From: Nev.. on
Peter Cremasco wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:29:35 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> I looked at Wiki as it has become the "benchmark"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow
>>
>> However it has no reference re: airflow. Laminar, smooth, turbulent rough.
>
> In that case, if Wiki has no reference to it, it can't exist.

No, Whoever adds it to wiki first is correct.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
From: dogleg on

"Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message
news:45d79abf$0$13707$5a62ac22(a)per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Peter Cremasco wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:29:35 +1100, Hammo <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I looked at Wiki as it has become the "benchmark"
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow
>>>
>>> However it has no reference re: airflow. Laminar, smooth, turbulent
>>> rough.
>>
>> In that case, if Wiki has no reference to it, it can't exist.
>
> No, Whoever adds it to wiki first is correct.
>

Whoever does the last update is right.

Reading Wiki is somtimes like reading Windoze XP tuneup sites - right and
wrong blended into an indistinguable mass.


From: Dale Porter on
"Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote
>> Ahh OK. Turbulent was self explanatory, but I had not come across the term
>> "laminar" before.
>
> Really? I don't know how else to describe it.
>

Heh I had simply known it as smooth vs turbulent. :-)

> It has greater applicability with fluids (often in pipes), though, with cars
> and motorcycles I thought it had become a "staple" point of discussion re:
> horsepower increases whether it be inlet or exhaust, wrt flow to and from.
>
> This is a good "quick visual".
>
> http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lam-flow.htm
>
>

Yeah I'm very familiar with aerodynamics and how they work, just cannot recall hearing or reading the word laminar before.

Or maybe I have heard it before and simply didn't remember it. *Shrugs*

--
Dale Porter
GPX250 -> CBR600 -> VTR1000 + VT250F-J


From: Nev.. on
GB wrote:

> Thus, the 'Chewbacca defense' is the practice of introducing
> meaningless and unrelated stuff into an argument in the hope of
> diverting the argument from the facts at hand. For examples, see
> Nev's posts on the "magic lights that don't use energy" thread!

Ahh a prime example right there, because GB introduced all this
Chewbacca gear to distract everyone else, and I never said lights don't
use energy. :) (Though some lights may be magic if they are fairies)

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX
From: Hammo on



On 18/2/07 11:44 AM, in article er87gi$1aqn$1(a)otis.netspace.net.au, "Dale
Porter" <daleaporter(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> "Hammo" <hbaj2006(a)aapt.net.au> wrote
>>> Ahh OK. Turbulent was self explanatory, but I had not come across the term
>>> "laminar" before.
>>
>> Really? I don't know how else to describe it.
>>
>
> Heh I had simply known it as smooth vs turbulent. :-)
>
>> It has greater applicability with fluids (often in pipes), though, with cars
>> and motorcycles I thought it had become a "staple" point of discussion re:
>> horsepower increases whether it be inlet or exhaust, wrt flow to and from.
>>
>> This is a good "quick visual".
>>
>> http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/lam-flow.htm
>>
>>
>
> Yeah I'm very familiar with aerodynamics and how they work, just cannot recall
> hearing or reading the word laminar before.
>
> Or maybe I have heard it before and simply didn't remember it. *Shrugs*

Probably. It's one of those words that becomes the jargon for a particular
field. Laminar flow became a focus of terminology when in Young during the
drying season for Prunus domestica. The original drying tunnels had been
built by soldiers returning from WWII. They were inefficient and becoming
uneconomical and as a result, these a range of other fruits that are dried
similarly could be imported cheaper.

To keep the market viable, consider value adding and to determine the
kinetics, physical and chemical changes the drying tunnels were examined.
Laminar flow was a big buzz word then!

Hammo