What psi can be achieved from a 60mph wind

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cyclonus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Psi Wind
AI Thread Summary
At 60 mph, the stagnation pressure created by vents on a car hood is approximately 0.06 to 0.08 psi, as calculated using Bernoulli's equation and various formulas. The pressure is derived from the relationship between air density and the square of the speed, with a noted discrepancy in constants used from older engineering texts. The theoretical dynamic pressure at this speed is about 0.0639 psi, confirming that while wind force on a large surface can be significant, the pressure per unit area remains small compared to atmospheric pressure. This limitation highlights why turbo-chargers or super-chargers are more effective than ram air intakes for boosting engine performance. Overall, the calculations illustrate the nuances of fluid dynamics in automotive applications.
Cyclonus
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
If I put vents on the hood of my car and drove at 60mph what kind of psi could be achieved? I don't care about what kind of technique is used just curious about what kind psi could be created. I apologize if I'm not asking this correctly but I have no background in fluid dynamics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wind pressure is proportional to the air density multiplied by the speed squared.
My very old engineering text gives pressure due to wind as; p = 0.0032 * v^2
where pressure p is in pounds per square foot and v is miles per hour.
For pressure in psi divide by 144 to get; p = .00002222 * v^2
So if v = 60 mph, then p = 0.08 psi.
This estimate agrees reasonably well with russ_watters result of 0.06 psi.
 
The rolled-up constant I used was 4005, which inverted is .000250. Not sure where the discrepancy comes from. But not a big deal.
 
I based my computation on an old formula to confirm the order of magnitude of russ_watters result. We agreed.

The coefficient should really be 0.00255646, not the 0.0032 as obtained from my 1938 engineering text that used a coefficient recommended by a paper published in 1911. I believe the result discrepancy comes about because Engineers are conservative and so overestimate the effect of wind on their structural designs. Standards have also been redefined during the last 102 years.

Further examination of the “rolled up” constant k based on;
dynamic pressure = half * density * velocity^2
Assuming air at 15°C and sea level, the density is 1.225 kg/m3
and knowing that 1 psi = 6.8948*10^3 Pa

k = (0.5 * 1.225 * 1609.344^2) / (6894.8 * 3600^2)
So k = 17.7532e-6
And 1 / k = 56327.87
Then psi = mph^2 * 17.7532e-6
Or psi = mph^2 / 56327.87

At 60 mph the theoretical dynamic pressure will be 0.0639115 psi

What the computation does confirm is that at the speed of road vehicles, the force of the wind on a large exposed surface can be very great, but the pressure per unit area is small when compared to atmospheric pressure. This limits the utility of ram air intakes and explains why a turbo-charger or super-charger must be used to get a significant charge boost. Fundamentally, a turbo-charger gives a greater pressure boost than a ram air intake because the blades of the compressor can move significantly faster than the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Back
Top