Down wind faster than the wind

[Zeuzzz]

This threads only been going about a month, and we're on page 57 already. Has to be one of the most involved threads on jref ever. Dont have a clue what its about. By the time I've read it all to catch up I'll've retired.

I'll've. Cool. Just invented a new word abbreviation.

Just thought i'd add to the post count.... carry on...

 

[Christian Klippel]

...because the cart just hangs around where it is put. That is a spurious artifact, that produces a confounding case. Correcting that friction....

Dude, do you even know the meanings of the words you use?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact_(observational) says:

"In natural science and signal processing, an artifact is any perceived distortion or other data error caused by the instrument of observation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artifact_(error) says:

"An artifact is the error or misrepresentation introduced by a technique and/or technology."

To the contrary, the ones who built the cart actually predicted what it would do on a treadmill. Lo and behold, it actually does exactly that when placed on a treadmill. I just can't see any artifact there.

The only artifact (as per the second definition) that i can see here that is doing the error or misrepresentation is your technique of utter ignorance caused by the technology called "humbers weird brain".

Really, claiming that that what the cart does, as is predicted it should do, is only an artifact just shows your stupidity and ignorance.

Edit: The only artifact that can be seen with the cart on the treadmill is that it actually does _not_ stay at the exact same position all the time. It is moving very very slightly, and very very softly, back an forth. This is introduced simply by the fact that a) the motor driving the belt has minimal fluctuations in it's speed and b) that even in a closed room the air is never 100% still because of the persons in it moving/talking and maybe an open window somewhere.

 

[humber]

Done.

well done you fooled yourself, but not allthe readers.

 

[mender]

Why, Humber, you do read some of my posts! Maybe you should go back and read all of them to see what I said.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Why, Humber, you do read some of my posts! Maybe you should go back and read all of them to see what I said.

Hello mender,

while theoretical that would be a darn good thing for him to do, the problem is that reading alone doesn't help. One has to actually understand what is written. And that is the big problem when it comes to humber. Add to that his ignorance, and you can see that simply reading just doesn't help there.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[mender]

I have to admire his determination, if not his method of determining.

 

[Dan O.]

Putting a weight on the cart, so that there is more friction, will expose the error in the model

Do you want to bet?

My model says that the DWFTTW cart running on a level treadmill will be pulling against a tether attached to a point behind the treadmill. Adding weight to the cart to increase traction between the cart and the tread will not significantly affect the tension on the tether. There will be some loss due to friction in the wheel bearings. The friction in the bearings can be measured by removing the prop and replacing it with an equal mass flywheel and measuring the tension on a tether to the front of the treadmill. Adding the extra weight will increase the tension in this case by an equal amount as was reduced in the first case.

We can also go the other way and reduce the traction of the wheels by running the cart on ice. My model says that the cart will not be able to go as fast as it does with more traction.

We could also just film the cart with a high speed camera to see that the wheels are not slipping.


What does your model say and how much do you want to wager?

(note to newcomers, this wager is structured to avoid classification as gambling since the looser pays the wager as a donation to JREF and the winner gets only pride)

 

[humber]

Do you want to bet?

My model says that the DWFTTW cart running on a level treadmill will be pulling against a tether attached to a point behind the treadmill. Adding weight to the cart to increase traction between the cart and the tread will not significantly affect the tension on the tether. There will be some loss due to friction in the wheel bearings. The friction in the bearings can be measured by removing the prop and replacing it with an equal mass flywheel and measuring the tension on a tether to the front of the treadmill. Adding the extra weight will increase the tension in this case by an equal amount as was reduced in the first case.

We can also go the other way and reduce the traction of the wheels by running the cart on ice. My model says that the cart will not be able to go as fast as it does with more traction.

We could also just film the cart with a high speed camera to see that the wheels are not slipping.


What does your model say and how much do you want to wager?

(note to newcomers, this wager is structured to avoid classification as gambling since the looser pays the wager as a donation to JREF and the winner gets only pride)

Nice try, and a dishonest one. I told Mender that a tether will upset the balance. And I also made the same remark to you concerning Ynot's tether.

No, the challenge is to increase the friction to the wheel only.

 

[humber]

I have to admire his determination, if not his method of determining.

No, my model in the ground is perfectly OK. It obey's newtons laws for KE and velocity. Yours contradicts Newton's laws. There his, not mine.

 

[spork]

One has to actually understand what is written. And that is the big problem when it comes to humber.

I think the problem comes not from his inability to understand (although that's quite possible). I think it's his complete unwillingness to understand. It just seems unlikely that he could avoid logic and correct conclusions at EVERY turn by shear ignorance. I think this is more of a concerted effort on his part.

 

[humber]

I think the problem comes not from his inability to understand (although that's quite possible). I think it's his complete unwillingness to understand. It just seems unlikely that he could avoid logic and correct conclusions at EVERY turn by shear ignorance. I think this is more of a concerted effort on his part.

No, my model is correct. It must be. The balance is exposed by the travel up the belt. Yet, is does not do so well when level. It is not so much that it travels up hill, but doesn't when level. That is contrary to expectations.

Your model or frame if you wish, is an analog of the real world. To be valid, it must not allow Newton's laws to be broken. That makes it false.
I expect that it will go down the belt when the friction is increased, but that will not help because it still had no KE. There is no analog of an object traveling w.r.t the ground, or road that does not have KE.
If I make it a stair case, can I just put the model at the top of the stairs?
The movement up the belt is against gravity. The model is for a level road, so it does not make that travel a necessary part of the model, therefrore it is not an indicator of faster than the wind travel, but a spurious effect.

Sheer ignorance.

 

[spork]

......................
...................................
.................................
Sheer ignorance.

Thanks for finally including warning labels on your posts. But may I suggest you put the warning up top. Otherwise we've already figured out it's sheer ignorance by the time we get there.

 

[spork]

By the way, if anyone has the faintest clue what humber thinks this model will do on an incline and/or on a level belt - please tell me. I'd love to go prove him wrong so he can come up with another brilliant theory. Although I admit it'll be tough to improve upon the "hopping" theory.

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

Is it 11? Pleeeaase let it be 11!

 

[H'ethetheth]

Yes, everything is relative, but as all frames are equivalent, that makes them absolute as well.

Seeing how relative and absolute are sort of completely opposite, I can see how that would make them equivalent.

Spork wrote that some professors do not think that the treadmill is a frame of reference, and that is because they are right.

They are indeed right; a treadmill is an object, not a frame of reference, nor as some people seem to think some people think, a fan.

Moving objects are not different frames.

Also correct. Objects are indeed not frames.

They are objects moving in the same frame.

That, or they are objects moving in different frames.

The Newtonian frame.

There is no the Newtonian frame.

What your statements above illustrate, humber, is that you should familiarize yourself with reference frames and co-ordinate transformations. A frame of reference is just what it's called; it is a vantage point from which one describes the physics of some phenomenon. You can describe the cart in a frame of reference fixed to the cart, or one fixed to the earth, or one that is fixed to Uranus. The point is, if the cart works in one reference frame, it will work in all others. The treadmill illustrates in a convenient way that it works in a reference frame fixed to the cart.

Most of the things you say above are impossible to say if you understand this. I don't think it is shameful in any way that you don't, but your reluctance to learn is. You insist that you are put through paces that if followed, will lead you (with arithmetic) to the conclusion that the cart works. There is a reason for this.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

No, my model is correct. It must be.

LOL -- "It must be".

The balance is exposed by the travel up the belt. Yet, is does not do so well when level.

Please, do explain -- you who have never run this device on a treadmill, please explain to those of us that have run it for hours how "it does not do so well when level".

Really, does it advance slower? Does it just *look* tired on the level?

Please tell us.

JB

 

[humber]

Thanks for finally including warning labels on your posts. But may I suggest you put the warning up top. Otherwise we've already figured out it's sheer ignorance by the time we get there.

You just got a use by date.

 

[humber]

By the way, if anyone has the faintest clue what humber thinks this model will do on an incline and/or on a level belt - please tell me. I'd love to go prove him wrong so he can come up with another brilliant theory. Although I admit it'll be tough to improve upon the "hopping" theory.

Kangaroos hop.

 

[humber]

LOL -- "It must be".




Please, do explain -- you who have never run this device on a treadmill, please explain to those of us that have run it for hours how "it does not do so well when level".

Really, does it advance slower? Does it just *look* tired on the level?

Please tell us.

JB

I'll get out my speak 'n' spell.
The small increase that you see in velocity, is not evidence of greater than windspeed travel, but an artifact that is dependent upon the angle of the treadmill. The time is sits there is of no consequence.
Who cares? If you sell an illusion, beware of the mirror image.

 

[humber]

Is it 11? Pleeeaase let it be 11!

I'll do that, when the need arrives. When I am on that train.
Meanwhile, back to the treadmill.