Martini shaker. *hic*raymondu999 wrote:Dear God. What exactly are you bending that with? As in, what's that round cylindrical thing at the bottom?
Martini shaker. *hic*raymondu999 wrote:Dear God. What exactly are you bending that with? As in, what's that round cylindrical thing at the bottom?
Ahh...That's the stuff !Pup wrote:Fun with the kitchen torch... ...
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/j ... haust1.png
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y167/j ... haust2.png
I'd say they can turn that exhaust wherever they want. It's science!
No - patience exceeded. Go find a textbook, or at least read the wikipedia page or something. Jeesh.hardingfv32 wrote:Are you up for discussing my points?
I would disagree. The air flow over the body is within 10 deg of parallel of the exhaust flow. I assume our goal to downward exhaust flow. This flow also has a boundary layer and unknown flow quality coming around the side pod. A best you have 3-5 inches after the exhaust pipe opining to force the exhaust downward onto the channel floor. You are trying to push down a high velocity exhaust flow, at its highest levels, with an ambient air flow of questionable quality and strength. It is not going to happen.Shrieker wrote:I'm tempted to say combined aero forces may not necessitate the cylinder to be at the same level as the exit flow to attach itself to the curved aero surface.
I agree with Pup here. If you want to dispute the Coanda effect, go to the local library (or your own bookshelf if you've already taken those courses) and read about it. The concept is feasible.Pup wrote:No - patience exceeded. Go find a textbook, or at least read the wikipedia page or something. Jeesh.hardingfv32 wrote:Are you up for discussing my points?
To say that I challenged the Coanda Effect is just a careless (biased?) interpretation of all my statements. I can safely say, based on what has been posted, that I done more research on this subject than most of those posting.volarchico wrote:If you want to dispute the Coanda effect
That exactly what I was pointing at, for which Pup has given a nice demo.beelsebob wrote:On the F2002 though they were trying to aim the gasses just above the suspension arms; on the current McLaren and Ferrari they're trying to aim it at the floor.shelly wrote:brian, I think that we are not sharing the same basic ideas. If I find a good article on coanda effect with reference to round jets, I will post the link and we will start from that.
I have some doubts to iron ou about coand for myself; for example I remember reading somewhere that the classic example of the spoon being attracted to the tap water is wrong.
In the mentime, let me draw your attention to one thing: why do both mclaren and ferrari sport a convex ramp after the mandated circular exit of the exhaust pipe?
On the f2002 of 10 years ago that ramp was straight...
But not on point when discussing the Coanda Effect as implemented under the 2012 F1 rule set. Not even close to relevant.shelly wrote: nice demo???