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 AA132721721; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:42:01 -0800 Return-Path: <mchapman@cupertino.synopsys.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 AA092541715; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:41:55 -0800 Received: from hamachi.synopsys.com (hamachi-8.synopsys.com [146.225.8.26]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id NAA12057 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:41:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from javelin.synopsys.com (javelin.synopsys.com [146.225.100.38]) by hamachi.synopsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA11024 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from cupertino.synopsys.com (cupertino.synopsys.com [146.225.141.202]) by javelin.synopsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03953 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:38:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from suntan.cupertino (suntan [146.225.141.25]) by cupertino.synopsys.com (SMI-8.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA00317 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:38:10 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:38:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199902022138.NAA00317@cupertino.synopsys.com-DeleteThis> Received: by suntan.cupertino (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA22103; Tue, 2 Feb 99 13:38:10 PST From: Matt Chapman <mchapman@cupertino.synopsys.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: Coyote Wind Blockage Calcs
Cool. I'm just guessing, but I'd think the city would have to supply
the documentation they use for their EIR findings to anyone with a
legitimate interest. You could try calling the office and asking them
to make copies of the raw data that you could pick up.
Maybe I'm being naive, but I've read through the RDEIR a few times now,
and the impression I get is that the city IS concerned about degrading
the quality of sailing at Coyote. They seem to understand the
problem - it's just unlikely they've ever had to deal with something
like this before. It's probably not covered in Civil Engineering 101.
Two items in the RDEIR stuck out though. The first was in the diagram
(Fig 14 on page 58) showing the location of the new buildings: If this
is actually the shape and orientation of the building, it appears to
me that they're arranged in a configuration that would cause the
greatest disturbance to the wind flow. Check it out.
The second thing I noticed was that the report says the wind speed
increased in some portions of the area they charted in the simulation.
Hmmmm.
Here's a crazy idea for your Ph.D friend to mull over. Is it possible
to shape, orient or landscape around these buildings so that they
would actually improve the flow of wind in front of the launch area?
All objects (and groups of objects) are airfoils. Some are just
better airfoils than others. Maybe it's possible (and not all that
expensive) to fool around with the site plan to produce a setting that
forces the wind up and over (or channels it through) the buildings so
that it accelerates down onto the water in front of the launch.
Conservation of energy says the wind speed will then be less (or more
turbulent) elsewhere, but who cares. A SW wind is already garbage at
Coyote and NW is pretty much unaffected by the 301 project. So it's
really only a West wind they would have to optimize.
It would certainly make yet-another-boring-office-building project a
little more interesting.
- Matt
__________________________ Reply Separator _______________________
>Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:45:17 -0800
>Errors-To: listserv_err@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
>Reply-To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
>Originator: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
>Sender: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
>Precedence: bulk
>From: Brad James <bjames@exponent.com-DeleteThis>
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Windsurfing Discussion Mailing List
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>Content-Length: 651
>
>Hey guys-
>
>I work for Failure Analysis Associates, and just talked to one of my
>colleages who is a Ph.D. civil/ structural engineer whose specialty is
>windloading/blockage studies and calcs. Although he gets paid by people to
>do this stuff, he's told me he'd be happy to donate a *little* time to look
>over the building peoples' wind tunnel testing/methodology for us.
>
>I haven't had much time to review all of the emails regarding these
>buildings by Coyote.... Do we have access to all of these reports? If so,
>forward them to me, and I'll get my buddy to review them. Hopefully, we can
>find some points to refute the 10% reduction claim.
>
>Brad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:01 PST