Why is wind directon expressed as "FROM"?
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:07:49 GMT, Jose
wrote in : :
Are my efforts more amusing than most?
I guess we'll never know.
Surely you had a prior opinion, else you would not be wondering "just
how I would do it".
You made an assertion, and I wanted to see what *you* had in mind. I
had no preconceived idea of what your answer might be.
Look how "interesting" Mr. McNicol's suggestion turned out. :-)
For the record, I'd simply suggest removing the
tail feathers and replacing it [sic] with a weight to keep the thing in
balance. Assuming it had a significant arrow point (some do) that
should be sufficient.
See there. That's a unique suggestion. Of course it's not correct
for *all* instances, but as you state, it should work for most.
Otherwise reshape the tail into an arrow point -
the thing would be oriented in the same direction but the shape would
now point the other way.
I presume this suggestion is dependent on the removal of the arrowhead
as you mentioned earlier. (Correct me if I've inferred this wrong,
but you are suggesting that both the arrowhead and tail feathers be
removed, and the arrowhead be reattached at the former location of the
tail feathers with its point toward the end of the arm, and the pivot
point unaltered.) If so, and the weather vane worked normally before
it was modified, it should function as you expect.
As I stated earlier, the end of the weather vane that points into the
wind (or with the wind) is dependent on the placement of the pivot
point (which governs the arm length) and the side area of each portion
(arm) of the vane on either side of the pivot point. It's similar to
what we all do when calculating weight and balance. In this case, the
length of each arm is multiplied by its side area (including any
"feathers" or "arrowhead" and the area of the arm itself). The end
with the larger moment forces its other end to point into the wind
when placed in the airstream. At least, that's the way I see it.
The physics involved are so intuitively trivial, that the subject is
hardly worth the discussion.
|