It is interesting to see that NASA has gone length to disprove the 'Equal Transit Wind Theory'. But they didn't have to – for some simple reasons like:
It seems to me Equal Transit Wind Theory is sort of a heuristic argument (if I may say so) rather than the established flow physics.
Vertical lift force resulting from uneven horizontal fluid flow speeds is simply laid down by the unsteady Bernoulli (Daniel Bernoulli, 1700 – 1782) Equation (DBE). If one recalls, the DBE is derived from the elaborate and complete Navier-Stokes Equation (NSE) by balancing the steady convective flow acceleration against the pressure gradient force and gravitational force. The beauty of DBE lies in depicting the reciprocity of pressure and speed (e.g low speed underneath giving rise to high pressure there).
For those, who feels aversion to deal with differential equations – I have presented the NSE in simple terms in my Seabed Roughness paper. One can request the paper from Springer (they will charge a small fee to recover the publishing cost), or can write to me for a pdf reprint of the author's copy. Also my website piece Common Sense Hydraulics has simple summaries of some basics (hydraulics and airflow are all governed by fluid flow physics laws).
The implication is that while DBE is easy to use for simple surfaces – one must be cognizant about its limitations. NASA and other similar entities dealing with vertical lift of aircrafts – handle this limitation by conducting elaborate experiments to determine suitable coefficients. Or, perhaps in modern times – solving the complete NSE by numerical models or by fast digital computing.
Now, let us imagine the real case of the lift forces on house roofs which are not simple surfaces. The lift force on such uneven surfaces (there may be many configurations in response to owner's request or the contractor constraints and works, etc) is not a simple function of DBE without suitable coefficients. Additionally, the configurations including the neighborhood effects (which can be complicated, by its own right) might play a significant role.
James, I like when you say things like four moons ago or many moons ago – it is very uncommon for engineers. We are serious people (perhaps all professionals are). Aren't we used to say many years ago – but we do not have to follow the lead always, do we?
Dr. Dilip K Barua, PhD