Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsko
Other than tufting how does one determine flow effects or whether that matters? Begond my pay grade
|
* As to flow visualization, even tufting itself is problematic, as, typically, it will not reveal vorticity in the vicinity. It gives 'false-positives' related to 'attached flow' vs 'downwash.'
* Tuft screens can be placed downwind of structures in order to visualize wake behavior. Lightyear presented some video, demonstrating their use of the technique.
* Dabs of lamp black and kerosene will mimic tufting, with the accompanying shortcomings.
* Flourescent pigment blended into soap-water solution, viewed after a 'test' under black light.
* SAE published a fine little paperback, illustrating all known means of flow imaging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Quantifying' the magnitude of results from modifications is an especially challenging issue for DIY.
Testing 'outside' can introduce enough 'noise' into results that, performance 'trends' from even 'successful' modifications may be masked in the 'signal.'
Hucho recommended that we study everything ever done, and use the data associated those changes to inform the direction of our projects, whether for 'single' mods, or vast ensembles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether any of it matters or not will have to do with what each individual brings to the experience, and whether expectations exist, or all things done, simply to experience 'what is.'
I'm a technologist. My interest has been taking off-the-shelf technology and applying it to mass-produced vehicles, to achieve the performance of one-of-a-kind, multi-million dollar concept cars which had ideal aerodynamic performance. It's simple, not easy.