Here here! But better yet use something that creates smoke or a childrens soap-balloon-thing (rigged to the cart?). Proves nothing but would be a very nice demo and would probably result in a few more people understanding.
Down wind faster than the wind
- Thread starter my_wan
- Start date
Here here! But better yet use something that creates smoke or a childrens soap-balloon-thing (rigged to the cart?). Proves nothing but would be a very nice demo and would probably result in a few more people understanding.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Ah, but you don't need to renounce physics: you would finally understand physics properly. For instance, you would finally understand why you can't take off in a prop plane on a still day, and have to get towed (you've probably blocked that memory out).
me said:
Yes, I think you're misunderstanding me. The extreme stupidity of Humberian Physics not only confuses us about the subject, but about what each other is saying about it! Chris seemed to suggest that humber's limitations on tests were put forward so that when the test cart, badly designed (like having a flywheel instead of a prop), failed to travel DDFTTW, he could say "See, it doesn' work!". I was saying that you wouldn't fall for that, somehow accidentally giving the impression that such a test cart would work. I may have misunderstood Chris.spork said:
I'm not sure there's much need to get humber's further confirmation of his predictions - the sentences are clear enough in some cases. It might be advantageous to pin him down first, but alternatively, you could put a flywheel on, or a bit of rag, or whatever, post the video of it falling off the back, and invite him to explain in what manner you have misrepresented his words. Just if you're bored one day like. Either way, it's all pointless. He'll wriggle and whine as usual. Who cares what humber says? He's an idiot.
Ah-ha!...
I agree completely.
I'm honoured...or I would be, goddammit! You think I work my butt off all day trying to write something funny enough to be in someone's sig only to be called 'another forum member' when I finally manage it? Arrrrrrrrrgggghhh!!!!Looks like I have a new quote to add to my signature.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Yes, those might be better, although a piece of tissue paper might show up better on the video. Maybe a joss stick fastened to the cart would be an easy way to begin. I agree it doesn't prove anything (except maybe that a prop can produce thrust in still air, if anyone had any doubts about that) ETA:...oh, and, like I said, it disproves one potential cheat - blowing the cart forward with a fan.
Last edited:
I'm honoured...or I would be, goddammit! You think I work my butt off all day trying to write something funny enough to be in someone's sig only to be called 'another forum member' when I finally manage it? Arrrrrrrrrgggghhh!!!!
Fixed. When I added the quote I started to use your name, but then thought you might not appreciate that.
I'm happy to replace the prop with a flywheel, a bit of rag, or a Jimmy Dean pork sausage. But I'd rather get humber to tell me what would happen if I did.
Here's a brilliant offer (if I do say so)... If people can find me specific humber quotes that indicate what would happen in various cases - I'll do the tests and post them. So you do the hard part (i.e. read humber's gibberish), and I'll do the test and post video. We can think of it as a little contest to find the best of the worst.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
That's very gallant of you, sir. Just shows you can't please some people. I don't know what the usual etiquette is.
That's almost worth nicking too.
I guess it'll go something like this: "In situations like this it all depends on the stiffness of the frame, by which I mean the chassis, not those ridiculous Galilean transformations you invented. Then the friction is very important, as I have said all along. It might work if you get it right, but the treadmill is no substitute for real wind...."
Hmm, that does sound like hard work for us. I nominate Chris. Or maybe H'ethetheth - he seems to understand Humberian.
Can this be tested? Or has it already been established?
F=MA apparently is not part of Humber's universe.Christian Klippel
Master Poster
OK Guys, here you go... Just a little bit of flywheel frenzy for the start.
From post #10:
"You would expect that it would then travel along a stationary belt even if the propeller were to be a simple flywheel."
#54:
"The filmed model probably exploits the flywheel effect. The builder remarks that the wind is variable. A gust will accelerate the vehicle, and store energy in the mass of the fan. There's a lot of energy in that fan."
#76:
"As I said, if you disagree, replace the propeller with a flywheel and observe that the device will not move backwards at the speed of the belt."
#140:
"However, there is a bias, because if it slows, the momentum of the flywheel, a reservoir of energy, can be called upon to drive it forward again. It takes what energy it it needs; directly from the belt, or from stored momentum, so as to maintain that balance."
#175:
"I used it to demonstrate that the cart in that video is nothing more than a flywheel on wheels, which it is."
#237:
"...but that this model is not an indicator of the potential for greater then wind-speed vehicles, other than flywheel driven, of course."
And i skimmed only the first 10 pages, because my head starts to hurt reading all that crap again.
So, as you can see, he claims that with a flywheel the cart would basically behave the same as with a prop, especially in #140, whereas he also claims that it may move backwards, but not at the speed of the belt. However, as noted by many others as well, you can see that his statements are partly contradicting, so no matter what you would do, it's likely that he comes out and says "but i meant the other thing".
Greetings,
Chris
Edit: In fact he gives three choices when the prop is replaced by a flywheel: 1) It moves forward, 2) It hovers in places and 3) It moves backwards. Choose your favorite.
From post #10:
"You would expect that it would then travel along a stationary belt even if the propeller were to be a simple flywheel."
#54:
"The filmed model probably exploits the flywheel effect. The builder remarks that the wind is variable. A gust will accelerate the vehicle, and store energy in the mass of the fan. There's a lot of energy in that fan."
#76:
"As I said, if you disagree, replace the propeller with a flywheel and observe that the device will not move backwards at the speed of the belt."
#140:
"However, there is a bias, because if it slows, the momentum of the flywheel, a reservoir of energy, can be called upon to drive it forward again. It takes what energy it it needs; directly from the belt, or from stored momentum, so as to maintain that balance."
#175:
"I used it to demonstrate that the cart in that video is nothing more than a flywheel on wheels, which it is."
#237:
"...but that this model is not an indicator of the potential for greater then wind-speed vehicles, other than flywheel driven, of course."
And i skimmed only the first 10 pages, because my head starts to hurt reading all that crap again.
So, as you can see, he claims that with a flywheel the cart would basically behave the same as with a prop, especially in #140, whereas he also claims that it may move backwards, but not at the speed of the belt. However, as noted by many others as well, you can see that his statements are partly contradicting, so no matter what you would do, it's likely that he comes out and says "but i meant the other thing".
Greetings,
Chris
Edit: In fact he gives three choices when the prop is replaced by a flywheel: 1) It moves forward, 2) It hovers in places and 3) It moves backwards. Choose your favorite.
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Remember that humber occasionally leaves out words like "not" so you have to also add: 4) It doesn't move forward, 5) It doesn't hover in place and 6) It doesn't move backwards.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Hehe, indeed. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. Just give enough options and no matter what, in one way or the other it will be right.
Greetings,
Chris
Yes, that is correct. That is to be expected under the conditions referred to in the remainder of the post.
Yes. Goodman's cart.
That is correct. If there is insufficient drag to dampen the system Q, if may be that it will travel backwards with belt, but at a less than beltspeed. Otherwise, it will remain in place.
Try spinning the cart's propellor without storing momentum in it. Otherwise, your point fails completely.
Yes, Goodman;s cart.
Otherwise, it cannot be done.
But you did.
So, Your Worship, my case rests. I am an idiot.
You went to all that trouble for what? You have even managed to confuse SPork's cart with Goodman's. If you are going to bask in the reflected light of the mistakes of others, at least get it right.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Oh, I just found JB posted a link to another independent test video back at page 29 where they use a cloth or something at about 3 minutes in. The rest is mostly trying different speeds and seeing the effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9owATX8DoI
Sorry spork, you probably watched that already.
Rather in the way that you 'confuse' "like a motor" with "has a motor".
The tether proposal was at least disingenuous, though I was wondering where you were going to fix the other end? Surely not to the treadmill chassis? In order to propose the tether test, you already have to agree that the cart is not traveling at windspeed...
Trite. As you know, a typo. Glory to you. It is of course "not gain.."Can this be tested? Or has it already been established?
So, that's corrected. Now you can tell me what I did mean.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Just watching the wind come off that thing (ETA: the video JB linked to that I posted a minute ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9owATX8DoI) is enough to make the flywheel "theory" laughable. Obviously with a flywheel it would go backwards with the tread at less than tread speed. So would anything. As we see again from his reply above, he's keeping that wriggle room open.
But, humber, what it won't do with a flywheel is maintain its position. It certainly won't pull forwards until it strains a tether. It is therefore not doing what it does just because it's a flywheel on wheels. On that basis I think the jury accepts your plea. You're an idiot. No further questions. Well done, Christian. Have the humber taken away and rotated. ETA: I don't mind if it's CW or CCW.
But, humber, what it won't do with a flywheel is maintain its position. It certainly won't pull forwards until it strains a tether. It is therefore not doing what it does just because it's a flywheel on wheels. On that basis I think the jury accepts your plea. You're an idiot. No further questions. Well done, Christian. Have the humber taken away and rotated. ETA: I don't mind if it's CW or CCW.
Last edited:
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Yes, no one says that something spinning or moving doesn't have momentum. However, the amount of momentum that this tiny little prop with only a few grams of mass stores, according to you, is just ridiculous. Not to mention that it is a prop, and would slow down rather quick because it has to work against the air.
We knew the latter right from the start. Thanks for confirming it, not with this statement, but the other statements in your post.
Ah, i see. You talking about flywheels in connection with both carts is just perfectly ok, but for others it just that they are confusing stuff. Mhhh, alright. Hypocrisy anyone?
So, tell us, what test do you propose for the cart? So far you only claimed you can come up with one, but always tap-dance around if someone actually asks you about the test you think of. If you don't want that people point out your stupid statements, and if you actually want that people understand what you want or mean, then simply don't act stupid and try to make coherent, meaningful statements. So far you miserably failed at both.
Again, what is the test you propose? Answer that by describing a proper test, or simply shut up if you can't. The more other stuff you say, the more material to be ridiculed by others you give.
It's your decision, but if you fail you have to live with the consequences. It's really that simple.
Edit: Oh, and there is absolutely no problem with people making mistakes. Usually they recognize their error, correct it, and that's it. However, if one persist on pushing his errors forward, no matter how often by how many people he is told to be wrong, then this is nothing else than food for ridicule.
Last edited:
THANK GOODNESS - HUMBER IS BACK!!! I was beginning to fear this thread was going to die with dignity.
But now the scientist has returned. He can post 60 pages of "theory" (such as the great "hopping" theory), but his theories can't make a single one sentence prediction.
But now the scientist has returned. He can post 60 pages of "theory" (such as the great "hopping" theory), but his theories can't make a single one sentence prediction.
There are not many certainties in life, but that you would make that retort, is one of them.
Have you tested the cart with a weight over the wheels so that we can all see it go backwards down the belt?
Why haven't you done that?
Can't be lack of time, because you had lots for Greg London's device.
Well. I don't see that it is so important. Another video made by an incompetent engineer, is unlikely to persuade me. A preponderance of mistakes only make things worse, really.
The flywheel on wheels is Goodman's cart. If you want to confuse it with something else because the difference is to subtle for you, then continue to bray. If you understood what I meant by system Q, then you would able make the distinction, but you don't.
Put a weight over the cart's drive wheel, so that it is in good contact with the belt, so that we can all see it go backwards down the belt.
There you go, for the nth time.
Got that? Do that one.