Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace
As if not being out in the real would, or being a 22 year old graduate student means your research is not valid, SAE papers are often written by manufacturers, research papers are peer reviewed. It doesn't matter what age or who wrote the paper.
"How did you calculate those figures without a complete pressure map of the cars in question? You know as well as anyone here that drag force on a three-dimensional body cannot be calculated from a few centerline pressures, and Julian has never claimed such."
aerohead here is doing what is known as argument from authority, believing he is the authority here and gets upset if anyone challenges it. I think Vman455, that because it comes from aerohead that is evidence enough of its truth, but maybe only in one persons mind.
|
Belief is not in the equation.
There's a vast body of empirical science which precedes the existence of some of these authors.
I have no idea what constitutes their educational background.
I can tell you that references used to attack my posts belie an ignorance on the part of their authors which cuts into their credibility as any authority.
If you tell me that a cube is now, due to current observation, a spheroid, you can expect to get some pushback.
At least some of the SAE Papers, in their preambles, preface that their research is fraught with uncertainties, as well as completely contra-factual evidence to any general assertions. Especially rotating wheel drag measurements.
Nomenclature is sometimes incorrect.
No qualifications are made as to the degree of confidence of CFD results, as compared to any extant, corroborating evidence. Full-scale wind tunnel validation exercises. Lots of unknowns.
The premise for my comment about graduate students.
One CAN obtain a Masters Degree, and be 100%, scientifically incorrect regarding your thesis, as long as you satisfactorily navigate the protocols of the reviewing jury.
This is true for a PhD as well. You can ask Dr. James Hansen about this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any individual attempts to discount all previous research, under some, random, blanket, umbrella logic of temporal aspect of publication as a qualifier, the only proper defense for the position is, to retest exact replicas, in current laboratories, and present results, side-by-side, for direct comparison. Otherwise its complete intellectual dishonesty and disrespect to even broach the subject.
We got to the Moon and back because of a mathematician who died in 1783.
It's utter folly to summarily dismiss past contributions.
'Check your premises' (Rand )