"kornnball" verbiates
> However, you are the one trying to claim I'm the proponent
> of "laminar airflow".
>
> That is not what I argued. I argued for not making efforts
> to increase turbulence, then you went off half-cocked like
> always, trying to suggest I mean a purely, hypothetic
> laminar airflow. For a moment or two I did go along with
> it, within the context of it being the other alternative to
> trying to change the airflow, but all the while recognizing
> that it is never purely laminar, and all the while
> mentioning the reasons- that creation of this turbulence
> will increase noise:flow ration but more importantly,
> decrease flow rate.


What the hell is a "noise:flow ration"? And so what if
bulk flow rate reduces but the increased turbulence
compensates?


> I do not suggest taking any measures to try and make the
> airflow more laminar, either.


No, just trying to keep it laminar. That means trying to
keep it non-turbulent, konehead.

*TimDaniels*