Down wind faster than the wind

[my_wan]

You say: "Now if this wind is what turned the propeller the ejected air would necessarily be in the same direction as the air turning it, but it's not."

I agree that the air is not ejected backwards. But: That doesn't mean the wind isn't turning the propeller. The propeller slows down the wind flowing through it and that gives the cart energy to move forward. Right?

Yes, except that the wind is not what's turning the prop. If the prop is spinning against the wind so that it slows the wind down where does the prop get the energy to actively slow that wind down? From the wheels, not the turning prop. The wheels get the energy from forward motion of the whole craft, not from the turning prop. So yes, the wind is trying to slow down the prop, plus it's pushing the whole cart, which gives the cart forward motion. The forward motion turns the wheels. The wheels give the prop the power to turn the prop against what the wind is trying to make it turn. Therefore the wind cannot be what is turning the prop.

Once the craft exceeds ground wind speed then the wheels no longer have to force the prop against the wind because the wind relative the to prop is now working in the same direction. The continued force through the wheels now only has to add motion to the wind instead of working to slow it down.

If you were right and the wind would drive the cart to opposite direction: Wouldn't the cart initially accelerate backward instead of forward?

No, because the wind is pushing the whole cart, not just the prop rotation. The motion of the whole cart give the wheel torque which then provides the torque to turn the prop in the opposite rotation of what the wind alone would turn it. Once faster than the ground wind speed it no longer has to work against the wind to continue turning the prop that same direction.

 

[humber]

Please read my answer to my_wan #170. Two minutes, 2 months. Why do you at all see this as relevant?

 

[spork]

Referring to the item on the belt, I have never expressed otherwise. The wind experiment could be anything.

The two cases are identical to the cart. If you understood the basic principle of equivalency of inertial frames you would never argue differently for a moment.

However, you do claim that the treadmill experiments support the wind versions.

Yes - because they are identical. This is not worthy of debate at any level.

You do disagree with my version of how it operates.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. I think it's more accurate to say - I've described exactly how it operates. I've pointed out that your "theory" is demonstrably wrong. I designed and built the silly thing based on first principles of aerodynamics (which really didn't strain my aero background). What would possibly make you think that you had any basis to correct my math and experimental results?

Also the claim that these demonstrations violate any of the known laws of physics. I heard that.

I have stated clearly and repeatedly that this cart does NOT violate any physical laws.

please stop making such claims for wind performance until demonstrated.

I've demonstrated it every day for over a week. I've posted the results for all to see. Please stop making bizarre statements about physics and aerodynamics when you clearly have no background whatever in these fields.

I think you are assuming that I connect the treadmill and real-world wind performance.

No - I don't. You've made it quite clear that you're ignorant of the fact that the two are identical.

My "oscillation assertion" applies to the the video posted by the OP.

Your "oscillation assertion" is an idea akin to the proof that we haven't put men on the moon.

I have not seen any evidence that it beats the wind.

Indeed you have. But your denial of basic physical laws causes you to claim otherwise.

The precession of that propeller, will indeed do as I claim.

Precession of the propeller cannot possibly even come into play unless the attitude of the vehicle is changing. You clearly don't understand what precession means.

Must be some misunderstanding.

Yes; your misunderstanding of the most fundamental laws of physics and of the scientific method.

 

[spork]

If the machine does not operate by way of a transient stored momentum (this being partly in the machine, and partly in the local airstream) then it should be possible to put on it, RC controls and get it to remain stationary on the moving belt for an arbitrary length of time.

That is absolutely true. Perhaps we'll do that experiment, but all it will prove is that people will then claim we're powering the vehicle with the onboard battery.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Please read my answer to my_wan #170. Two minutes, 2 months. Why do you at all see this as relevant?

I'm sorry humber, I though from your "too much like evidence" comment that you agreed with mhaze's post immediately previous to yours.

mhaze's description of mounting a guide system to the treadmill demonstrated he wished to see it run longer than it has -- I'm simply asking the obvious question ... how long is enough.

My mistake as related to you, but the question still stands to mhaze.

JB

 

[humber]

my_wan, are your referring to the propeller actually rotating in the opposite direction? I see it only for a brief period.
It could be aliasing. It depends upon the RPM and the video frame rate.

 

[spork]

Once the craft exceeds ground wind speed then the wheels no longer have to force the prop against the wind because the wind relative the to prop is now working in the same direction.

That is not true. I've shown this in my vector analysis. If you don't care for mathematical proof and experimental results, little can be done.

Once faster than the ground wind speed it no longer has to work against the wind to continue turning the prop that same direction.

Please review my vector analysis. It is the foundation upon which I designed the cart.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

humber:

The precession of that propeller, will indeed do as I claim.

-

I just have to get in on this one quickly.

Humber, how in the world to you come up with any reasonable expectation of precession effect when we're driving it straight up a treadmill -- remember, we're not taking this thing out on a curvy road for a spin after all.

???????

Where do you get this stuff?

JB

 

[my_wan]

Too much like evidence.

It started out as just a claim by spork. Evidence needed. Spork built a proof of concept model. mhaze post some idea of an experiment that doesn't indicate what he claims is would. In fact the friction servo is physically no different whatsover from the spoon (spork) that spork used to hold the craft in check in the video. You respond tongue in cheek: "Too much like evidence". Yet the experiments and analysis continue while you are so smug without ever even leaving your computer chair.

True, the burden is on us pro guys. I just thought the irony of the irony of the smugness was worth noting.

 

[.13.]

Yes, except that the wind is not what's turning the prop. If the prop is spinning against the wind so that it slows the wind down where does the prop get the energy to actively slow that wind down? From the wheels, not the turning prop. The wheels get the energy from forward motion of the whole craft, not from the turning prop. So yes, the wind is trying to slow down the prop, plus it's pushing the whole cart, which gives the cart forward motion. The forward motion turns the wheels. The wheels give the prop the power to turn the prop against what the wind is trying to make it turn. Therefore the wind cannot be what is turning the prop.

Once the craft exceeds ground wind speed then the wheels no longer have to force the prop against the wind because the wind relative the to prop is now working in the same direction. The continued force through the wheels now only has to add motion to the wind instead of working to slow it down.



No, because the wind is pushing the whole cart, not just the prop rotation. The motion of the whole cart give the wheel torque which then provides the torque to turn the prop in the opposite rotation of what the wind alone would turn it. Once faster than the ground wind speed it no longer has to work against the wind to continue turning the prop that same direction.

Now I get it. The prop is set in such a way that if I were to rotate it with my finger, in the direction where the wind would rotate it if it were allowed to spin freely, it would spin the wheels backwards. Right?

EDIT:
After reading post #187 by spork it seems you've made a mistake or I misunderstood your meaning.

 

[humber]

<snip>
My mistake as related to you, but the question still stands to mhaze.
JB

OK JB, no problem, but it would be disingenuous of me to completely disown the remark. You know why I don't see it as relevant, but I still don't understand why you do.
If a cat tries to climb a slippery pole, it like in the cartoons, could scramble to stay in one place. It only has to accumulate enough force to defeat gravity. If the period between scrambles is long enough, then it will be seen to move up and down a bit. As those periods become shorter, it looks more and more like it is remaining in the same position. This is not a completely accurate analogy, but it does have some descriptive value, I think.

 

[my_wan]

my_wan, are your referring to the propeller actually rotating in the opposite direction? I see it only for a brief period.
It could be aliasing. It depends upon the RPM and the video frame rate.

After the craft gains speed you can see the aliasing kick in. When he pushes it just a few inches you can easily see the actual rotation. Aliasing cannot be an issue when the entire movement is only a fraction of a rotation. Click full screen and wait till his second try to make it even easier to see.

 

[my_wan]

Now I get it. The prop is set in such a way that if I were to rotate it with my finger, in the direction where the wind would rotate it if it were allowed to spin freely, it would spin the wheels backwards. Right?

Yes, exactly.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

OK JB, no problem, but it would be disingenuous of me to completely disown the remark. You know why I don't see it as relevant, but I still don't understand why you do.
If a cat tries to climb a slippery pole, it like in the cartoons, could scramble to stay in one place. It only has to accumulate enough force to defeat gravity. If the period between scrambles is long enough, then it will be seen to move up and down a bit. As those periods become shorter, it looks more and more like it is remaining in the same position. This is not a completely accurate analogy, but it does have some descriptive value, I think.

Humber, while we're conversing -- You must know of course I disagree with your version of how the device works, but I've no problem with that, it just presents a fun challange.

Let's you and I devise a test that will confirm or falsify your claims. It can't be hard to do.

I do have to concede I truly don't understand your theory -- some sort of high frequency hopping arrangement ?? What makes you think that it hops?

JB

 

[humber]

humber:
Humber, how in the world to you come up with any reasonable expectation of precession effect when we're driving it straight up a treadmill -- remember, we're not taking this thing out on a curvy road for a spin after all.
>snip>
JB

This is a mix-up, at least I think it is. I can't link here to the video, but it's in the first post, behind the agreement notice.

The precession effect is only of little consequence. If the friction between the wheels can be modulated, it provides a means of non-linearity, that can be used to "decouple" the otherwise permanent connection of the propeller to the road. Connection between the road and the wheels is critical to the hypothesis. If it is broken even only, say, 10% of the time, perhaps due to road texture, then that can be enough to make the claim invalid. Precession will force connection when driven, more than it will when coasting, a matter in favour of the builder.

This does have a passing resemblance to the way that the treadmill model uses transient energy, but I did not specifically mention in that connection.

 

[humber]

Let's you and I devise a test that will confirm or falsify your claims. It can't be hard to do.
I do have to concede I truly don't understand your theory -- some sort of high frequency hopping arrangement ?? What makes you think that it hops?
JB

This is difficult, because the problem is quite specific to the circumstances, and I don't see how it is possible to disprove anything that doesn't exist. I mean, I could only shoot myself in the foot by showing something that doesn't work. It's a natural phenomenon.
I will certainly think about it, though.

 

[JWideman]

The treadmill videos prove nothing. A motor coupled to a prop is going to create thrust. Nothing groundbreaking about that.
Without storing energy or doing anything more complex than coupling a wheel to a prop, this craft is supposedly traveling faster than the tailwind powering it.
Looking at your plans, this is essentially the same craft I built as kid 25 years ago. That's how I found out about entropy.

 

[humber]

It started out as just a claim by spork. Evidence needed. Spork built a proof of concept model. mhaze post some idea of an experiment that doesn't indicate what he claims is would. In fact the friction servo is physically no different whatsover from the spoon (spork) that spork used to hold the craft in check in the video. You respond tongue in cheek: "Too much like evidence". Yet the experiments and analysis continue while you are so smug without ever even leaving your computer chair.

True, the burden is on us pro guys. I just thought the irony of the irony of the smugness was worth noting.

my-wan, I have said before, this is not about people. It may surprise you to learn that I do appreciate the effort that has been expended, but it baffles me a bit, because theory so profoundly contradicts the given explanation, if not the device itself. Secondly, reality does not allow compensation for trying. Trust me, I do experiments. Emoticon noted.

ETA:
I should say that I am more likely to respond to "can you explain this" than claims of overturning
centuries of scientific endeavor, based upon ???? and sarcasm.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

The treadmill videos prove nothing. A motor coupled to a prop is going to create thrust. Nothing groundbreaking about that.
Without storing energy or doing anything more complex than coupling a wheel to a prop, this craft is supposedly traveling faster than the tailwind powering it.
Looking at your plans, this is essentially the same craft I built as kid 25 years ago. That's how I found out about entropy.

Hello again JW. Did you read my post #134?

If your interested in an exchange on the subject of inertial frames of reference, I would love to have one with you.

If not, that's cool as well.

JB

 

[Modified]

The treadmill videos prove nothing. A motor coupled to a prop is going to create thrust.

This has been explained numerous times. From the point of view of the vehicle, there is no difference between being on a treadmill in still air and on the ground in wind. Yes, the energy that moves the vehicle forward comes from the treadmill motor. That is irrelevant.