"John Richards" wrote in message
...
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...
"John Richards" wrote in message
...
Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening
experience?
If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating
the
sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two
components
"sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as
a
whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what
controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my
car
runs better after it's been washed and waxed!

Yes, the drag coefficient is reduced when the car is waxed. But how do
*YOU*
pick the difference?

The difference can be explained simply as an increased sense of wellbeing
from driving a visually appealing car, not from any actual performance
increase. Neither a double blind test nor a technical evaluation of the
performance of the car would likely confirm my experience.

Not true, the reduction in drag coefficient CAN be measured, so the
comparison is wrong.


The same can be said for audio. There may be many *minute* factors we
can't
account for, but do they make an *audible* difference to the vast
majority
of people?

Probably not. But could these same *minute* factors influence the the
total
experience of a small minority?

Yet to be proven. The "increased sense of wellbeing" from using a more
expensive component obviously does though.


This is actually pretty easy to verify, despite all the hand waving of
people who pretend otherwise.

From what I have seen of this argument, most of the "subjectivists" claim
that the scientific approach to evaluating audio equipment is not
conclusive
and absolute. They are claiming that SOME people can discern a difference
in the audio experience that may not be consistent with scientific
testing.

If it is not consistent, how can you say they "can discern a difference" or
not?

Maybe they find it annoying to be challenged as "audiophools" whenever
they
cite an experience that may not be consistent with the outcome of all the
scientific tests.

Why do they need to? They could just enjoy whatever they want, and wait for
some proof acceptable to them, if they want to dismiss currently available
knowledge.

Why do they think it is necessary anyway?

Maybe they like to discuss there own experiences in audio as most
audiophiles do and maybe these experiences are not always consistent with
current scientific "facts" as you see them.

Dismissing all scientific evidence to the contrary, is *not* discussing IMO.

Maybe they are'nt so sure after all?

Or maybe the scientific community is not so secure in their positions and
feel the necessity to insult anyone who suggests that there might be more
to
the issue than a double blind test can demonstrate.

You make a claim that goes against currently accepted knowledge, you provide
some proof. Simple.
If you feel that is an insult, that's your problem.

MrT.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!

All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

MrT.

All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Quite the contrary. Efficient ways of making of boundary layers more
turbulent in the relevant regions of aerofoils and other diffusing
flows has been a significant area of research for many decades. Try
googling for riblets and similar words. Here is the first hit:

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/riblets.html

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Quite the contrary. Efficient ways of making of boundary layers more
turbulent in the relevant regions of aerofoils and other diffusing
flows has been a significant area of research for many decades. Try
googling for riblets and similar words. Here is the first hit:

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/riblets.html


You have simply shifted the goal posts. Cars are NOT like that, and waxing
an existing car DOES reduce the drag coefficient in most cases.

You will notice even for riblet designs they say surface contamination will
have minimal effect over a short period of time.
They do NOT say it will be a beneficial effect though!

MrT.

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:40 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!

All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Not so - look it up.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:52:18 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"andy" wrote in message
roups.com...
All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Quite the contrary. Efficient ways of making of boundary layers more
turbulent in the relevant regions of aerofoils and other diffusing
flows has been a significant area of research for many decades. Try
googling for riblets and similar words. Here is the first hit:

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/riblets.html


You have simply shifted the goal posts. Cars are NOT like that, and waxing
an existing car DOES reduce the drag coefficient in most cases.

Bull****. Cars are *exactly* like that, and the same rules apply to
any such surface. You simply don't like admitting that you're wrong.

You will notice even for riblet designs they say surface contamination will
have minimal effect over a short period of time.
They do NOT say it will be a beneficial effect though!

More excuses. Read the texts. What is certain is that a perfectly
smooth surface is significantly *worse* than a slightly rough one.
Aerodynamicists and boatbuilders have been aware of this for several
decades.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10/12/2005 11:27 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message

Arny,

"John Richards" wrote in message



Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the
listening experience?

Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute
certainty.

Agreed. I noticed years ago that music sounds better when
accompanied by visuals. My theory is the visuals provide
a sort of distraction, so you don't notice audible or
musical flaws as readily.

IME, the ultimate in visuals that distract from just
listening to the sound is called "A live performance".

This leads to the common situation where a well-made
recording of a live event rarely if ever sounds as
satisfying as the memory of the actual event.




Not that I smoke, but my friend says taking nicotine is not the same as
having a cig. It's the whole experience.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:40 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!

All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Not so - look it up.


I can't find any mention that bird poop reduces drag, can you point me to
the relevant site?

MrT.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:52:18 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"andy" wrote in message
roups.com...
All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing
car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual
cases.

Quite the contrary. Efficient ways of making of boundary layers more
turbulent in the relevant regions of aerofoils and other diffusing
flows has been a significant area of research for many decades. Try
googling for riblets and similar words. Here is the first hit:

http://aerodyn.org/Drag/riblets.html


You have simply shifted the goal posts. Cars are NOT like that, and
waxing
an existing car DOES reduce the drag coefficient in most cases.

Bull****. Cars are *exactly* like that, and the same rules apply to
any such surface. You simply don't like admitting that you're wrong.


What a ******, do you really believe that bird poop exactly emulates those
riblets?


You will notice even for riblet designs they say surface contamination
will
have minimal effect over a short period of time.
They do NOT say it will be a beneficial effect though!

More excuses. Read the texts. What is certain is that a perfectly
smooth surface is significantly *worse* than a slightly rough one.
Aerodynamicists and boatbuilders have been aware of this for several
decades.

You are a moron if you believe *any* dirty surface must have less drag than
a smooth one, when all wind tunnel testing has proven the opposite in the
vast majority of cases.
You are simply unable to understand the difference between a properly
manufactured low drag surface design such as riblets, and a standard car (or
aircraft) panel covered with dirt.

That you continue to proclaim your ignorance is astounding.

MrT.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:45:55 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:02:40 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!

All the wind tunnel testing done by NASA, aircraft companies, racing car
manufacturers, etc would tend to differ in the majority of actual cases.

Not so - look it up.

I can't find any mention that bird poop reduces drag, can you point me to
the relevant site?

Where exactly in the above do you see any reference to bird poop? You
screwed up, you got it wrong again, live with it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 19:52:31 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

You will notice even for riblet designs they say surface contamination will
have minimal effect over a short period of time.
They do NOT say it will be a beneficial effect though!

More excuses. Read the texts. What is certain is that a perfectly
smooth surface is significantly *worse* than a slightly rough one.
Aerodynamicists and boatbuilders have been aware of this for several
decades.

You are a moron if you believe *any* dirty surface must have less drag than
a smooth one, when all wind tunnel testing has proven the opposite in the
vast majority of cases.

You are a moron if you think that's what I said.

You are simply unable to understand the difference between a properly
manufactured low drag surface design such as riblets, and a standard car (or
aircraft) panel covered with dirt.

That you continue to proclaim your ignorance is astounding.

That you continue to deny the basic truth that you screwed up again,
but refuse to admit it, is entirely predictable.......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
I can't find any mention that bird poop reduces drag, can you point me to
the relevant site?

Where exactly in the above do you see any reference to bird poop? You
screwed up, you got it wrong again, live with it.

Your inability to admit riblets and dirt are two different things is noted.
Your inability to admit NASA, airlines, racing car teams etc. have all used
wind tunnels to prove a polished finish has lower drag than the *same*
surface covered with dirt, is noted.
Your inability to use google to verify that bird poop *WAS* indeed
mentioned, is noted.

In fact any abilities on your part are indeed questionable.

MrT.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
You are a moron if you believe *any* dirty surface must have less drag
than
a smooth one, when all wind tunnel testing has proven the opposite in the
vast majority of cases.

You are a moron if you think that's what I said.

That WAS what you were objecting to after all. I claimed a polished car had
less drag than a dirty one. Nothing else.
You provide NO wind tunnel data to support your claim. And I know of NO car
with a riblet finish, do you?


You are simply unable to understand the difference between a properly
manufactured low drag surface design such as riblets, and a standard car
(or
aircraft) panel covered with dirt.

That you continue to proclaim your ignorance is astounding.

That you continue to deny the basic truth that you screwed up again,
but refuse to admit it, is entirely predictable.......


And still you try to squirm out of it, and making a bigger fool of yourself
by proving you cannot comprehend simple English.

MrT.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:33:25 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

You are a moron if you believe *any* dirty surface must have less drag
than
a smooth one, when all wind tunnel testing has proven the opposite in the
vast majority of cases.

You are a moron if you think that's what I said.

That WAS what you were objecting to after all. I claimed a polished car had
less drag than a dirty one. Nothing else.
You provide NO wind tunnel data to support your claim. And I know of NO car
with a riblet finish, do you?

This NASA paper http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2439.pdf
should satisfy you here.

They find that a drag reduction of up to 15% is possible by optimising
riblet dimensions.

I think that for car manufacturers, cosmetics rate rather higher.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
This NASA paper
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2439.pdf
should satisfy you here.

They find that a drag reduction of up to 15% is possible by optimising
riblet dimensions.

I think that for car manufacturers, cosmetics rate rather higher.


But *I* never claimed that a polished car had less drag than a non existent
car with riblets. It was just a strawman manufactured by Stewart for reasons
known only to him.

As for actually building cars with riblets, I doubt the fuel savings would
offset the extra manufacturing costs, regardless of cosmetics.

MrT.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:35:37 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
This NASA paper
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2439.pdf
should satisfy you here.

They find that a drag reduction of up to 15% is possible by optimising
riblet dimensions.

I think that for car manufacturers, cosmetics rate rather higher.


But *I* never claimed that a polished car had less drag than a non existent
car with riblets. It was just a strawman manufactured by Stewart for reasons
known only to him.

As for actually building cars with riblets, I doubt the fuel savings would
offset the extra manufacturing costs, regardless of cosmetics.

MrT.

Riblets are just the ultimate refinement. The polished surface is a
particular problem, because it allows locally laminar air flow. This
results in a slow verlocity gradient away from the body, and a consequently
large mass of air being accelerated along with the car as well as a severe
distortion of the aerodynamic body profile.The introduction of even a tiny
amount of discontinuity to the body - and dirt will do - then the flow is
turbulent, and the velocity gradient is abrupt. Air is no longer dragged
and the true aerodynamic profile is maintained.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Riblets are just the ultimate refinement. The polished surface is a
particular problem, because it allows locally laminar air flow. This
results in a slow verlocity gradient away from the body, and a
consequently
large mass of air being accelerated along with the car as well as a severe
distortion of the aerodynamic body profile.The introduction of even a tiny
amount of discontinuity to the body - and dirt will do - then the flow is
turbulent, and the velocity gradient is abrupt. Air is no longer dragged
and the true aerodynamic profile is maintained.

Which unfortunately has never been shown for simple dirt in a wind tunnel.
In fact Airlines and race car teams polish because THEIR wind tunnel testing
has shown the opposite.
I still haven't seen any proof that they are wrong, but I'm sure there would
be a lot of people interested if you have some.

MrT.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:07:24 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Riblets are just the ultimate refinement. The polished surface is a
particular problem, because it allows locally laminar air flow. This
results in a slow verlocity gradient away from the body, and a
consequently
large mass of air being accelerated along with the car as well as a severe
distortion of the aerodynamic body profile.The introduction of even a tiny
amount of discontinuity to the body - and dirt will do - then the flow is
turbulent, and the velocity gradient is abrupt. Air is no longer dragged
and the true aerodynamic profile is maintained.

Which unfortunately has never been shown for simple dirt in a wind tunnel.
In fact Airlines and race car teams polish because THEIR wind tunnel testing
has shown the opposite.
I still haven't seen any proof that they are wrong, but I'm sure there would
be a lot of people interested if you have some.

MrT.

No, the reason for all the polishing is to try to achieve repeatable
results, because small amounts of dirt will affect the drag by an unknown
amount. You need something a bit beefier than simple dirt to fully
de-laminarise the airflow.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
You need something a bit beefier than simple dirt to fully
de-laminarise the airflow.

Or provide any benefit at all it would seem, or they would NEVER polish.

MrT.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


You need something
a bit beefier than simple dirt to fully de-laminarise the
airflow.

I remember seeing a documentary about experimental airplanes
that included a plane that was covered with small holes or
slots that basically sucked air. Problems with the holes or
slots clogging made it impractical.

Here's a modern reference:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/n...-023-DFRC.html

"Active test sections contain tiny holes or slots through
which most of the turbulent layer of air is siphoned off by
an internal suction system built into the wing. This
decreases drag and enhances aerodynamic lift by either
eliminating the turbulent airflow or reducing its effect."

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:26:19 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
I can't find any mention that bird poop reduces drag, can you point me to
the relevant site?

Where exactly in the above do you see any reference to bird poop? You
screwed up, you got it wrong again, live with it.

Your inability to admit riblets and dirt are two different things is noted.

They're not different, they are differing aspects of the same
phenomenon. In either case, smooth is worse. Live with it.

Your inability to admit NASA, airlines, racing car teams etc. have all used
wind tunnels to prove a polished finish has lower drag than the *same*
surface covered with dirt, is noted.

That is a flat lie.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:35:37 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
. ..
This NASA paper
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/p...ain_H-2439.pdf
should satisfy you here.

They find that a drag reduction of up to 15% is possible by optimising
riblet dimensions.

I think that for car manufacturers, cosmetics rate rather higher.

But *I* never claimed that a polished car had less drag than a non existent
car with riblets. It was just a strawman manufactured by Stewart for reasons
known only to him.

No, you claimed that a polished finish was optimum. Now you're just
trying to lie your way out of your error. This is not a good character
trait.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
But *I* never claimed that a polished car had less drag than a non
existent
car with riblets. It was just a strawman manufactured by Stewart for
reasons
known only to him.

No, you claimed that a polished finish was optimum. Now you're just
trying to lie your way out of your error. This is not a good character
trait.

What TOTAL BULL****!!!!!!!!!
If you really believe that, then you should be able to provide a quote. Have
fun looking!
I said a polished *car* had less drag than a dirty one. NOTHING else.

In fact *you* are simply trying to get out of the hole you have dug for
yourself by making stuff up.
Not a good trait even for someone like you with no character.

MrT.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:48:42 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
But *I* never claimed that a polished car had less drag than a non existent
car with riblets. It was just a strawman manufactured by Stewart for reasons
known only to him.

No, you claimed that a polished finish was optimum. Now you're just
trying to lie your way out of your error. This is not a good character
trait.

What TOTAL BULL****!!!!!!!!!
If you really believe that, then you should be able to provide a quote. Have
fun looking!
I said a polished *car* had less drag than a dirty one. NOTHING else.

You were still wrong. That the proof lies in other vehicles is
irrelevant - laminar flow is laminar flow, wherever you find it.

In fact *you* are simply trying to get out of the hole you have dug for
yourself by making stuff up.
Not a good trait even for someone like you with no character.

Better than having no brains, and a missouri mule disposition.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
I said a polished *car* had less drag than a dirty one. NOTHING else.

You were still wrong. That the proof lies in other vehicles is
irrelevant - laminar flow is laminar flow, wherever you find it.

As soon as you provide actual wind tunnel data that disproves the aeroplane
and racing car manufacturers for the specific case in question, then I will
agree with you. Simple as that!

All your blustering and obfuscation has proven nothing as yet!

MrT.