I give Paul Cole the same credit. He shapes with 40 years of surfing and design experience the ocean is his test tank. Over 3000 boards that just kept speaking to him untill he worked it out.......I have to say this guys hes a real beliver of the "Sink experiment" taps knives and teaspoons and watch the flow characteristics. And yes he too belives the flow properties can be quantified, in the course of designing and refining the FP Paul did the flow calculation with two IBM 128s and crashed them. Now hes not going to say how he got the figure but the answer IS "0" you guys ponder that,I cant explain it. Hey if Paul hasnt done it, maybe one of you can? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WARNING WARNING WARNING "TE rave is in no way endorsed or are the opinions of FP and subsiduarys....." The kinetic energy of the wave and the effect gravity has on the object on the incline will over weigh the equation somewhat. So the latent energy available if used effeciently will leave the equation over balanced in favour of nature. The board being the thief of energy will try and over balance the equation to its favour. The wave energy is also being absorbed by the water density, elastisity of the seafloor atmosphereic pressure and no doubt more variables like surface tension and molecular charge states.. So its board against nature a continuous cycle of transfers of energy from abunance to deficiet to the next allways trying to balance its self but never succeeding(thank goodness). Ok an answer as ZERO would make me think that the equation is balanced but what does that mean? Has Pauls board not effected the water at all? Of course it has, so why the ZERO? Well the reason might be.......god its late and I should go to bed. http://www.geocities.com/wunderboyi/ninetysixpercent.html
Thanks, FDR was right I'm not a mathematician but John Nash was. I used the analogy to push a point. I have been shaping surfboards since 1968 and surfing since 1958. I have been privileged to be very close to some of the truly dynamic benchmarks and watershed moments in surfboard design. I was not responsible for any of them. What I did do however is experiment both physically and mentally on a quest for a desired result. I realize that the desired result is somewhat subjective. I still stand by the claim that “All aspects of surfing can be measured mathematically. The static aspects are easy, the dynamic a bit more difficult and the combination of the two attainable. Add the metaphysical and come up with a formula that can be verified and the result will necessarily be real and objective innovation in surfboard design”. I wonder, are we at a place in design that is about tiny incremental improvements ad infinitum or is there a quantum break somewhere? My thoughts on “0” are these. 1. We know at least by employing empirical evidence that it would un”reason”able to arrive at zero. Believing that flow properties can be quantified and not quantified at the same time and the same relationship can’t be true. 2. The number of variables that the 128 could calculate was exhausted. At this point I am only arguing from a theoretical point, but even at its most rudimentary and primitive state surfing is still an effect of a cause. Before there was surfing there was no surfing. Is there another quantum leap? Yours in opening doors and passionate about wave riding, TB
Cheers !!! I applaude the open mind, the meta physical is the last thread left in physics to be unravelled....Although the Russians worked it out some decades ago......Western Quantum theory is on the very edge of tripping over it.... http://www.geocities.com/wunderboyi/ninetysixpercent.html
Good discussion about using real math and data in board designs. From what I've picked up over time, the problem comes mainly from the difficulty in measuring the effects of certain design elements of a board with so many variable in the mix, such as how a particular fin configuration/type affects drag on a board or the resistance a particular rail type offers on a particular type of wave on a given axis. But, I have found a paper written in the 70s by surfer Michael Paine for a BA in Engineering in Australia that goes into some of the mathematics in the (somewhat) measurable parts of surfboard hydrodyanmics. Not being any where near well-versed enough to understand most of this paper, I figure I'd put it up to see if anyone else can make heads or tails of it. Also, if anyone has any hard data or more information on the hydrodynamic effects of fins or rails, whether it be any theoretical or known principle or hard data, it would help me and everyone else I'm sure a lot. http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/thesis.html#flume1
hmmmmm- perhaps morey was n to something years ago with his air-lift boards....
Yeah I read the thesis about a year ago. If I remember correctly, it is mostly concerned with design aspects for planing in a straight line with no treatment for turning, paddling, etc. Naturally the solution he came up with was a board that would plane, but good luck getting it into the wave in the first place. The paper was informative and had a coherent treatment of the basic physics, but a much more complex follow-up is required. If I had the time I'd see who wants to take a stab at it with me, but I don't have a lot of dynamic model writing experience, and I have a dissertation to finish or my wife will break my legs. -Chad