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 AA190568389; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:19:49 -0800 Return-Path: <kirk_69@ix.netcom.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 AA124828387; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:19:47 -0800 Received: from dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.9]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id NAA00758 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id PAA20179 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:09:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from sji-ca9-104.ix.netcom.com(209.109.236.104) by dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma020042; Thu Jan 28 15:08:42 1999 Message-Id: <36B0D1BD.A5606084@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:08:14 -0800 From: Kirk Lindstrom <kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: UPDATE re Coyote Crisis References: <70d3040f.36b0c54d@aol.com-DeleteThis> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6BE6FB64C878082F1772C356"
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It is ALREADY a royal PITA (pain in the arse) to get out to the wind for us folks
that sail sinkers or float to our knees type boards. I suppose we can get to 3rd
Ave and take some of those unused parking spaces. Shouldn't be a problem now that
I work for myself and can get there at 1PM to get a spot...
No matter how you slice it, it seems we are losing quality and quantity this year.
Kirk
Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis wrote:
> I have been reading the EIR and it will take a while to fully digest.
>
> The study basically assumes that loss in wind speed must exceed 10% at primary
> windsurfing launch and transit areas to be significant and then concludes that
> speed loss is at a maximum of 10% and less than 10% in many areas.
>
> It seems like the wind tunnel study has 105 foot tall buildings putting up
> wind shadows not all that much bigger than the existing buildings put up in
> some scenarios. Does anyone know how high and how high above the waterline the
> existing buildings are?
>
> The big issues will be:
>
> 1) Is their methodology correct
>
> 2) Is a 10% loss (or more?) significant or not? It seems like a 10% in wind
> speed has about a 50/50 chance of forcing one to rig up to get out since we
> tend to re-rig to a new sail size for each 20% change in wind speed.
>
> Peter
-- best regards Kirk Lindstrom Editor Suite101.com - Personal Finance and Investing http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/investing ================================================================== http://www.netcom.com/~kirk_69/home.html http://www.netcom.com/~kirk_69/Finance.htmlContent-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="kirk_69.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Kirk LindstromContent-Disposition: attachment; filename="kirk_69.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:34:59 PST