Down wind faster than the wind

[humber]

No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.



No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.




I understood that. Time for us to get our money in a joint escrow account.

Think about it and read your PM. I don't care how it is done, but you will need to post your data publicly.

 

[Modified]

To get beyond the point where the motive and drag forces are
equal, will require over-energy.
Do you think that at windspeed, there is no turbulence, or wake?

So you don't believe that a sailboat can sail upwind? At zero speed, there is turbulence and wake downwind, yet the sailboat can accelerate into the wind. You seem to think such a thing is impossible.

 

[humber]

No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.



No - I have no idea what you're talking about. But that's becoming a familiar feeling for me.




I understood that. Time for us to get our money in a joint escrow account.



Excellent. In that case the 10 judges should be happy to award you my $100K. Let's get this started.



You're not going to get out of this by pretending to be bat-***** crazy. Put your money where your humongous mouth is.

No that's not the problem. I have PM spork. I would rather that was not so public, but the data must be.

 

[humber]

So you don't believe that a sailboat can sail upwind? At zero speed, there is turbulence and wake downwind, yet the sailboat can accelerate into the wind. You seem to think such a thing is impossible.

I see what has happened. On to the data then.

 

[JWideman]

Here's a video I'd like to see:
Two carts - one without the prop attached.
One long sloping surface.
Place the two carts side by side and let them race down the slope.

 

[humber]

I raised a similar remark. No torque at 30mph? Who needs it?

 

[Modified]

I see what has happened. On to the data then.

You still haven't answered my questions. Just the ones labeled a and b in my second-to-last post would be sufficient. I'm trying to find out exactly what you disagree with about the equivalent reference frames, by using real world examples and breaking it down into simple steps. If you would answer the questions, we could find out what your disagreement is.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Here's a video I'd like to see:
Two carts - one without the prop attached.
One long sloping surface.
Place the two carts side by side and let them race down the slope.

Hi JW.

I'm sure a test (somewhat) like the above could be arranged and video posted. I need to know more regarding what you are looking for before I could shoot the test however.

A: I will likely never build two identical carts (I keep improving them bit by bit) and I likely wouldn't want to do so just for your test. Would an uncut video timing the cart down the slope between two marks, one with the prop and one without suffice? One could compare the elapsed time and define the 'winner'.

B: Do you just want the prop not "attached" ... as in to the drive, or do you want it gone entirely. On the large cart we can just pop the belt off the pully to disengage the prop -- easy and quick. On the small one the prop shaft disengages quite easy (it falls out while I'm holding the cart in one of our videos).

If you want the prop gone completely, do you need a similar weight added back to the mass of the vehicle?

If you let me know what you are trying to test for perhaps we can agree on a procedure.


For what it's worth, it's not hard to predict the winner -- if the air is still in relation to the ground, the cart *without the prop* but with the same mass will win each and every time. In fact I believe the advantage would favor the propless car so dramatically that one need not even re-ballast the propless back up to original weight.

Let me know.

JB

 

[humber]

I don't suppose it would be worthwhile to actually do this, but as a thought experiment...

Put your treadmill into the back of a van driving a steady 10 mph along a smooth level straight road. Orient the treadmill so that the top of the belt is moving 10 mph backward relative to the van.

The air inside the van, stationary with respect to the van, is moving 10 mph relative to the surface of the road.

The treadmill belt, moving backward with respect to the van, is stationary relative to the surface of the road.

So, conditions inside the van on the treadmill are exactly the same as if you were standing on the road surface in a 10 mph steady tailwind. Stationary road = stationary (with respect to the road) treadmill belt. Air in van moving at steady 10 mph = steady 10 mph wind. (Do you agree or disagree with this, humber?)

However, with respect to the reference frame of the van, conditions are also exactly the same as the set-up in the posted treadmill videos. For instance, if you filmed the experiment twice, once with the van moving at 10 mph and again with the van parked, the results would be identical and there would be no way to distinguish which video was which. (Do you agree or disagree with this, humber? I'm asking because I'm trying to figure out which aspect of the reference frame issue you're having trouble with.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

All these examples are simplifications. Yes, you can put a trolley here, holes, drive this way or that, but what they are missing is that it is not possible to transfer any ENERGY between the compartments.
It also suggests, that no accleration is possible
There are to many careless analogies. Sailing boats "pay" when they tack, there will be an increase in the work.
Take a look at the above posts. See, your device is inert. It will be so, for all masses and windspeeds.
There is nothing new here. You are treading a well worn path. You are doing the elephants and mice thing, but with all parameters except velocity.

 

[humber]

You still haven't answered my questions. Just the ones labeled a and b in my second-to-last post would be sufficient. I'm trying to find out exactly what you disagree with about the equivalent reference frames, by using real world examples and breaking it down into simple steps. If you would answer the questions, we could find out what your disagreement is.

Sorry, but they are too tortured to be worth the effort. You can play these games for ever. Like a series of Russian dolls. This is relative to this is....
Apart from a lot of problems, you don't seem to consider that the device must get to where it must be. So apart from the last bit where it all "cancells" out, you gain nothing from this approach. To do this on the treadmill, has meant that all of the energy is spent, just to keep it at that point. So many things can be constructed this way, and without any recourse to talk of frames. Such mistakes, as you are making are the font of many failed ideas, such as perpetual motion machines. Anyway, you are on your own now

 

[Myriad]

No. The vehicle is NOT moving. A belt is not a real road.

To construct a real world equivalent, you would need to redirect the airflow, back over the prop, so that it will standstill.

This is wrong. A belt in still air is an excellent simulator if what you're simulating is a road with a steady tailwind of equal and opposite velocity to the belt.

Sure, a belt will entrain a thin boundary layer of air to move along with it. Similarly, a road in a steady wind will produce a boundary layer where the wind is slowed down. The effect relative to both the solid surface and the air mass is the same.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

humber:

No. The vehicle is NOT moving. A belt is not a real road.

Too many good and well meaning people have tried for pages and pages to help humber understand the gross error in this thinking.

I accept he believes he's right.

I accept he's not willing to consider even the slightest possibility that he's wrong.

I accept you cannot force people to learn and believing otherwise would make *us* the irrational ones.

Barring some unbelievable event, I am done with humber. Best wishes fellow.

JB

 

[Modified]

Sorry, but they are too tortured to be worth the effort.

They are very simple and straightforward. If there is something about the questions that you don't understand, then tell me what it is and I'll explain it.

 

[Myriad]

All these examples are simplifications. Yes, you can put a trolley here, holes, drive this way or that, but what they are missing is that it is not possible to transfer any ENERGY between the compartments.
It also suggests, that no accleration is possible
There are to many careless analogies. Sailing boats "pay" when they tack, there will be an increase in the work.
Take a look at the above posts. See, your device is inert. It will be so, for all masses and windspeeds.

Naturally you are under no obligation to respond to my posts. However, I ask that if you do choose to respond, you have the courtesy to address the actual statements I made. I said nothing about trolleys, holes, compartments, boats, or the possibility of acceleration.

My role here is to seek clarity. If there is disagreement then I want to clarify the source of the disagreement. However, I'm beginning to wonder whether we are actually disagreeing over clarity itself -- that is, the possibility that while I and others are seeking clarity you are seeking deliberately to avoid it. That possibility does you no credit, so I hope it's not the case.

(Please keep in mind that the people here who have hundreds or thousands of posts are clearly not arguing against you because they've followed you here from some other forum for that purpose. We are some of the most outspoken skeptics in the world, and we have a lot of experience distinguishing valid physics from "woo" claims. If I or any other skeptics here were to conclude that the phenomenon under discussion here were contrary to the laws of physics, we would spare no criticism. For instance, since that would make the DDFTTW claim a paranormal claim, we would try our hardest to convince TAD or spork to accept Randi's Million Dollar Challenge forcing them to demonstrate that claim under controlled, fraud-proof conditions. We would question in earnest whether there were any fans or towing devices outside the video frames. Indeed, I don't regard anything presented by TAD and spork airtight proof of the effectiveness of their designs, and if for example I were considering investing money in a venture to market the things I would insist on seeing stronger evidence, perhaps involving wind tunnel tests and neutral observers. But airtight proof is not the question at hand. The question is whether the effect they're claiming is possible, and the answer from physics is that it is. It is an "ordinary" claim and as such, is very well supported by the "ordinary" evidence they've provided.)

The only portion of your post that is comprehensible in the context of mine that you quoted, is this:

All these examples are simplifications.

If you claim so, you are welcome to point out which variables have been neglected due to simplification, and how they cause the conclusions to be wrong.

However, I don't think that's correct. My examples are experiments that could clearly be done, and I describe the results to be expected. Nothing is simplified. A real van, on a real road, with a real treadmill and the real DDFTW model, would produce the results I describe: indistinguishable from the treadmill tests already recorded on video.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Myriad:

It is an "ordinary" claim and as such, is very well supported by the "ordinary" evidence they've provided.

Myriad, your entire post is well reasoned and expressed. It is this forum's good fortune to have you here.

Best wishes.

JB

 

[Modified]

All these examples are simplifications. Yes, you can put a trolley here, holes, drive this way or that, but what they are missing is that it is not possible to transfer any ENERGY between the compartments.

Energy transfer works the same for all examples. Energy is extracted from the speed difference between air and surface, by a mechanism which acts to reduce that difference. No matter the speed of the vehicle, it is possible in theory to extract energy from that difference. On a treadmill, that will put an additional load on the treadmill motor. Through the hole in a trailer bed, that will put an additional load on the pulling vehicle. In the open, that will act to slow some of the wind. In a wind tunnel with very precise speed-control feedback, it will put an additional load on the wind tunnel fan motor.

 

[humber]

humber:


Too many good and well meaning people have tried for pages and pages to help humber understand the gross error in this thinking.

I accept he believes he's right.

I accept he's not willing to consider even the slightest possibility that he's wrong.

I accept you cannot force people to learn and believing otherwise would make *us* the irrational ones.

Barring some unbelievable event, I am done with humber. Best wishes fellow.

JB

OK. I won't expect any more from you or Spork except in response to the PM
or didn't he tell you ?

 

[JWideman]

the cart *without the prop* but with the same mass will win

Why?

 

[spork]

OK. I won't expect any more from you or Spork except in response to the PM
or didn't he tell you ?

First of all JB doesn't speak for me, nor do I speak for him.

Here are the two PM's you sent me:

1) "PM me"

2) "OK I have a better idea. Put money paypal to maximum. I do the same. Makes it easier. "

Neither one makes a lick of sense. You PM'd me to say "PM me"!? What should I PM you? Perhaps I could PM you the words "PM me".

And please explain what you're talking about with regard to PayPal. Are you actually suggesting that I should simply trust you to send me $100K via paypal after proving you wrong? Like I said, these make less sense than the arguments you attempt to make about "physics".

 

[spork]

JB said: "the cart *without the prop* but with the same mass will win"

JWideman said: "why?"

The cart with the prop will accelerate more slowly due the the moment of inertia of the prop. It will take energy to get it spinning.

It will have a slower steady state rate of descent because it will be in autorotation exactly like a helicopter with an engine out.