• 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

ThinAirDesigns said:
What values are "too low"? There are no stated values at all in the post you link to.

JB
Click to expand...

In #2442. As I have said, you must show that the weight is sufficient. If may take more than yu think, because the laminar flow of the belt, may lift the wheel.
Perhaps you should address that. The requirement is that firm contact with the belt be demonstrated. I would think that once the sliding stops, then that will probably be enough, but a balance gauge can confirm that should that fail.
 
Christian Klippel said:
Wow, just wow. Talk about incoherent statements.







From three posts in chronological order, all to be found on this single page (page 62).

Is it just me, or does this dude contradict himself each time he says something?

This is just so ridiculous, it aint no fun anymore.
Click to expand...

If you look you will see that I have always claimed the balance has limits. You don't understand my claim, so you are always finding what you see as inconsistencies. If you take the time to do that, then perhaps you can replace the 'fun' with knowledge.
Too much force developed by the prop, will cause the wheels to slip to little, will mean that the cart will go backwards. The critical factor in these two circumstances, is the contact with the belt. Read my reply to Modified.
 
Humber:
As I have said earlier, failure to do this does not actually harm my general argument,
Click to expand...

Yes we know -- When "A" or B" are the only options for results, both results "A" and "B" prove your theory right and our theory wrong.

I'll just go back about a thousand posts and repeat what I said earlier:

In Humberverse there exists no test the outcome of which could falsify humbers model. Every test, every result confirms his model. Every test, every result falsifies everyone elses.


JB
 
Last edited:
humber said:
If may take more than yu think, because the laminar flow of the belt, may lift the wheel.
Click to expand...

If you would apply basic, simple logic you would come to the conclusion that what you state is absolute nonsense.

If the wheels would be lifted from the belt, they could no longer drive the prop. If the prop isn't driven anymore, the cart would be "sucked back" by that flow. In the meantime the prop slows down, decreasing it's momentum (which you are so fond of). If the cart would make contact to the belt again, it would even fall back more since the prop/wheel coupling acts as a brake then due to the lost momentum.

But we can clearly see that the prop is spinning, that the cart does not move back and that indeed the prop supplies enough energy to push against the air to hold the cart in place.

Really, humber, get your stuff straight. As i pointed out in the post before, you are simply contradicting yourself. You want indeed to literally glue the cart to the belt so it moves backwards with it. However, this is not how it works.

Oh, and maybe use some spell checker in the future. By now we just can't be sure if you just make simple spelling errors, or deliberately introduce these errors just to give yourself enough wiggle-room. And to confuse others. You really make it extra hard for others to follow what you actually mean.
 
ThinAirDesigns said:
Humber:


Yes we know -- When "A" or B" are the only options for results, both results "A" and "B" prove your theory right and our theory wrong.

I'll just go back about a thousand posts and repeat: what I said earlier:

In Humberverse there exists no test the outcome of which could falsify humbers model. Every test, every result confirms his model. Every test, every result falsifies ours.


JB
Click to expand...

Do the test properly, then you won't have problem with B. Of course, if you do not read my claims, and do not take them into account is your tests, then that also confirms that you do not take much heed of what is said to you.
My world is not on trial, yours is.
 
humber said:
If you look you will see that I have always claimed the balance has limits. You don't understand my claim, so you are always finding what you see as inconsistencies. If you take the time to do that, then perhaps you can replace the 'fun' with knowledge.
Too much force developed by the prop, will cause the wheels to slip to little, will mean that the cart will go backwards. The critical factor in these two circumstances, is the contact with the belt. Read my reply to Modified.
Click to expand...

I did read it. And the very first sentence of it was:

humber said:
It is not a question of the wheels slipping, Modified.
Click to expand...

Maybe YOU should go back, read your own posts and try to understand your very own inconsistent claims.

Again, you said that "it is not a question of the wheels slipping" just to state the opposite afterwards (oh, and before, of course).

Do you really think that we are as dumb as you?
 
Modified said:
#2446:

Well, which is it?
Click to expand...

Not sliding, the wheels need not slip to do that!
In practice, there will be much greater friction than is seen in the demos. This is unrealistically low. Only because the cart is a minimizing balance, can such low friction support the cart where it is.
 
Christian Klippel said:
I did read it. And the very first sentence of it was:



Maybe YOU should go back, read your own posts and try to understand your very own inconsistent claims.

Again, you said that "it is not a question of the wheels slipping" just to state the opposite afterwards (oh, and before, of course).

Do you really think that we are as dumb as you?
Click to expand...

If you understood, you would not ask that question. If you can't let go of preconceived ideas, then you are destined to reiterate them.
The arguments are not inconsistent, is is just that you cannot see how one limit relates to the other ,so the smallest change of expression or context confuses you.
Do you want to know how it works? I will gladly explain if you have a direct and relevant question.
 
Christian Klippel said:
If you would apply basic, simple logic you would come to the conclusion that what you state is absolute nonsense.

If the wheels would be lifted from the belt, they could no longer drive the prop. If the prop isn't driven anymore, the cart would be "sucked back" by that flow. In the meantime the prop slows down, decreasing it's momentum (which you are so fond of). If the cart would make contact to the belt again, it would even fall back more since the prop/wheel coupling acts as a brake then due to the lost momentum.

But we can clearly see that the prop is spinning, that the cart does not move back and that indeed the prop supplies enough energy to push against the air to hold the cart in place.

Really, humber, get your stuff straight. As i pointed out in the post before, you are simply contradicting yourself. You want indeed to literally glue the cart to the belt so it moves backwards with it. However, this is not how it works.

Oh, and maybe use some spell checker in the future. By now we just can't be sure if you just make simple spelling errors, or deliberately introduce these errors just to give yourself enough wiggle-room. And to confuse others. You really make it extra hard for others to follow what you actually mean.
Click to expand...

No, wrong. You see only yes or no. It is non-linear.
And if that process, you describe (not me, to make that clear to you ) took 1mS?
 
Last edited:
humber said:
Not sliding, the wheels need not slip to do that!
In practice, there will be much greater friction than is seen in the demos. This is unrealistically low. Only because the cart is a minimizing balance, can such low friction support the cart where it is.
Click to expand...

What a bucket full of bull. What the wheel do in the demo's IS the practice. To assume that on the treadmill it would be different than on a street would involve magic to make the cart literally hovering above the belt.

Again, if there would be no "friction" between the belt and the wheels, the wheels could not drive the prop up to the point that the cart stays stable or even advances.

Man, you really, really have no clue at all. Your statements are really beyond being ridiculous. They are just pure fantasy of a deluded mind. You just don't want that the cart to do what it does, which is predicted that it does. You want that just because it doesn't fit in your small mind. You are unable to grasp the concept but fail to recognize that it is you who doesn't understand. Instead you try to come up with ridiculous stuff designed to make it fail just to prove your nonsensical point.

As i said, what you do is equivalent to claiming that an aeroplane can not be tested in a wind tunnel, and just to prove that you insist on having the wings chopped of before it is placed in the wind tunnel. That such a test doesn't make any sense at all when it comes to real-world situations is just beyond you. Your only focus is to make it fail, no matter what.
 
In any case, i'm done with that fool. He's not worth my time anymore. There is a limit as to how much stupidity and arrogance i can handle, and humber is far beyond that threshold by now.

I'll let have the other's have fun with him while i'm going to compile the "best of humberphysics" in the next days. I may even expand it to a chapter on "best of humberlogic". That should serve as a really good example of the fact that there is really no limit on stupidity.
 
Tons more spewage on his "theories" and still not able to make a single prediction.

I'm beginning to thing humber is a stock market analyst. He's got all the bizarre theories in the world to explain absolutely anything - but is unable to offer anything remotely resembling a prediction.
 
Last edited:
Christian Klippel said:
What a bucket full of bull. What the wheel do in the demo's IS the practice. To assume that on the treadmill it would be different than on a street would involve magic to make the cart literally hovering above the belt.
Click to expand...
No, that's what it is claimed is done, but it does not.

There you go, you're almost there. Do real carts slip and slide about and be so easily be pushed back against the supposed direction of travel? Is that what you would expect of a cart weighing 6.5oz, traveling at say, 10mph?
Yes, it IS hovering.

So if the treadmill is not like the street, do you think that it is at least possible that it could 'hover'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom