Quote:
Originally Posted by hat_man
I guess in a sense that’s my point.
If the evolution of tubercles is good (and aero and fluid dynamics being similar) then why don’t we see the same evolutionary process on “air creatures”? My assumption is that this evolution benefits only “water creatures” and not “air creatures”. And, somewhat by extension, this particular type evolution isn’t a benefit for vehicles that move through the air.
There’s always the exception to the rule (possibly insects with an exoskeleton), but if it doesn’t benefit birds, bats, etc., then how does it benefit vehicles?
|
You make a very good point hat_man.
At a guess I would say that birds etc have so much control over wing shape and angle of attack etc that evolution found tubercles not worth the trouble.
Then there's all the flapping too!
ie: Evolution found it difficult to justify 'lumpy' bone or musculature over weight savings and the convenience of being able to fold wings into a compact body hugging shape.
Then, thx to feathers,
birds evolved an alternate way to keep wings flying , with low drag at high angles of attack:
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...car-41629.html
Aircraft and cars don't have these considerations and the skin is a large part of their structural strength, making tubercles practical in their design.
NB freebeard's post and mine above it on page 1, where the car cabin sits where there would normally be an area of turbulence anyway in Tubercle theory, while airflow should remain more attached further back than usual, over the smooth surfaces.
That seems to be what Tuberlces do; keep flow attached for longer behind the 'humps', while turbulence starts were it normally would behind the 'hollows'...
I'm no expert either and am more interested in people keeping an open mind to new discoveries.
Especially one's that are easy to test for oneself, like the flappa-doodats linked above and even DBD.