You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've gotten this warning at the end of simulations a few times: AT LEAST ONE BLADE REYNOLDS NUMBER WAS ABOVE TABLE LIMIT. UPPER LIMIT USED. I'm surprised to see it, though. In deciding what Reynolds numbers to use to calculate polars, I calculated all possible Reynolds numbers using the chord distribution and tip speed ratio to get the relative velocities, and then the freestream velocity to get the resultant at each span location. The highest Reynolds number that I used for my polars is about twice the highest Reynolds number I calculated. Could you verify how the Reynolds number is being determined in the simulation and, perhaps, explain how it could be so much higher than my estimates?
I've gotten this warning at the end of simulations a few times:
AT LEAST ONE BLADE REYNOLDS NUMBER WAS ABOVE TABLE LIMIT. UPPER LIMIT USED.I'm surprised to see it, though. In deciding what Reynolds numbers to use to calculate polars, I calculated all possible Reynolds numbers using the chord distribution and tip speed ratio to get the relative velocities, and then the freestream velocity to get the resultant at each span location. The highest Reynolds number that I used for my polars is about twice the highest Reynolds number I calculated. Could you verify how the Reynolds number is being determined in the simulation and, perhaps, explain how it could be so much higher than my estimates?