• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Down wind faster than the wind

JB, Spork
OK I will take your bet. I have thought of a plan.
You say, that nobody can claim to have "the correct" view, so it follows that there can be no single judge

Careful how you word this. As with lift on a wing, there is more than one valid way to look at it. That doesn't mean that every way is valid. The reality is that your theory is just plain wrong as is the "equal transit time" theory in describing how a wing generates lift.

Also, I'm not suggesting that we should use just one single judge, but nothing about the situation requires that we use multiple judges. Even so, I'm fine with using several.

I choose 10 judges.

Fine, as long as they are to my satisfaction as well.

I win if there is a majority.

Fair enough.

The money is not dependent upon supporting my view.

I don't understand what you mean. I assume the judges are deciding on which view is accurate.

I will post my calculations, and you yours, to be judged in open view, on the Physics Forum.

They can certainly be judged in open view on the physics forum if you like. But I seriously doubt you'll find 10 judges that meet our mutual satisfaction on that forum. I don't think you'll find 3 people there with the solid high school level understanding of physics.

Yes, but dishonest again. From your commentary, you have indicated that you have had previous discussion.

And now I honestly have no idea who you're talking to - or what you're talking about.

You also allowed him no right of reply. He is right, and I am paying him back.

Again, what on earth are you talking about?

I note that your only response related to these remarks. Still no physics, then

What are you talking about George?
 
Last edited:
Without going into physics and reading past the first page, there is something wrong with the camera. It never gets ahead of the vehicle to show nothing is pulling it.

Second, how did the vehicle move so straight for so long?

It is not a hoax. A hoaxers generally do a more convincing job than alt.science. Hoaxers generally know enough to fool a sophisticated viewer.

Where's the fire?:
My reaction was not that it has achieved any notable speed, but why did it take so long to get there ?
This is not an experiment, as such, but "film until we get the effect that we want, then stop". Some fall for the most simple deceptions.

Direction:
The question of direction can be many things, but need not be a mystery. The front wheel is probably lightly loaded. The cart is so inefficient that there must be considerable drag, so perhaps it is simply a case of the rear wheels following the camber of the road. Could be any number of things. It is only necessary to raise these questions, if you feel that there is something to be explained.

Speed:
The machine has its wheesl coupled to the prop. It will move forward by the wind driving the prop, hence the wheels. It will accelerate until the drag (entire vehicle) and the motive force (energy gained from the wind) match.
This point will be below windspeed.

At this point, there are opportunities for other mechanisms to take a role.
Note that the wind is gusty, and the prop. massive. The whole premise of the notions (not theory) that support these designs, is due to the fact that
the wheel are connected to the prop.
But, as you can see, the wheels are tiny, and the road rough, so contact with the road will be discontinuous.

At speed, the prop and cart have accumulated a great deal of kinetic energy. If the wheels leave the road, this means that the wind can drive, the prop. alone. The vehicle's momentum will carry it forward, but it also allows additional energy to be stored in the prop, as it is essentially free-wheeling.
Contact with the road, is resumed, and the the vehicle accelerates a little more, until the next perturbation upsets the balance that normally occurs when drag limits the velocity. Through this mechanism, and perhaps a boost gained from wind bursts, the vehicle's velocity increases until some other effect takes over.
It is a device that accumulates kinetic energy gained from the wind, and stores or releases it due to random disturbances, meaning that the drag/motive energy budget is biased in favour of motivation, so it can accelerate to a velocity beyond that expected.
It is such a bag of bolts, and the experiment so poorly executed, that it does not warrant further analysis.

Conclusion:
A very inefficient way of gathering wind energy. Myth busted, use a sail.
 
Speed:
The machine has its wheesl coupled to the prop. It will move forward by the wind driving the prop, hence the wheels. It will accelerate until the drag (entire vehicle) and the motive force (energy gained from the wind) match.
This point will be below windspeed.

At this point, there are opportunities for other mechanisms to take a role.
Note that the wind is gusty, and the prop. massive.

So use a treadmill.

You're going to lose your money, humber. Anyone with the slightest training in physics knows that the treadmill is completely equivalent to level road and constant wind. But the treadmill experiments address all of your objections - no bumps, no gusts, no departures from steady-state.
 
Careful how you word this. As with lift on a wing, there is more than one valid way to look at it. That doesn't mean that every way is valid. The reality is that your theory is just plain wrong as is the "equal transit time" theory in describing how a wing generates lift.

Also, I'm not suggesting that we should use just one single judge, but nothing about the situation requires that we use multiple judges. Even so, I'm fine with using several.

Bernoulli's explanation and that due to momentum, are different descriptions of the same phenomenon, that is all. You are claiming new phenomenon "not understood by the laws of physics". You must provide a cogent expanation at to why this is, and how the treadmill experiments are involved. It must be new. Tautological explanations derived from current knowledge will not be adequate.

Fine, as long as they are to my satisfaction as well.



Fair enough.



I don't understand what you mean. I assume the judges are deciding on which view is accurate.

I meant that judges are free to make a decision, independantly of payment

They can certainly be judged in open view on the physics forum if you like. But I seriously doubt you'll find 10 judges that meet our mutual satisfaction on that forum. I don't think you'll find 3 people there with the solid high school level understanding of physics.

You hope. I meant the proper physics section. It can be here is you wish.

And now I honestly have no idea who you're talking to - or what you're talking about.


Not been honest up till now, then? I here you say "discussions with George...
So there is history. You cannot prove first use by him. He means that there is a rational explanation for this effect (momentum) but you are claiming that this "cannot be explained... laws of physics" . You are promoting the idea on that basis. That is deception, because you deny the orthodox explanation, in favour of self-promotion. That is deception.
This is not actually about George, but the claims and there promotion.

[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
So use a treadmill.

You're going to lose your money, humber. Anyone with the slightest training in physics knows that the treadmill is completely equivalent to level road and constant wind. But the treadmill experiments address all of your objections - no bumps, no gusts, no departures from steady-state.

Good, more declarations to use. Too bad that all happens at 0mph
 
Last edited:
Alrighty George - it sounds like we have the basis for our bet. Next step is to choose a mutually acceptable escrow company where we'll each deposit our $100K. I can suggest one, or you can. I've worked with some locally (CA), does that work for you?
 
I will set up one here. I will need evidence that you have the same. Payment will be immediiate.
 
Kinetic energy is relative to some reference frame. The vehicle maintaining speed on the treadmill has kinetic energy in the reference frame of the tread surface, but not in the frame of the room (apart from the inertia of the prop).

This is metaphysics.
 
I will set up one here. I will need evidence that you have the same. Payment will be immediiate.

Do you understand how escrow works? We will both put our $100K into the same escrow account. It will stay there until the outcome has been decided by the mutually agreed panel of judges. Then the sum will be transferred to the account of the winner.

I here you say "discussions with George...

No you don't. You're making things up.
 
-

Humber, I sure hope folks will go to Post #306 as you referenced it, because it will show that your case "A" and "B" above are NOT the cases that were presented. I have no idea if you simply made a typo error, or if you are intent on twisting the cases, but either way unless you can accurately read words on a page it's garbage in, garbage out.

Here is the ACTUAL representation of case "A" and "B" as copied directly from Post #306:


-
Now, if you wish to comment on the above scenario, be my guest. If you wish to disagree with the scenario, that's perfectly OK. BUT if you wish to keep misrepresenting the data in #306 I will continue pasting it in directly so everyone can see the mispresentation first hand.

(as a quick reference for those seeking humbers "mistake", notice that in the #306 case, "A" and "B" always return the same result from the instruments. In humbers "A" and "B" they don't. Now if humbert disagrees with our instrument returns, that's OK --- but humbert should NOT post different data and represent it as "the basis of *our* claim")

JB

Trivial. Once again idea goes over the head.

Windspeed
Windspeed 10mph
Vehicle Speed 10mph
Difference 0mph (but big kinetic energy = Elephant)

Stationary
Windspeed 10mph
Vehicle Speed 0mph
Difference -10mph

Standstill
Windspeed 0mph
Vehicle Speed 0mph
Difference 0mph (but near-zero kinetic energy = Mouse)

Conclusion:
Difference = 0, therefore windspeed travel

Common Logical error;
Elephants are gray
Mice are gray
Mice are Elephants

Made here:
At Windspeed difference = 0 (but elephantine kinetic energy)
At Standstill difference = 0 ( but mouse-like kinetic energy)
Standstill = Windspeed ( mouse = elephant)

Get it, now?

There is no "relative" kinetic energy. You have no wind, nor velocity or kinetic energy.

Correct Conclusion:
On the treadmill, Difference of 0mph indicates Standstill NOT Windspeed

How could you even consider that these conditions be the same?
 
Do you understand how escrow works? We will both put our $100K into the same escrow account. It will stay there until the outcome has been decided by the mutually agreed panel of judges. Then the sum will be transferred to the account of the winner.


No you don't. You're making things up.

Doesn't matter. Two independent accounts are possible. Only the agreement to access need be common.

My mistake. The sounds before that sounded to me like discussion.
Not relevant. You showed your "evidence" as a contradiction. I don't mind. let's just say then that I want to do it anyway.
 
There is no "relative" kinetic energy. You have no wind, nor velocity or kinetic energy.

Correct Conclusion:
On the treadmill, Difference of 0mph indicates Standstill NOT Windspeed

How could you even consider that these conditions be the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_relativity#Work.2C_kinetic_energy.2C_momentum

Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship traveling at constant speed, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary. Today one can make the same observations while travelling in an aeroplane with constant velocity. The fact that the earth on which we stand orbits around the sun at approximately 30 km/s offers a somewhat more dramatic example.
.
.
.
Correspondingly the kinetic energy of an object, and even the change of the kinetic energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of reference: it is the sum of the total kinetic energy in a center of momentum frame and the kinetic energy the total mass would have if it were concentrated in the center of mass. Due to the conservation of momentum the latter does not change with time, so changes with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.
 
Nice wikki. Wikki does not supply undertanding.
Extremely literal interpretation that you have. Buzzword physics.
An example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

You're talking about Galileo Galilei, I suppose?

While I very much doubt you have either the financial means, the will, or the balls to go through with this wager, if you do it will be a great example of financial Darwinism (as in the Darwin awards, that is).
 
Let's make this clear. There is to be no double-talk. You cannot switch "frames of reference" midstream. You may put as many objects as you like, in any frames, but there must be one reference frame. I would simply stick with the "real" one.

I meant the "real" one ( if I were you)

ETA:
THAT's your mistake . Assumption

ETA:
Don't expect to talk nonsense. The vehicle is in the Earth's gravitational field. You will have to explain why any deviation can be used to justify your argument. If you want to call upon relativity, for example, then you must show that this is explains your claim, or adds to any useable effect. Yes the world is rotating, so is everything else.
You MUST explain why the treadmill is equivalent to windspeed. In fact that may be enough
 
Last edited:
Let's make this clear. There is to be no double-talk. You cannot switch "frames of reference" midstream. You may put as many objects as you like, in any frames, but there must be one reference frame. I would simply stick with the "real" one.

Which one is the "real" one, and why?
 
Wow!

Well, this is all going to be good entertainment up and until the point that George welches on actually putting $100,000.00 into an escrow account.

Given Randi's history, this forum would have been such a perfect place for this sort of "lesson" to handed out to Georgy.

"Metaphysics" vs plain old drop a brick on your foot and it freakin hurts' physics.

JB
 

Back
Top Bottom