I bet you have been, but it's not polite to call him that.
Conclusion;- Can't bluff way out of killer test. Feign resignation.
Down wind faster than the wind
- Thread starter my_wan
- Start date
I bet you have been, but it's not polite to call him that.
Conclusion;- Can't bluff way out of killer test. Feign resignation.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Hi JB,
Well, that would at least give some fun on the bukkake part ;-D But this here is just beyond anything that any sane person can swallow.
Greetings,
Chris
You don't agree that it s not even possible that is is hovering, and if you stop that hovering by making the cart connect better to the belt, that it may stop hovering and go back with the belt? Is that something you see as impossible?
Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
So your argument now is that the cart is hovering above the belt, but the wheels are not slipping? If so, how can you tell when it is not hovering?
davefoc
Philosopher
There is a fairly straightforward theory on the table as to how this works. (Although I was slower than most to understand it). There are simple plausbility arguments that have been made for the possibility of the phenomena, there is a range of empirical evidence available for the phenomena and there are patient people in this thread who have attempted to understand humber's doubts and respond to them. And yet humber plows ahead without any suggestion that any test or argument is capable of affecting his ideas.
I say this somewhat reluctantly because I think humber is sincere. This thread needs a humber filter. The humber dialog is not producing information or entertainment for most of the likely readers of this thread. In fact it has diluted the value of this thread so much that probably the average person that might have derived something from it will not, given what has gone on here.
To humber, I say this. If spork and others are committing a fraud and misrepresenting their results they are not all of a sudden going to reveal the truth to you. If they have gone on this long they will certainly go on longer no matter what you say. So any efforts by you along this line are unlikely to produce any results that you will be happy with.
You do not seem to be capable of grasping the relatively simple explanation that has been put forward to explain the phenomena. If you were going to make any headway with most of us who believe the theory and who believe spork and others you would need to start with a description of the theory in your own words and why you think the theory is wrong and why you believe that the effect is impossible.
And frankly that would not be easy. To disprove the qualitative theory you would need to present quantitative evidence based on calculations showing either that the energy balance would not allow this phenomena to exist or that the force balance would not allow this phenomena to exist. This would be computationally difficult and I doubt that you are capable of it even if you were correct and I think that is very unlikely.
Right now, humber, I believe that you have become victim of something that we are all subject to. An unjustified belief that we are right despite the existence of substantial evidence that we aren't. If you are truly interested in the truth about this phenomena I hope that you would consider this possibility and if you choose to continue posting take that into consideration in what you post in the future.
I say this somewhat reluctantly because I think humber is sincere. This thread needs a humber filter. The humber dialog is not producing information or entertainment for most of the likely readers of this thread. In fact it has diluted the value of this thread so much that probably the average person that might have derived something from it will not, given what has gone on here.
To humber, I say this. If spork and others are committing a fraud and misrepresenting their results they are not all of a sudden going to reveal the truth to you. If they have gone on this long they will certainly go on longer no matter what you say. So any efforts by you along this line are unlikely to produce any results that you will be happy with.
You do not seem to be capable of grasping the relatively simple explanation that has been put forward to explain the phenomena. If you were going to make any headway with most of us who believe the theory and who believe spork and others you would need to start with a description of the theory in your own words and why you think the theory is wrong and why you believe that the effect is impossible.
And frankly that would not be easy. To disprove the qualitative theory you would need to present quantitative evidence based on calculations showing either that the energy balance would not allow this phenomena to exist or that the force balance would not allow this phenomena to exist. This would be computationally difficult and I doubt that you are capable of it even if you were correct and I think that is very unlikely.
Right now, humber, I believe that you have become victim of something that we are all subject to. An unjustified belief that we are right despite the existence of substantial evidence that we aren't. If you are truly interested in the truth about this phenomena I hope that you would consider this possibility and if you choose to continue posting take that into consideration in what you post in the future.
Last edited:
CyCrow
Scholar
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 115
I think it's time for a poll. If the most eloquent of the proponents and opponents can summarise their position in a single post, we can get an idea of who has the most persuasive argument.
For the proponents (I'm one) I suggest outlining both the tacking spiraling iceboats analogy and the energy analysis (power available at the wheels is less than the power needed to accelerate air backwards to produce thrust, as long as there is sufficient relative motion between air and ground, and that propeller/driveshaft efficiency is high enough).
For undisputed facts, we have:
1. Iceboats can sail with a higher downwind component than windspeed.
2. The propeller on the cart is powered by the wheels, not the other way around.
3. The cart is not an overunity device.
4. The cart can be analysed with basic newtonian physics, no relativity, coriolis effects, etc are relevant.
5. Only the air and the surface affect the cart.
(+ probably more. I would add the equivalence of the treadmill to travelling on a road at windspeed, but hey...)
I suggest letting people gather their arguments for a few posts before posting a poll.
// CyCrow
For the proponents (I'm one) I suggest outlining both the tacking spiraling iceboats analogy and the energy analysis (power available at the wheels is less than the power needed to accelerate air backwards to produce thrust, as long as there is sufficient relative motion between air and ground, and that propeller/driveshaft efficiency is high enough).
For undisputed facts, we have:
1. Iceboats can sail with a higher downwind component than windspeed.
2. The propeller on the cart is powered by the wheels, not the other way around.
3. The cart is not an overunity device.
4. The cart can be analysed with basic newtonian physics, no relativity, coriolis effects, etc are relevant.
5. Only the air and the surface affect the cart.
(+ probably more. I would add the equivalence of the treadmill to travelling on a road at windspeed, but hey...)
I suggest letting people gather their arguments for a few posts before posting a poll.
// CyCrow
Last edited:
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I quit!
I cannot participate in this thread and follow the forum rules that prohibit making derogatory statements about a posters sanity.
I am putting humber back on permanent ignore now that he has proven incapable of articulating a test that proves his case. I strongly encourage everyone that cannot resist calling humber names to also put him on ignore and stop responding to him. This is for your own good. If a moderator wandered by this thread they would probably suspend the lot of us and close the thread.
PS: humber, you still owe JREF that $100 donation.
I cannot participate in this thread and follow the forum rules that prohibit making derogatory statements about a posters sanity.
I am putting humber back on permanent ignore now that he has proven incapable of articulating a test that proves his case. I strongly encourage everyone that cannot resist calling humber names to also put him on ignore and stop responding to him. This is for your own good. If a moderator wandered by this thread they would probably suspend the lot of us and close the thread.
PS: humber, you still owe JREF that $100 donation.
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
Well, that's that. As JB says, he and spork and other experimenters have sucessfully demonstrated that the cart moves forwards, not backwards, when there is sufficient weight on the drive wheels to give them good traction. Surprise surprise. Kind of like when I get in my car without sheet ice on the roads or large balloons of helium tied to the roof. Hey there's a good test - tie helium balloons to your cart until it's got almost no traction - why? I can't remember. What was the question again?
And Humber has demonstrated that he's a master of getting out of the tight corners he puts himself in, even when you think all the exits are covered and he's about to actually commit to something one way or the other, face the music...no, it's "non-linear". His answers are non-linear.
He says "My position is that it is irrelevant", when the question was "What is your position?". And he's right; it is. Humber's position is utterly irrelevant. We should probably stop asking him what it is.
He knows more about the cart than anyone until you ask him to demonstrate that knowledge, and then you're just showing how ignorant you are about your own cart, and so, since you're so ignorant, maybe you'd you like him to tell you what it's really doing? It's monstrous conceit.
And Humber has demonstrated that he's a master of getting out of the tight corners he puts himself in, even when you think all the exits are covered and he's about to actually commit to something one way or the other, face the music...no, it's "non-linear". His answers are non-linear.
He says "My position is that it is irrelevant", when the question was "What is your position?". And he's right; it is. Humber's position is utterly irrelevant. We should probably stop asking him what it is.
He knows more about the cart than anyone until you ask him to demonstrate that knowledge, and then you're just showing how ignorant you are about your own cart, and so, since you're so ignorant, maybe you'd you like him to tell you what it's really doing? It's monstrous conceit.
Humber, perhaps it's time to build your own cart and see what is happening in person on your own treadmill. Once you see and understand what the cart is doing on the treadmill, you should be able to see the connection with an outdoor test. If not, you can take it outside and see for yourself - or chase it around with an electric fan if you want to. I see this as the only possible way that you will be convinced of what the cart is doing. No, it isn't doing what you claim it is.
No, it is not "hovering" in any sense of the word and certainly not in the way you mean. It is not slipping and sliding around, it is acting exactly as it should when the wheels are fully in contact with the surface, showing that the cart is fully capable of moving up the belt and thus demonstrating that it will go faster than the wind speed in an outdoor test. It will be very easy for you to press the drive wheels of your very own cart firmly onto the treadmill surface and verify that the rpm of the prop doesn't change in response.
Let us know what you find and we can then suggest more tests if needed.
Oh yes, almost forgot, you won't ever build one for some reason.
Last edited:
davefoc
Philosopher
This looked exactly right. But I'll quibble with the term "basic Newtonian physics". I think what you meant by that was that with only the use of Newtonian physics somebody with sufficient expertise could model the behavior of the cart. I think you are right with that meaning.
But "basic" in the sense of simple Newtonian physics probably wouldn't suffice.
As the cart's speed goes past the down wind speed the available power from the wheels goes up, the thrust from the propeller goes up, the efficiency of the propeller changes, the power used to produce that thrust goes up, the cart's friction losses go up and the drag from the propeller goes up. This seems like a pretty complicated situation to me where an understanding of "basic" Newtonian physics doesn't lead easily to a quantitative description of the situation.
Possibly true. But I think of humber as the background noise that keeps the vox open. When people post comments to the YouTube video I frequently send them here. When someone comes here with genuine questions or concerns I try to ignore humber and address that person. I agree however, that if someone just stumbled onto this thread they'd be hard pressed to make much sense out of it when the SNR is around 0.01
You're right of course. But if we're committing a fraud we're pretty darn bad at it. We've posted parts lists, build plans, and are even building a number of carts for people that have requested them. In a few days I'll have a comprehensive "build" video on YouTube. This would be the most easily exposed fraud in the history of frauds.
Are you serious!? I'm surprised he can feed himself. If he can't even type one single sentence with a prediction of how our cart should behave, how on earth is he going to spend the entire 90 minutes it would take to build one?
I should point out that we sometimes use plastic wheels with rubber tires and sometimes without the rubber tires. When we go without the rubber tires the traction is less than perfect. The slipping leads to POORER performance, not better. For that reason I have added weight to the cart on occassion. In particular I've taped a couple of 9V batteries to the bottom of the gear case to improve the traction. With improved traction the cart works BETTER.
With the plain plastic wheels we've also used rubber bands as treads and even masking tape. When the cart is well built with minimum friction it performs quite nicely without the rubber rims, and is slightly easier to keep on the belt since the edges of the belt tend to turn up slightly.
Oh yes, almost forgot, you won't ever build one for some reason.
There you go - your boundless optimism had surprised me.
ThinAirDesigns
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
Agreed DanO. My apologies to the Mods. I will do the right thing and avoid the absurdity.
JB
JB
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
You are right, Dan. In the heat of the "debate" i might not always have said the nicest things. However, i'm not editing my posts afterwards now (Yes, you have not suggested that. I'm just saying.). If there are consequences for me, so what. I stand to what i said.
Having said that, it's pretty sure that i don't respond any more to his posts.
Greetings,
Chris
Always has been. I have said that it is floating above the belt, scarcely in contact withe the belt...
When it does not slip and slide as indicated in the video. When the friction is comparable to that of the road it is said to emulate. There is not scaling effect, because is is 1:1 model.
What are the angular velocity of the wheel as a function of the belt speed and wheel radii when the cart is floating above the belt and the cart has no motion relative to the room?
No, you left tour skepticism at the door. The frames idea is false. Without empirical test, I can demonstrate that it is indeed possible to show that the frames can be identified, and also that the treadmill wind is palpably and effectively different from real wind. The whole basis of the claim is false.
The level of plausibility is not good. Anecdotal, empirical evidence. Some posters have been patient that is true, but that is not the same as convincing or demonstrable. TAD themselves, have well fallen short on that and the standard of their evidence. I and others have proposed many tests, but none have been done.
I appreciate that, but perhaps its not for you. This is forum for debate, not advertising space for TAD. If I have diluted the thread, it is because I am at least keeping them at bay. They do not want me to extend that, so obfuscate over matters that are quite clear. A standard method.
I am persistently calling them upon their claims. If they could deny them, they would have already done so. The treadmill is central because it supports the whole idea of frames and the claim of actual faster than wind travel. The fact the the cart is simply floating, invalidates that support. Then what do you have ? A smaller version of a 50 year old design. Did Bauer use "frames of reference" to support his design?
The claims are false. Do you want to spend your time sincerely discussing them?
Yes, that is the usual M.O. Why fraud? Why not simply wrong?
I think that you are suggesting that because a salesman may eventually wear you down, you should save time and yield at the first instance.
There is no diffiuclty with the ideas. They are trivial. On what basis do you develop a theory upon false claims? There is nothing to explain. The treadmill is is no way connected with wind travel at all. The cart can be explained by standard physics.
Ask the engineers working on the Ventomobile if they think otherwise.
[/QUOTE]
And frankly that would not be easy. To disprove the qualitative theory you would need to present quantitative evidence based on calculations showing either that the energy balance would not allow this phenomena to exist or that the force balance would not allow this phenomena to exist. This would be computationally difficult and I doubt that you are capable of it even if you were correct and I think that is very unlikely.
[/QUOTE]
How so? Where is the data. That would be equivocated anyway. Spork likes trial by video, so that is an appropriate method. It is a force balance, that is the case.
That is your opinion, of course. What evidence? No tests have been performed except those the serve TAD's interests. I could ask why do you want to believe is something that has no basis in science, and the authors seem unwilling to risk their ideas being falsified? Which part of my test is not clear? When that runs out it's back to the same old routine of ad hom.
The treadmill is not an accepted scientific tool, yet it is used to publicly discredit all who should question any of Spork's ideas. Nice, and circular.
As opposed to proving your case.
Humber, perhaps it's time to build your own cart and see what is happening in person on your own treadmill. Once you see and understand what the cart is doing on the treadmill, you should be able to see the connection with an outdoor test. If not, you can take it outside and see for yourself - or chase it around with an electric fan if you want to. I see this as the only possible way that you will be convinced of what the cart is doing. No, it isn't doing what you
Oh yes, almost forgot, you won't ever build one for some reason.
Not my cart, the test is simple, but damning. Physically impossible to build a treadmill at this time.
It is not possible to clearly see the drive wheel, that is the important wheel. but the claim is that it is that of the belt. The prop rpm is related to that. It can therefore be calculated to see if that is so.
All the time. The cart goes no faster than it appears to.
Yes, you have a histoy that backs that claim. Yeah, right.
You are too transparent to commit effective fraud. Perhaps its not money that is your goal.
I can predict how your little toy works just by looking at it. I do not need your tools. Do the test as described.
No, the sliding must stop, otherwise the claim is false.
So you agree, it only works within a given range of friction, as I have stated.
The adjustments are therefore experimental fitting to ensure the outcome.]