In article ,
Mad Dog wrote:

Donald Munro says...

Mad Dog wrote:

Prove the butterfly effect, buttfly.

Stu Fleming wrote:

You have much to learn, young asshopper.

Don't you mean "Much to learn you have, young asshopper."

Been DVD shopping online again?

Asshopper - I like that. Reminds me of my youth. I wonder what ever happened
to the McGillicutty sisters...

But to get back on point, I do know the history of the Butterfly Effect and do
appreciate its cuteness. I was just trying to get Turdgun to go out there and
do some work. He gave up on the computational approach, so maybe he should get
a bunch of butterflies and see what he can do from that end? I don't have a
helluva lot of respect for the "it can't be done" conclusion - it tends to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy and these days, funding institutions seem to be
listening to negativity too much. Just because a problem like modeling weather
or wind drag over an auto is huge and may require more time and energy than is
considered convenient, does that mean we should give up and go home?

So how good are air flow simulations of such practical
objects as automobiles? Do they predict vortex shedding
without hints? Do they predict vortex shedding with hints?
Do they model vortices or simply give the forces and
energy dissipation?

--
Michael Press