JohnMW said:
It wasn't the San Francisco Bridge, it was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in Washington State.
Hello JohnMW,
And thank you for returning to the forum.
As you will have seen, the forum uses nicknames to shield correspondents personal information. This means unless people tell us, we have absolutely no way of knowing what their personal experience/profession is Unfortunately this anonymity also means that even if correspondents do tells us something about themselves, we have no way of verifying it, and all we can do is pass judgment based on what and the way it's been written.
The forum has had its share of trolls who have infested the site with misinformation, and caused antagonism and frustration for genuine members, so we have become preconditioned to treat with scepticism any new poster that suddenly produces grand new ideas that seem to challenge the long established norms.
As I pointed out some of your usage of technical words and phrases gave rise to suspicions about the posters credentials, hence my questions to you.
If you have read many of the other topics on the forum you will see that I don't accept the status quo so easily. If anyone tells me its a tradition, that is simple an excuse for not reviewing the problem properly. Sometimes traditional way are confirmed as still the best, but in many cases traditions are over rated, or downright wrong when reviewed in the light of robust evidence.
I have spent some time reviewing information about vehicle aerodynamics, and universally it is the case that vortices are seen as the bad boys on the block. All reports on improving a bodies aerodynamic efficiency aims to reduce vortices or to put it another way to maximise laminar flows around it.
However, regardless of that specific discussion, if you have a scheme which demonstrably improves car and caravan outfits stability it worthy of further investigation, even if the way in which it works is not fully understood.
And thank you for returning to the forum.
As you will have seen, the forum uses nicknames to shield correspondents personal information. This means unless people tell us, we have absolutely no way of knowing what their personal experience/profession is Unfortunately this anonymity also means that even if correspondents do tells us something about themselves, we have no way of verifying it, and all we can do is pass judgment based on what and the way it's been written.
The forum has had its share of trolls who have infested the site with misinformation, and caused antagonism and frustration for genuine members, so we have become preconditioned to treat with scepticism any new poster that suddenly produces grand new ideas that seem to challenge the long established norms.
As I pointed out some of your usage of technical words and phrases gave rise to suspicions about the posters credentials, hence my questions to you.
If you have read many of the other topics on the forum you will see that I don't accept the status quo so easily. If anyone tells me its a tradition, that is simple an excuse for not reviewing the problem properly. Sometimes traditional way are confirmed as still the best, but in many cases traditions are over rated, or downright wrong when reviewed in the light of robust evidence.
I have spent some time reviewing information about vehicle aerodynamics, and universally it is the case that vortices are seen as the bad boys on the block. All reports on improving a bodies aerodynamic efficiency aims to reduce vortices or to put it another way to maximise laminar flows around it.
However, regardless of that specific discussion, if you have a scheme which demonstrably improves car and caravan outfits stability it worthy of further investigation, even if the way in which it works is not fully understood.
Facebook
Twitter