So maybe you will excuse me 'cause I am a junior engineer, and moreover on every book I have this phenomenon is described as I told in my first post. Thanks for your explanation.

This is a complex phenomenon, and I don't think any single explanation will always be correct. There is merit in both interpretations, although I personally feel that the shock loss interpretation is more helpful than the vortex sheet interpretation.

(1).It is interesting to hear that there are different ways of thinking to the inlet "buzz". (2). I have stated many times in the past that we are interested in the questions and the answers, not the real person who is presenting the answer. (3). As in this case, even if we could take into consideration of the background information, we still could not verify the information presented. (due to the personal status as mentioned in the message) (4). We sure do not wish to discuss the personal or company side of the story here, because it is not going to help the readers to understand the CFD related questions and answers. (5). By the way, I always think that the reason why the secret projects exist is because they don't want the outsiders to know that their idea is wrong and stupid, and they are wasting the taxpayer's money. (6). We welcome any CFD related questions and answers, and it is the responsibility of the reader to make use of the CFD related information presented. (7). So, I think, it is easier to thnik, "if someone had asked the same question, what would be the most useful answer to this question?, with only the monitor screen available to you." In other words, adding personal information to the answer will not change the answer itself. Sometimes it can generate an emotional wall to stop the exchange of ideas. So, make sure that we all understand this limitation. (8). Otherwise, every question and answer will likely to be signed by the same object, called "the God". And even in that case, I think, up to now, "the God" is still trying to make the world peaceful. And he is not going to have the time to tell us the correction version of inlet "buzz".

(1). The last sentense should read "And he is not going to have the time to tell us the correct version of the inlet "Buzz". (2). In the name of Object-Oriented Programming, or even the Component Object Model, the client of this forum can only access directly the public methods of the object or the interfaces of the binary component. The direct access to personal data is not allowed. And think, these programming trends are also good models for us in the forum.

Dear Dr. chien,

It is sometimes needed to know where the source of information is coming from. Sorry I am an upwind guy. I agree with you that if we include creditenial all the time, that will draw a red-line beyond which we can hardly allow ourselves to ask questions. But this is not through all the times. Moreover, when we look at the universe as the creation of God, we don't stop questioning and our challenges don't stop. And we like to have more discoveries to be done every day. I am not saying we stop questioning or we stop justifying the resons behind the correctness of a subject. I just say, not always, but sometimes it is needed to know where the info are coming from, and this one I think was one of those.

Dear Dr. Cosner,

I remember many viscous flow simulations of inlet buzz, e.g. Newsome 1983. But unfortunately, i have seen NON for the inviscid case. Out of Boeing, from which you can not provide any of your results for the inlet-buzz by your inviscid solver, can you direct me to any reference out of Boeing?

Thanks

Mohammad

Goodbye.