In interest of not extending the argument who said it first, I will accept that it was you who put it more precisely described although I intended to say exactly the same with my "...as stationary walls are not exactly moving in one direction (absolutely or relatively) as airplane wings are.". So you get a credit of saying it first in the way both of us could understand without further explanation.
To answer your pop quiz correctly, the question should be more precise. Is it two or three bowls? The difference is 50%. Not to mention, what is considered an improvement for this purpose?
On the more focused note, if you have any answer to my earlier questions, I would appreciate it. Formulae are fine, I will manage with time.
I have to thank you for intriguing me with objects on the plane wings. I learned quite a bit about wings since then although I have not found anything that would explain MG's method of "organizing" laminar flow, yet. Even well-known Saric et al. study about Discrete Roughness Elements would not come close to it as their DREs are on the level of micron and applied in a completely different environment.
We need Michael Green to return to this forum as the only way to reliably know how much of a certain flow emanating from the speaker is laminar and how much is turbulent (even at the minimum distance from the membrane) is to measure it. I have no equipment and only relatively small expertise to do it.

