Wp-1 reference cases of laminar and turbulent interactions

In order to be able to judge the effectiveness of transition induction in WP-2, reference flow cases were planned in WP-1. There are two obvious reference cases—a fully laminar interaction and a fully turbulent interaction. Here it should be explained that the terms “laminar” and “turbulent” interaction refer to the boundary layer state at the beginning of interaction only. There are two basic configurations of shock wave boundary layer interaction and these are a part of the TFAST project. One is the normal shock wave, which typically appears at the transonic wing and on the turbine cascade. The characteristic incipient separation Mach number range is about M = 1.2 in the case of a laminar boundary layer and about M = 1.32 in the case of turbulent boundary layer. The second typical flow case is the oblique shock wave reflection. The most characteristic case in European research is connected to the 6th FP IP HISAC project concerning a supersonic business jet. The design speed of this airplane is M = 1.6. Therefore the TFAST consortium decided to use this Mach number as the basic case. Pressure disturbance at this Mach number is not very high and can be compared to the disturbance of the normal shock at the incipient separation Mach number mentioned earlier. As mentioned earlier, shock reflection at M = 1.6 may be related to incipient separation. Therefore two additional test cases were planned with different Mach numbers. ITAM conducted an M = 1.5 test case, and TUD an M = 1.7 test case. These partners have also previously made very specialized and successful contributions to the UFAST project

Questioning 'participation' : a critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a Flemish participatory technology assessment

This article draws attention to struggles inherent in discourse about the meaning of participation in a Flemish participatory technology assessment (pTA) on nanotechnologies. It explores how, at the project’s outset, key actors (e.g., nanotechnologists and pTA researchers) frame elements of the process like ‘the public’ and draw on interpretive repertoires to fit their perspective. The examples call into question normative commitments to cooperation, consensus building, and common action that conventionally guide pTA approaches. It is argued that pTA itself must reflect an awareness of competing interests and perspectives inherent in the discourse associated with the meaning of ‘participation’ if it is to incite action beyond vested interests and ensure genuine mutual learning.status: publishe