerodynamicists' signed off on your theory of 'air wrapping the body', then I'd submit that they're just as ignorant of the facts as you are. I've been at this since 1974. Fundamentals don't change.
8) Pertaining to my inverted logic, with respect to Hucho's quotes. If I actually did mis-characterize something published by Hucho, how would you know that? With less education and less experience, what is it about your circumstances that would give you the intellectual high ground, and the ability to even discern the difference? I'm just curious.
9) You're free to think whatever you want, however, if we catch you going off the rails, we're going to take you to task.