Down wind faster than the wind

[sol invictus]

Prof Whitman links Spork to that quote. You know, a I was likening the class off professors, to Whiteman's class, any number of professors.
No offense taken, but if its a numbers game, I think that I will win the claim that the treadmill is not a frame of reference. So, perhaps you are right, my expository powers may not be not be up to the task.
Also, to publicly display ignorance of the prevailing view in rebuttal of an opponent, is hardly likely to lend much credit, even if correct.

This has nothing to do with your lack of expository powers.

It has to do with the fact that you are wrong, that you contradict and fail to comprehend the basic laws of Newtonian dynamics, that simple force balance arguments demonstrate that the cart works, that many others have produced analogues that all work in the same fashion, that spork and JB have provided tons of video evidence that the cart works, and even plans to let you build it for yourself.

Rarely have I seen anyone make such a total ass out of themselves as you have in this thread. It's worse even than creationists - the only thing I can compare it to are 9/11 deniers, the kind that claim that even the planes were faked.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Hello JB,

i think you made a mistake here. His wheels are 1.5" diameter, multiply that by 0.8 and you never get even close to 4". You probably meant the wheel circumference?

Greetings,

Chris

Yes of course Chris -- I'm such a moron at times.

Best wishes. Please keep us posted and we'll help anyway we can.

JB

 

[humber]

Humber -- you spew jibberish while what we are asking for is a test.

Define a test that differentiates the above treadmill from a "real world" situation.

For over 2000 posts now we've gone round and round -- define a test and settle it.

JB

Two things.
1) I will think about the test.
2) Your imaginary model is more complete than the treadmill cart model, so perhaps yours will hold to test. The treadmill is not your porch, it has weaknesses that can be exposed. You are equating the treadmill to the same same in your imaginary model. That can be arbitrarily designed to counfound denial. OK, well done. Trivial, but true.

3) Nobody gets to set the agenda, If I can freely choose mine, I can contradict yours. That makes it even.

4) If the result of your translations result in a body with no kinetic energy whilst said to be in motion relative to the earth ( the claimed treadmill state). Then I defy you to find a the real world object the treadmill cart is said to represent. If that cannot be found then the cat cannot be said to represent a real world object. That is class of objects that ,travel relative to the earth with zero kinetic energy.

 

[tsig]

Humber and Tsig: The elephant in the room.

--------------------
If I simply increased the size of my treadmill enough, I could set you in an easy chair on the porch of a house on a hot summer day and with the treadmill set at 10mph, you would be telling us how sweet the tea was and how nice the breeze was.

The flag on your porch column would stand proud, the wind chimes would be a 'clanging and the shrubs and trees would be swaying -- all because of a treadmill that "can't make wind". And of course you would be arguing strenuously with us that it's REAL wind and would not believe me when I told you that it was all just a treadmill.

--------------------

It matters now how sensitive your instrument is. It matters not who you enlist to assist you. It matters not how much money you spend. It matters not how long you take. There is absolutely no experiment which can be performed without external reference which will allow you to determine if your front porch is on a giant treadmill or not.

You must have external reference -- you must be able to look outside the giant box that I have placed around you and convincingly painted to look like the real world.

All you have to do to win the Nobel humber is to device a test that can tell you whether the wind is "real" (your term) or it's a calm day and the treadmill is turned on steady state.

Seize the day humber/Tsig -- give us the test.

------------------------

Why no takers? The silence is telling.

JB

I would just wait for the power to fail.BTW it is tsig not Tsig.

 

[humber]

This has nothing to do with your lack of expository powers.

It has to do with the fact that you are wrong, that you contradict and fail to comprehend the basic laws of Newtonian dynamics, that simple force balance arguments demonstrate that the cart works, that many others have produced analogues that all work in the same fashion, that spork and JB have provided tons of video evidence that the cart works, and even plans to let you build it for yourself.

Rarely have I seen anyone make such a total ass out of themselves as you have in this thread. It's worse even than creationists - the only thing I can compare it to are 9/11 deniers.

No, if you apply more friction to the cart, it goes backwards. The spurious balance mechanism isolates the cart from the belt. The only forces that act on it are residual. This is not the case of the real cart and road.

That is a fact. If you simply insist on calling one thing another, then of course you will not agree. But if I don't use your treadmill and construct my road out of other materials that are better analogues, closer in reality to the road itself, than the belt, your idea fails. That is demonstrated by the above test.
I asked you for test, if you offer the treadmill, that is what is in dispute.

I can falsify your model. If I construct one, you will not be able to do that. That is for certain.

The treadmill is case of experimental fitting. You are breaking Newtonian mechanics to make your ideas fly.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Tsig:
>I would just wait for the power to fail.

And until then you would be unable to tell the difference -- just as our cart can't tell until the power fails.

Thanks for acknowledging the inability to tell the difference. You have demonstrated a clear ability to recognize that a treadmill is a fine way to generate "wind".

JB

 

[humber]

Nothing makes me happier than to have Prof Whiteman siding with and being associated with humber. Can you imagine if his students knew this!? They'd want their money back. Can you imagine if the school knew this? They strip him of his tenure.



Talk about laughable!

You imagine a lot, Spork.

 

[spork]

Rarely have I seen anyone make such a total ass out of themselves as you have in this thread.

You should meet LeeJerry on the Sailing Anarchy forum. Greg London made a good showing on Boing Boing. The good professor at GA Tech would make you cry for our future, and tsig has put in a pretty fair performance - even though we don't know yet if he has humber's staying power.

It's true that humber has raised ass-hattery to an art-form - but I can't believe the number of humbers we've found out there.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

hubmer:
>Two things.
>1) I will think about the test.

You keep saying that, but you never produce one -- I wonder why.

>2) Your imaginary model is more complete than the
>treadmill cart model, so perhaps yours will hold to test.

Ahhh yes ... the old "the laws of physics change with the size of the treadmill" trick. I'm not falling for it.

>3) Nobody gets to set the agenda,

Yes, and when you show fear of a simple question I will continue to expose that fear.

JB

 

[Modified]

4) If the result of your translations result in a body with no kinetic energy whilst said to be in motion relative to the earth ( the claimed treadmill state). Then I defy you to find a the real world object the treadmill cart is said to represent.

Kinetic energy is relative. After all the times this has been explained to you, I don't know how you have managed not to get it. The cart in both cases interacts only with the surface and the air. Things other than the surface and the air are irrelevant. The reference frame of the earth is not special. If you want to compare kinetic energy for the ground and treadmill cases, you can use the air in both cases as the reference frame, you can use the surface in both cases as the reference frame, you can use the cart in both cases as the reference frame, but you can't use the the earth in both cases as the reference frame.

 

[humber]

You should meet LeeJerry on the Sailing Anarchy forum. Greg London made a good showing on Boing Boing. The good professor at GA Tech would make you cry for our future, and tsig has put in a pretty fair performance - even though we don't know yet if he has humber's staying power.

It's true that humber has raised ass-hattery to an art-form - but I can't believe the number of humbers we've found out there.

\

Well. I know a lot of 'humbers' who will run rings around you. I think I will take their side, you know, according to the principle of relative idiocy.
Small men, make small claims,Spork

 

[Modified]

No, if you apply more friction to the cart, it goes backwards. The spurious balance mechanism isolates the cart from the belt. The only forces that act on it are residual. This is not the case of the real cart and road.

If you apply friction to the works of the cart moving at belt speed on the belt, it will slow down with respect to the belt. If you apply friction to the works of the cart moving at wind speed on the ground, it will slow down with respect to the ground. The two situations are equivalent.

 

[mender]

Simple mental test. Replace the belt with a toothed version, and the drive wheel with a mating gear. Backwards, for sure. A weight on the cart drive wheel may do. Perhaps even blocking the laminar flow from lifting the wheel may also indicate the same?

You still think the cart wheels are slipping on the belt. That should be the test you're asking for, whether adding weight to the drive wheels changes the net force acting on the cart.

Here goes: level the treadmill. Attach a scale via a tether to the cart exactly parallel to the treadmill surface (don't want to add any extra issues) and run the treadmill at 10 mph. Measure the forward pulling force. Place a weight equal to that of the cart over the drive wheels and retest.

For the second part, start with the cart in its original configuration. Baseline the pulling force. Spray WD-40 on the treadmill surface to reduce the friction. Record the results.

Or just get an optical tachometer and measure the drive wheels rpm and the prop rpm and confirm that the drive wheels don't slip.

Well, Humber? Will you ignore this post as well? I'm trying to help.

 

[mender]

If you apply friction to the works of the cart moving at belt speed on the belt, it will slow down with respect to the belt. If you apply friction to the works of the cart moving at wind speed on the ground, it will slow down with respect to the ground. The two situations are equivalent.

Humber is talking about the friction between the belt and the cart's drive wheels. He maintains that the wheels are slipping, resulting in a very delicate balance that supposedly keeps the cart in an "energy well". He also claims the lack of KE in either direction is what keeps the cart from moving, because the cart would need to gain KE in order to move, thus the slipping of the wheels to prevent that gain. A perturbation as demonstrated by the spork poking only disturbs that balance momentarily, and if the treadmill was longer, the cart would return to the original position unaided. A flywheel would serve the exact same purpose as the propeller, and in fact the propeller can be reversed without changing the results of the treadmill test.

To be clear, this is according to Humber, not me.

 

[Dan O.]

We can do that later if you like, but the surfaces are not similar.

You are making up your own reality again. I just said the surfaces were similar. If you want to specify your own example go ahead. But don't go modifying mine.

If you follow the logic of my earlier graphs, it shows that belt objects move towards zero KE. That's not right. Things don't do that.

Logic is not an attribute I would apply to anything you post.

Do you have some magic instrument that can determine the direction towards zero KE? Can you build a compass that will tell you which way you are moving? You still haven't figured out that motion is relative. You cannot specify motion without specifying or implying a reference. Until you specify the reference, KE is not defined.

In the real cart, Newtonian physics says there will be KE, and that load will be met by the force from the road, via friction..

What does kinetic energy have to do with the coefficient of friction between the wheels and the road?

If you were capable of doing the math you would see that the wheels don't need to slip and the cart can perform as claimed. If the wheels were slipping, the cart would be loosing more energy to friction.

Because there is no real wind on the treadmill; it is modeled only by the motion through the medium surrounding the belt, the friction must be modeled to replicate that state.

What is the speed of the "medium surrounding the belt" relative to a fixed point on the belt and how is this different from the speed of the medium surrounding the road relative to a fixed point on the road?

IF that is done, then the cart goes back with the belt, and then would need to accelerate to twice the speed of the belt, first dumping its -'negative' KE as as it gets to standstill, and then accelerate to windspeed by acquiring the correct amount of KE.

What quantum hole did you crawl out of? Show me a definition of 'negative' KE and how it applies to the cart.

If the observer rules are applied consistently then you should expect that.

Sometimes I just can't figure out what you are talking about so I checked what google says about ["observer rules" "applied consistently"]. Needles to say (so I will), it didn't help.

If you do, you end up, with a "groundside" observer, watching a real road go by. That road is the treadmill belt, so the treadmill beltside observer is the same as the "groundside observer".

In Jacks video, the camera observer is watching the real road go by. In spork's videos, the camera is watching the belt go by.

I think that there is perhaps a "meta observer" in your view, that is sometimes not actually anywhere?

The name of a particular poster in this thread comes to mind.

Simple mental test. Replace the belt with a toothed version, and the drive wheel with a mating gear.Backwards, for sure. A weight on the cart drive wheel may do. Perhaps even blocking the laminar flow from lifting the wheel may also indicate the same?

Not a problem. The increased traction actually helps as long as the rolling resistance of the gears isn't too great. This is mechanically equivalent to the propeller on a threaded rod that was presented several times. Haven't you been following the discussion?

I have simply run out of ways of expressing it. If objects can travel without kinetic energy, doesn't that actually contradict the idea of relative frames and or "equivalence"?

Try using math and physics and stop making things up. It only makes you look ignorant.


The earth is rotating at about 450 m/s at the equator. What is the KE of humber running on a long treadmill running the length of a train traveling east along the equator?

PS: don't forget to account for the earth orbiting the sun at 30 km/s and other cosmic velocities.

 

[humber]

Kinetic energy is relative. After all the times this has been explained to you, I don't know how you have managed not to get it. The cart in both cases interacts only with the surface and the air. Things other than the surface and the air are irrelevant. The reference frame of the earth is not special. If you want to compare kinetic energy for the ground and treadmill cases, you can use the air in both cases as the reference frame, you can use the surface in both cases as the reference frame, you can use the cart in both cases as the reference frame, but you can't use the the earth in both cases as the reference frame.

No, Modified. You are right, it has been explained, but it is wrong. I know what you are saying, but the results produce a cart that travels without kinetic energy w.r.t the ground. The ground reference is special because it IS common.
Please do this experiment. Take the treadmill and bury it in the ground.
Disassemble the model. The belt becomes a road moving backwards. That is correct, moving backwards relative to the ground, relative to you. I think that you all perhaps making the road the 'earth'? For that you need a disembodied observer.
If I power that road, it is correct. Now I am both the real world and the new treadmill side observer. That tells me that if the cart is coupled by friction to the road, it goes backwards, w.r.t the ground. If it happens to stay in my view, because it is not coupled by sufficient friction to the road,then it will hover motionless w.r.t the ground, and to me. That is consistent with every thing. No velocity (or just a little) no KE.

This model is entirely in keeping with the way you construct your view, but contradicts yours, because your inferred velocity is not correct, so the KE is not correct. The cart is artificially placed where it is, that overcomes the missing physical translation, from - beltspeed, through zero w.r.t ground, then on to windspeed w.r.t, and the models claimed emulation.
In my model, that process it expends energy from the road's motor, that becomes the KE at its final velocity.
You don't see the need for this, because the cart just hangs around where it is put. That is a spurious artifact, that produces a confounding case. Correcting that friction, as in my model, will see is go back where it belongs. Test it.
Assuming instantaneous "windspeed" violates Newtonian physics. Models must include the influence of their operators.
You can't readjust your frame. That is how it is. All the translation are 'done'

If you make a computer model using the same data, won't that cause some mathematical headaches?

 

[mender]

Humber, maybe it would help to read this, pages #3 and #4 in particular:

http://nov55.com/quic.html

I was puzzled about KE in high school because I tried to use it to determine how quickly a car would accelerate given a specific amount of horsepower. I had a whizzy programmable TI-66 purchased just for that. I soon learned where the inaccuracy was. To make things work out properly, I had to use Newtonian physics instead of KE.

This site explains it much better than I could.

 

[humber]

You are making up your own reality again. I just said the surfaces were similar. If you want to specify your own example go ahead. But don't go modifying mine.



Logic is not an attribute I would apply to anything you post.

Do you have some magic instrument that can determine the direction towards zero KE? Can you build a compass that will tell you which way you are moving? You still haven't figured out that motion is relative. You cannot specify motion without specifying or implying a reference. Until you specify the reference, KE is not defined.




What does kinetic energy have to do with the coefficient of friction between the wheels and the road?

If you were capable of doing the math you would see that the wheels don't need to slip and the cart can perform as claimed. If the wheels were slipping, the cart would be loosing more energy to friction.




What is the speed of the "medium surrounding the belt" relative to a fixed point on the belt and how is this different from the speed of the medium surrounding the road relative to a fixed point on the road?




What quantum hole did you crawl out of? Show me a definition of 'negative' KE and how it applies to the cart.




Sometimes I just can't figure out what you are talking about so I checked what google says about ["observer rules" "applied consistently"]. Needles to say (so I will), it didn't help.




In Jacks video, the camera observer is watching the real road go by. In spork's videos, the camera is watching the belt go by.




The name of a particular poster in this thread comes to mind.




Not a problem. The increased traction actually helps as long as the rolling resistance of the gears isn't too great. This is mechanically equivalent to the propeller on a threaded rod that was presented several times. Haven't you been following the discussion?




Try using math and physics and stop making things up. It only makes you look ignorant.


The earth is rotating at about 450 m/s at the equator. What is the KE of humber running on a long treadmill running the length of a train traveling east along the equator?

PS: don't forget to account for the earth orbiting the sun at 30 km/s and other cosmic velocities.

No, perform the experiment that I have posted to Modified. You can't tell me that my model is wrong, yet it contradicts yours. Putting a weight on the cart, so that there is more friction, will expose the error in the model

The 'negative' kinetic energy is figurative, it returns KE that it acquired from traveling back with the belt, so as to get to a standstill in my mod,l as it would yours. My model is a valid as yours conceptually. The observer never moves from its correct view which is the ground. It is in keeping with the observed facts, and Newton's laws. The spurious balance mechanism allows manipulation to make the claim for windspeed.
.

 

[humber]

Phew, forget it

 

[mender]

Phew, forget it

Pity, I think I finally was understanding what you were saying.