doG

More turbulence, not significantly less turbulence as you asserted. Why then does it match the image in the paper I cited. In that paper it is the leg of an oil platform.

No you can't. Nowhere, even in the bolded section is there any mention that any turbulence has decreased, only the the point of separation has moved, In fact, in your bolded section he clearly states that their is higher momentum toward the surface of the body, not laminar to it, which indicates increased turbulence, not significantly reduced turbulence as you have tried to suggest by putting words in his mouth. Nowhere is your assertion that turbulence is decreased at higher reynolds numbers supported.

Read it again. The author says absolutely nothing of the sort, you don't get to randomly just insert words to make it mean what you want. Additionally, Design Aerospace says simply:

Not necessarily. Infinite gravity would require infinite mass but an infinite universe need not be full of infinite mass...

Let me make sure I understand you. You are asserting that they have less turbulence at the lowest cd in that example, at an Re around 4 · 105? FWIW, that exact image is from section 2.4 of a white paper at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:566139/FULLTEXT01.pdf The dip in drag coefficient is explained by the author: Your claim of significantly less turbulence directly contradicts this paper on Wind Tunnel Model Testing of Offshore Platforms. He clearly states this dip in drag coefficient is caused by the onset of turbulence, not the reduction of it.

which one?

Sometimes. At others drag does go down with turbulence as shown by Endercreeper's post below... And your point is? You do realize that this scenario is not true for all profiles?

That looks to be intentionally obtuse.

Yes, and the same table shows that cd = 0.02 for a wing or 0.2 for a wing in turbulent flow where re > 30,000. Even the table at the wiki page shows a cd of 0.001 for a plate in laminar flow and 0.005 for a plate in turbulent flow. In some cases for some shapes cd is higher at lower reynolds numbers and the reverse for others. It is different too for bodies moving through a fluid versus fluid moving through a body. In the case of a short sharp edged orifice versus a tube you can see values for cd go from 0.62 to 0.80. In the article I cited on cleaning fluid conductors it points out: For some conductors it points out that NR needs to be as high as 25,000 to cause enough turbulence in order to cause enough drag to effectively clean the walls of the conductor. My only point to begin with is the you cannot just calculate drag based on shape and angle of incidence. Velocity is an essential part of the equation. So is overall shape. A sphere will have a higher cd than a hemisphere ( with the round side facing flow) even though both present the same profile to oncoming flow. Drag is a complicated number than cannot be reduced to 2 variables.

How arrogant...

Checkout Wolfram Alpha... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%28i%29

See http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/light.html

Actually a straight pipe does at significant flows. Flow is laminar at lower velocities but it becomes chaotic at greater velocities. An article from one of the magazines I get actually suggests using this principle for cleaning fluid conductors. Here's a reference also from World of Physics - Drag Coefficient...

The point you're missing is that evidence is not subjective....

My own personal experience with orifices in hydraulics systems indicate the opposite. The higher the flow through an orifice, including a pipe which is just a long orifice, is that higher velocities create chaotic flows as opposed to laminar flow and the result is a higher pressure differential from the increased friction.

You're missing the point. Just because someone has an opinion that something is credible doesn't mean that it is.

Ummmmmmmmm....no. Opinion doesn't make anything true. That someone has an opinion that something is credible doesn't make it credible.

What accounts? From the bible? That whole book is hearsay, there's not one word of first person testimony in that book. Like I said before, please cite some credible examples.

Eye witnesses of deities? Please cite some credible examples...

Science will never look to prove that anything doesn't exist, the possibility always exists that there is some realm beyond our knowledge. In the end that's what science is about, knowledge. We do know that currently there is ZERO evidence for the existence of deities, leprechuans, unicorns, pegasus', SAnta Claus, the tooth fairy, the sandman, etc., etc. so there is no point trying to prove their existence or to accept the existence of any such mystical creatures as fact.

High fluid velocities lead to high reynold's numbers which indicates increased turbulence which increases drag. This simply means that cd is dependent on velocity and theories must account for that. It is not as simple as shape and angle of incidence.

I think cd increases with turbulent flow, i.e. high reynold's numbers...

For all velocities?

Ever heard of Reynold's number?

That's why it's OK to theorize deities but believing in them on faith alone is to be broken....