The Real SSL and Vortekz Generator
Jan 11, 2007, 04:06 PM
#62
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually it is easy to understand. A smooth circular design has no real flow separation points for the ball to operate in a straight line. Therefore the small movements that the smooth circular ball does going left to right, right to left, up and down makes it hit much more air space as a ball flying in a straight line, pretty simple really. Also the trailing end of the dimpled ball has a much shorter air flow convergence point than a smooth ball due to the hundreds of vortexes created by the dimples.
In fact I would bet if you could measure the left right up down distance and add it to the straight line distance that a smooth circular ball travels in it would probably equal out to around the same distance as a dimpled ball traveling in a straight line minus whatever effect the vortexes have on the rear flow convergence.
Matt
Vortekz.com
In fact I would bet if you could measure the left right up down distance and add it to the straight line distance that a smooth circular ball travels in it would probably equal out to around the same distance as a dimpled ball traveling in a straight line minus whatever effect the vortexes have on the rear flow convergence.
Matt
Vortekz.com
Ok, serioiusly, stop with assumptions. All you are doing is adding your own spin on concepts that were explained in Mitsus press release. Measure the left right up down distance? Whatever effect the vortexes have? Seriously, its ok to admit you dont know. This is not simple math with adding and subtracting of components. Relationships with Reynolds number and flow compnents are theoretically determined with large equations. If it makes you feel better I can post some here. Please do not feed us any more BS. Besides, if you think the golf ball example is so easy, you really should have a more realistic explination of whats going on in that system.
Jan 11, 2007, 06:54 PM
#64
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never compared the generators to a golf ball and nether did you.
I just looked at the doc again the VG's they used in the test are 5mm thick like mine (been a while since I looked at it hehe). At the time I was comparing mine to the one on the silver car that looks more like it is 10mm thick and almost triangular.
Just a recap everything including angles are exactly the same with the Votekz design except it has a slightly curved rear end (this was not my idea it was suggested by the engineers to ad some more twist to the air) and you can fit one more VG on each side because my design does not have to fit into the roof line. Also the extra VG is supposed to be angled a 0 degrees based on Mitsu’s explanation. You have to admit Mitsu only tried 2 designs and they kinda proved that the design offering more of a spiral vortex in the air worked 100% better. And I will say this once more you could put razorblades, folded business cards, dog tags etc..... on the car in the manor that mitsu lays out and it would work just as well. If you have any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong I would be glad to hear it.
Regarding the base of the VG. I did visit the wind tunnel diagram just to see if you had a point about the base of the array. In looking at the test data it seems that the small bulge the Mitsu arrays base offers does not slow the airflow down at the roofline. That has to be because the base of the Mitsu array does not extend high enough to enter the boundary layer to cause a bulge in the air. If that is the case then there is no way that my 3mm tall base will affect that layer in any way.
I am not trying to get into an argument here I have only been defending the product. I want people to take these for what they are and that is another way to ad VG’s to a vehicle.
Peace,
Matt
Vortekz.com
I just looked at the doc again the VG's they used in the test are 5mm thick like mine (been a while since I looked at it hehe). At the time I was comparing mine to the one on the silver car that looks more like it is 10mm thick and almost triangular.
Just a recap everything including angles are exactly the same with the Votekz design except it has a slightly curved rear end (this was not my idea it was suggested by the engineers to ad some more twist to the air) and you can fit one more VG on each side because my design does not have to fit into the roof line. Also the extra VG is supposed to be angled a 0 degrees based on Mitsu’s explanation. You have to admit Mitsu only tried 2 designs and they kinda proved that the design offering more of a spiral vortex in the air worked 100% better. And I will say this once more you could put razorblades, folded business cards, dog tags etc..... on the car in the manor that mitsu lays out and it would work just as well. If you have any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong I would be glad to hear it.
Regarding the base of the VG. I did visit the wind tunnel diagram just to see if you had a point about the base of the array. In looking at the test data it seems that the small bulge the Mitsu arrays base offers does not slow the airflow down at the roofline. That has to be because the base of the Mitsu array does not extend high enough to enter the boundary layer to cause a bulge in the air. If that is the case then there is no way that my 3mm tall base will affect that layer in any way.
I am not trying to get into an argument here I have only been defending the product. I want people to take these for what they are and that is another way to ad VG’s to a vehicle.
Peace,
Matt
Vortekz.com
Last edited by soloevo8; Jan 11, 2007 at 07:19 PM.
Jan 11, 2007, 07:08 PM
#65
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, serioiusly, stop with assumptions. All you are doing is adding your own spin on concepts that were explained in Mitsus press release. Measure the left right up down distance? Whatever effect the vortexes have? Seriously, its ok to admit you dont know. This is not simple math with adding and subtracting of components. Relationships with Reynolds number and flow compnents are theoretically determined with large equations. If it makes you feel better I can post some here. Please do not feed us any more BS. Besides, if you think the golf ball example is so easy, you really should have a more realistic explination of whats going on in that system.
Have you ever seen the wind tunnel video of the smooth golf ball floating around and the dimpled one flying straight with only slight movements? If anyone can find it online that would rock it is pretty cool.
Matt
Vortekz.com
Jan 11, 2007, 07:29 PM
#67
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never compared the generators to a golf ball and nether did you. But, you used it as an example of complicated aerodynamic design. It is easy to understand even a child could understand it once given a good explanation.
I just looked at the doc again it looks like the VG's they used in the test are 5mm thick like mine (been a while since I looked at it hehe). At the time I was comparing mine to the knock off on the silver car that looks more like it is 10mm thick and almost triangular.
Just a recap everything including angles are exactly the same with the Votekz design except it has a slightly curved rear end (this was not my idea it was suggested by the engineers to ad some more twist to the air) and you can fit one more VG on each side because my design does not have to fit into the roof line. Also the extra VG is supposed to be angled a 0 degrees based on Mitsu’s explanation. You have to admit Mitsu only tried 2 designs and they kinda proved that the design offering more of a spiral vortex in the air worked 100% better. And I will say this once more you could put razorblades, folded business cards, dog tags etc..... on the car in the manor that mitsu lays out and it would work just as well. If you have any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong I would be glad to hear it.
Regarding the base of the VG. I did visit the wind tunnel diagram just to see if you had a point about the base of the array. In looking at the test data it seems that the small bulge the Mitsu arrays base offers does not slow the airflow down at the roofline. That has to be because the base of the Mitsu array does not extend high enough to enter the boundary layer to cause a bulge in the air. If that is the case then there is no way that my 3mm tall base will affect that layer in any way.
I am not trying to get into an argument here I have only been defending the product. I want people to take these for what they are and that is another way to ad VG’s to a vehicle.
Peace,
Matt
Vortekz.com
I just looked at the doc again it looks like the VG's they used in the test are 5mm thick like mine (been a while since I looked at it hehe). At the time I was comparing mine to the knock off on the silver car that looks more like it is 10mm thick and almost triangular.
Just a recap everything including angles are exactly the same with the Votekz design except it has a slightly curved rear end (this was not my idea it was suggested by the engineers to ad some more twist to the air) and you can fit one more VG on each side because my design does not have to fit into the roof line. Also the extra VG is supposed to be angled a 0 degrees based on Mitsu’s explanation. You have to admit Mitsu only tried 2 designs and they kinda proved that the design offering more of a spiral vortex in the air worked 100% better. And I will say this once more you could put razorblades, folded business cards, dog tags etc..... on the car in the manor that mitsu lays out and it would work just as well. If you have any evidence whatsoever that I am wrong I would be glad to hear it.
Regarding the base of the VG. I did visit the wind tunnel diagram just to see if you had a point about the base of the array. In looking at the test data it seems that the small bulge the Mitsu arrays base offers does not slow the airflow down at the roofline. That has to be because the base of the Mitsu array does not extend high enough to enter the boundary layer to cause a bulge in the air. If that is the case then there is no way that my 3mm tall base will affect that layer in any way.
I am not trying to get into an argument here I have only been defending the product. I want people to take these for what they are and that is another way to ad VG’s to a vehicle.
Peace,
Matt
Vortekz.com
Once again you are showing a lack of knowledge. "If I have evidence you are wrong?" How about you show ANY evidence that YOU are right other than "he said, she said," or claiming your design is validated by Mitsu's study. The engineers could have told you anything, but without quantifiable data or governing equations, your product holds no weight. Its your product. I dont have to prove anything. You however were questioned on the design, and rather than not answering or providing your own design study, you went on to claim your design is as good if not better than the OEM VG.
Second, do not use terms you are only vaguely familiar with. The boundry layer does NOT refer to the roof of the car. And the individual bases on those fins will certainly change the wanted effects of the design. Any change in air flow will change the boundry layer, in other words your fin "pedestals" will change the your results from Mitsu's. Heres a boundry layer definition, I suggest you read it.
"In physics and fluid mechanics, the boundary layer is that layer of fluid in the immediate vicinity of a bounding surface. In the atmosphere the boundary layer is the air layer near the ground affected by diurnal heat, moisture or momentum transfer to or from the surface. On an aircraft wing the boundary layer is the part of the flow close to the wing. The Boundary layer effect occurs at the field region in which all changes occur in the flow pattern. The boundary layer distorts surrounding nonviscous flow. It is a phenomenon of viscous forces. This effect is related to the Leidenfrost effect and the Reynolds number."
So I will tell you again, stop using Mitsu's research to validate your design when it is not the same; especially when you cannot even understand how your design might not perform the same. All you seem to do is keep saying we werent comparing VGs and golf *****. I was just pointing out that your responses show you dont understand the golf ball concept fully, so how can you be trusted for truthful info about your product? My degree speaks for my knowledge on the subject. What exactly do you have backing you?
Does your product work? Yes, probably. But should you be claiming things when your incorrect or dont know the subject? NO. And thats where my irritation lies. I would say you have a selling point for similar performance to Mitsu's oem part. But DO NOT use their research or examples when your product differs. If you need a better explination for your product, Id be glad to offer my assistance.
just added- I just looked at your site. I think you should be aware Mitsubishi's design (height, width, shape, position on car) was optimized for the aerodynamic profile of the Lancer. There is no basis for you design being optimized on any other shaped vehicle besides the Lancer.
Last edited by Tristar; Jan 11, 2007 at 07:39 PM.
