You are missing the point... i mean, litterally missing it by few cm: the crucial point of application of the centrifugal force is between the end of the duct that brings the air on the module, not inside the module. That terminal section of the duct is shaped this way: )air(hollus wrote:My point is that there should be no centrifugal force if you are surrounded by another fluid of the same density. Does air float on air?
I would be very grateful to be told what, precisely, the "Coanda Effect" has to do with this device.variante wrote:This kind of shape is ideal in order to apply the Coanda Effect, which is in turn triggered by the transverse (centrifugal) force.
First of all, after seeing the shape of the nozzle that brings the air inside the Modules, i'm more and more convinced that the nozzle is shaped to second the Coanda Effect.DaveW wrote:I would be very grateful to be told what, precisely, the "Coanda Effect" has to do with this device.variante wrote:This kind of shape is ideal in order to apply the Coanda Effect, which is in turn triggered by the transverse (centrifugal) force.
Conda is the new black errr vortexDaveW wrote:I would be very grateful to be told what, precisely, the "Coanda Effect" has to do with this device.variante wrote:This kind of shape is ideal in order to apply the Coanda Effect, which is in turn triggered by the transverse (centrifugal) force.
variante wrote:First of all, after seeing the shape of the nozzle that brings the air inside the Modules, i'm more and more convinced that the nozzle is shaped to second the Coanda Effect.DaveW wrote:I would be very grateful to be told what, precisely, the "Coanda Effect" has to do with this device.variante wrote:This kind of shape is ideal in order to apply the Coanda Effect, which is in turn triggered by the transverse (centrifugal) force.
Basically you want to achieve an airflow deviation, and the only way to get it in theese conditions is using the Coanda Effect. This effect consists more or less in an internal friction of a flow which makes it bend following the surface the airflow is adhering to... and you have already solved half of the problem!
So, how do you make the flow adhere on one side of the nozzle/module or on the opposite side exactly when you need it?
This is the hardest part because you have to use centrifugal force (or other accelerations produced by the car) to litterally push the flow on one side of the nozzle; therefore you have a situation where on one side of the nozzle there is low pressure (where the air stalls more easily), and on the opposite side you have high pressure, which forces the flow to stay attached to the surface, in order to create the necessary conditions to let the Coanda Effect fully express, bending the air.
Since the accelerations produced by an F1 car are not superior to 5g, which is not that much, you have to encourage the phoenomena just described. In order to achieve this, i think, you want to create an unstable condition, where the flow (when not subject to car's forces) is in between the stall condition and the adhesion condition. Which is the trickiest part because you need a lot of tuning.
This being said, it is the first time also for me with this kind of concept, thus i could be wrong...
- The uniform and centred airflow that reaches to the "Module 1" is deflected proportionally in the opposite direction of
lateral displacement the car (really deviates the car,and not the airflow).
- Then, to prevent turbulences, and that the airflow sticking to the walls of the module (by a known aerodynamic effect), for improving accuracy and reducing the dimensions of the module, this air flow is deflected in the opposite direction.
yes, sure, warp drive...flynfrog wrote:the air is not moving the car is moving around it.
The underlined sentence simply says that the flow deviation (or bending...call it as you prefer, for the moment) is proportional to the acceleration of the car: this is not in contrast to what i said in my previous post (it is actually a natural consequence of what i said...).flynfrog wrote:- The uniform and centred airflow that reaches to the "Module 1" is deflected proportionally in the opposite direction of
lateral displacement the car (really deviates the car,and not the airflow).
can you explain this, because to me it makes no sense (at least, the sentence is very imprecise). AND it contradicts what was being said a couple of lines above ("really deviates the car, and not the airflow"): it indeed states that THERE IS AN AIRFLOW DEFLECTION.flynfrog wrote:- Then, to prevent turbulences, and that the airflow sticking to the walls of the module (by a known aerodynamic effect), for improving accuracy and reducing the dimensions of the module, this air flow is deflected in the opposite direction.
The first line would mean that it is not impart centrifugal force on the air through the car but that the air is entering and maintain its trajectory. Seems like there is a basic law a physics about this. Something about objects in motion stay in motion.....variante wrote:yes, sure, warp drive...flynfrog wrote:the air is not moving the car is moving around it.
i don't want to be as rude as you have been, but why don't you show us that you understand what's going on using some argumentation, before making such statements?
The underlined sentence simply says that the flow deviation (or bending...call it as you prefer, for the moment) is proportional to the acceleration of the car: this is not in contrast to what i said in my previous post (it is actually a natural consequence of what i said...).flynfrog wrote:- The uniform and centred airflow that reaches to the "Module 1" is deflected proportionally in the opposite direction of
lateral displacement the car (really deviates the car,and not the airflow).
You, flynfrog, should have underlined this: "really deviates the car,and not the airflow". This is something interesting to discuss on. For the moment i strongly disagree with this sentence.
can you explain this, because to me it makes no sense (at least, the sentence is very imprecise). AND it contradicts what was being said a couple of lines above ("really deviates the car, and not the airflow"): it indeed states that THERE IS AN AIRFLOW DEFLECTION.flynfrog wrote:- Then, to prevent turbulences, and that the airflow sticking to the walls of the module (by a known aerodynamic effect), for improving accuracy and reducing the dimensions of the module, this air flow is deflected in the opposite direction.
I don't want to turn this into a dialectical debate, so, let's come back to something vaguely similar to scientific argumentations. I've tried to explain my hypothesis in my other posts, why don't you do the same?
That is what I thought in spring when we heard the first time of the system.bhallg2k wrote:A helpful member of the forum turned me onto this when I was trying to figure out what I call the "VD" (passive DRS or "The Device") on the Lotus E20 earlier this year. It's a bit of a long read, but it also sheds some light on what I think (?) is a real obstacle here.
If I throw a dart inside of a spinning ball what trajectory does the dart take? You seem to be missing some basic physics here.variante wrote:flynfrog, if you look at the images you see that the air is brought to the Modules by a tube: how can the air keep its original trajectory through the entire lenght of the tube (which bends multiple times)???
If you look better at the pictures, you'll see that the air inside the tubes, while the car is turning, is disposed slightly asimmetrically...which suggests me that it is under the action of a tranversal force (centrifugal, maybe): this would confirm my hypothesis.
The article could be badly written, the pictures cannot be badly made
I'm still waiting for your explanation of the phenomenon.
I appreciate ideas like this and recognize the huge amount of work that went into it. =D>diegocano wrote: Is it legal?
No moving parts, not used the DRS, and is not operated by the pilot, therefore, should be completely legal for the 2013 season.
I'm not missing basic physics, i'm instead considering different aspects that you can't get. For example, i'm thinking to this: the use of centrifugal force (as you think) as main force looks impossible to me---> it is indeed impossible for an airflow to be translated trough some stationary air thanks to a force, if that force is applied to both airflow and stationary air. That's because the airflow is not heavier than the stationary air (nor lighter).flynfrog wrote:If I throw a dart inside of a spinning ball what trajectory does the dart take? You seem to be missing some basic physics here.
using big words does not make your explanation a valid one. If you read the article you can see that it was explained by the man who designed the system not a guess by a journalist. When the creator says his system was build to avoid the very method you think it works by I tend to side with the guy who built it. Ill take your threatening words as lost in translation error as they are not allowed on this forum.variante wrote:I'm not missing basic physics, i'm instead considering different aspects that you can't get. For example, i'm thinking to this: the use of centrifugal force (as you think) as main force looks impossible to me---> it is indeed impossible for an airflow to be translated trough some stationary air thanks to a force, if that force is applied to both airflow and stationary air. That's because the airflow is not heavier than the stationary air (nor lighter).flynfrog wrote:If I throw a dart inside of a spinning ball what trajectory does the dart take? You seem to be missing some basic physics here.
Listen, for the moment i'm the only one who has brought a valid explanation to the phenomenon; not the article (badly written), nor you (for you the article is an "ipse dixit"). So you'd better stop provoking me and start bringing some clear facts.
And also, you'd better read my previous posts and realise that i'm not saying idiocies.
