Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA296068023; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:33:43 -0800 Return-Path: <Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis> Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA175028016; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:33:36 -0800 Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.10]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id BAA14552 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 01:33:36 -0800 (PST) From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id 9AYLa19752 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:28:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <ed0e2bfb.36b6c542@aol.com-DeleteThis> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 04:28:34 EST To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Self Correction re. Coyote Point Issue Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 236
In a message dated 2/1/99 8:26:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, Eyes4Hire writes:
<< It will be tough to come up a quantifiable definition of 'significant
impact', but that is the type of thing planning commisions want to see before
they force people to change designs or pay for mitigation. If we are going to
pick a percentage chnage in velocity, maybe 20-25% is more reasonable since
that is roughly ( in my estimation) the amount of change in wind velocity that
pushes one up or down a sail size. >>
I confused myself by thinking too hard. I was originally thinking more like
20% as the obvious and clear point for significant impact. As I earlier
mentioned, I think the 10% threshold is still significant because you would
have to re-rig if you were anywhere near the top or the bottom of you're
sail's range. The 10% velocity concept also doesn't take into account
gustiness or turbulence issues.
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:01 PST