Any decent model of turbulence is going to be highly nonlinear and will
require many "adjustable parameters". Most models these days can be
reasonably accurate if its parameters are "tuned" with real data. So
the scenario would be wind tunnel > model > wind tunnel > model
............ The model can save wind tunnel time, but not replace it.
Larry
David Talbott wrote:
> This reminds me of a discussion with Benoit Mandelbrot on the NewsHour
> last
> night (in regard to rippling turbulence within the economy) during
> which he
> said:
>
> "The word "turbulence" is one which actually is common to physics and to
> social scientists, to economics. Everything which involves turbulence is
> enormously more complicated, not just a little bit more complicated, not
> just one year more schooling, just enormously more complicated."
>
> Mandelbrot, in addition to his mathematical fame (the "Father of
> Fractals"),
> originally studied aeronautical engineering and later worked in fluid
> dynamics, so if this cat still has trouble calculating turbulence,
> it's no
> wonder we haven't yet figured out how to model it on computers and we
> still
> need to mock it up to measure it.
>
> DT
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.fot-racing.com
Fot mailing list
Fot@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/fot
|