|
Way to spend the lunch break
I am not the one who knocks. I never knock.
In fact, I hate knocking.
|
|
|
|
|
You would not need to make it a wing shape, just put it on some supports, leaving a small gap between it an the table.
Air will accelerate through this gap, and, as Bernoulis law dictates, the pressure in the gap will be reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming the downforce generated is greater than the force against the flat leading edge.
|
|
|
|
|
If the box were flat on the table it would have blown off.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose the OP's question could be answered by how it came off. If it "slid off" due to the wind it isn't aerodynamic. If it "flew off" then it is aerodynamic.
|
|
|
|
|
RandyBuchholz wrote: If it "flew off" then it is aerodynamic
That is not the definition of 'aerodynamic'. Aerodynamic means the shape produces low drag.
|
|
|
|
|
Guess I'll have to start adding smilies to my attempts...
|
|
|
|
|
Always helpful!
|
|
|
|
|
Like this?[^] Bonus points if you can adjust the angle of attack.
And the notebook should play Wagner when it uses its new stabilizers.
I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: What you should be doing is forming it into an inverted wing
Exactly what I was going to suggest! Two great minds, a single thought between them.
|
|
|
|
|
If when opened and flat the box has a two vertical lips.
This creates two surfaces to catch the wind and will create more force.
Closed, as a box, there is only the front surface to catch the wind.
So closed = more aerodynamic.
|
|
|
|
|
Picnic tables tend to be wood so carry a pointy knife and shove it through the cardboard and into the wood - problem solved, that sucker is not going to fly away.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful not to turn it into an airfoil.
I am endeavoring, ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins.
|
|
|
|
|
Put a rock in it
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Pragmatic, nice.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Realistic
1) Nobody is going to spend the time to craft an inverted wing.
2) As light as the box is the box will probably blow away anyway.
3) Without proper adult supervision my girl friend won't let me use a knife.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
Or your cellphone. What could possibly go wrong?
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely what could go wrong?
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: on the Jersey City boardwalk, overlooking the Hudson river
I was there a couple weekends ago! My gf and I took a nice evening stroll and enjoyed the nightscape after eating dinner at Amiya - Contemporary Indian Cuisine
|
|
|
|
|
The question is, "Is it more aerodynamically efficient or less?"
You can't say something is or is not "aerodynamic".
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: it's a bit windy...Have I made the box MORE aerodynamic, or LESS?
At least for me "a bit windy" means that box is going to go sailing regardless of what it looks like. Or at least it will start moving which will interrupt me as I grab for it.
Collapse it completely and then fold it up and stick it under your leg. It won't go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My suggestion is that you remove this post and if you have a specific question, then put it in the red link above. At this point your post is going to be marked as spam by the morning.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried liquid nitrogen powered spam squashing technique?
|
|
|
|
|