Alistair,

I did say, just be aware.....
and I think if you look back through the mails, you'll find it was me that
first suggested tufting!

...and if I spent my time sitting on my duff, I wouldn't know what you
obviously don't: that to a fly, the air's like treacle which is why they can
change direction and accelerate away from your swat quicker than you can
swing it. And why to a Pterordactyl or a hang glider the air appears
somewhat less sticky, and less thick too if you have the wit to imagine
being an airliner at 500 mph and 7 miles up.
Thats what Reynolds No is about... Speed x Length /Viscosity - no units.

and yes, NO relation, unless you run the tunnel at model scaled Re Nos.
 and if you want to
>... at least visualise the flow around the van in a gross way...

.. find a big smoky fire near a roadside and drive through it while a mate
on the roadside videos it.
...or drive behind aVanagon thats burning oil or smoking bad (or use a smoke
cannister up front), and watch those Karman vortex wakes - most flat backed
vehicles have a very predictable flow pattern, the important thing is when
the flow suddenly changes its overall character, maybe 20, maybe 60 mph -
that is what Reynolds No determines.
.. but I won't go on and explain further, as it appears you know what you
know and don't much want to know what you don't.

Clive
'88 Syncro Transporter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alistair Bell" <albell@uvic.ca>
To: "Clive Smith" <clive.harman-smith@ntlworld.com>; "vanagon"
<vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Custom Scoop Update - Should you care!

> on 8/22/02 3:29 PM, Clive Smith wrote:
>
> > Just be aware that as :
> > a) Water has a different visosity than air;
>
> yes, of course
>
> > b) the Reynolds No. (non-dimensional number controlling viscous flow
> > behaviour)
> > of a model in water bears no relation to that of a full sized vehicle in
> > air -
>
> really? *no* relation? Of course the Reynolds # will be different but you
> can at least visualise the flow around the van in a gross way - we are
> talking fun here, not a detailed examination.
>
> >
> > ------- you are unlikley to come to any useful conclusions using your
flume
> > tunnel.
>
> yes, the idea was not to come up with data but to visualise flow in a
> general way.
>
> > However, tufting your van and using mirrors or a camera to observe the
flow
> > might
> > be more worthwhile- but your conclusions from what you see - again -
might
> > not.
>
> sure you might come to a false conclusion but if you see the tufts waving
> vertically or moving in a confused manner near and around the vents you
> might, just might, discover something. Its a whole lot better than sitting
> on your duff talking about it :)
>
>
> Alistair
>
>