Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Must be the massive amount of momentum that the prop stored during startup. You know, a few grams of plastic can do that in the humberverse.
Down wind faster than the wind
- Thread starter my_wan
- Start date
Must be the massive amount of momentum that the prop stored during startup. You know, a few grams of plastic can do that in the humberverse.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
I'd like to remind everybody that any test that would be done according to what humber wants is automatically wrong. And that's his words.
First he said:
"...you are guilty of experimental fitting; adjusting your experiment to achieve the desired result. That invalidates all your evidence."
Then he said:
"I don't care how "carefully" you did the experiment, because you will not carry it through to the correct conclusion, would that mean anything."
So, no matter what test setup you do, you will do it wrong. And if you did it right to get the outcome he wants, that would mean that the evidence of that test is automatically invalidated. I mean, how can conducting a test so that it yields the result he wants not amount to "experimental fitting"?
First he said:
"...you are guilty of experimental fitting; adjusting your experiment to achieve the desired result. That invalidates all your evidence."
Then he said:
"I don't care how "carefully" you did the experiment, because you will not carry it through to the correct conclusion, would that mean anything."
So, no matter what test setup you do, you will do it wrong. And if you did it right to get the outcome he wants, that would mean that the evidence of that test is automatically invalidated. I mean, how can conducting a test so that it yields the result he wants not amount to "experimental fitting"?
I've never seen a better example of the statement that "it's awfully difficult to get someone to understand when they've decided they don't want to understand. We have humber who claims to have a superior grasp on physics, but can't seem to understand even the most basic aspects of it.
John Freestone on the other hand arrived on the scene a little blustery, but then decided it was time to look at this thing with an open mind. He now claims that he's no physics expert, but it seems to me that he's having no trouble schooling humber even on some relatively subtle concepts. Here's my favorite... An hour ago John didn't know what a kinematic system was (no shame in that). Now he understands it well enough that he can make exactly the right distinctions, and even chuck it back in humber's face - accurately!
On a separate note, if I knew how to make our 5.7 oz passive cart hover above a treadmill and still advance relative to that treadmill, I probably would go make millions on it.
John Freestone on the other hand arrived on the scene a little blustery, but then decided it was time to look at this thing with an open mind. He now claims that he's no physics expert, but it seems to me that he's having no trouble schooling humber even on some relatively subtle concepts. Here's my favorite... An hour ago John didn't know what a kinematic system was (no shame in that). Now he understands it well enough that he can make exactly the right distinctions, and even chuck it back in humber's face - accurately!
On a separate note, if I knew how to make our 5.7 oz passive cart hover above a treadmill and still advance relative to that treadmill, I probably would go make millions on it.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
On a separate note, if I knew how to make our 5.7 oz passive cart hover above a treadmill and still advance relative to that treadmill, I probably would go make millions on it.
...and rightfully so! You would have a highly paid job at NASA in no time at all.
Greetings,
Chris
I hope no one at NASA takes this the wrong way, but I figure that's what I'll do if things go horribly wrong at my current job.
Really, Humber, you're too modest. I'm sure you're higher up the list than that.
The silly thing is that his list works like the rest of his logic. I'll simplify it:
An incomplete list of those Spork regards as idiots:
Anybody who does not agree with Spork.
I don't care if you have a PhD, are a physicist, a professor, work for NASA, or are a brain surgeon. What makes you right is being right. What makes you wrong is being wrong.
Let me offer you a stark example:
JB has very little formal education, but he's a sharp sonofabitch and he understands the dynamics and aerodynamics of this problem far better than most.
Rhett Allain on the other hand is a physics professor ( http://blog.dotphys.net/about/ ), and he thinks Michael C's videos are "too complicated".
I just don't know what more could be said.
Incidentally, I never said anything about anyone who "learned aerodynamics when in prison". I mentioned someone that studied aerodynamics while in prison. If he'd actually learned it that'd be great.
Last edited:
Michael C
Graduate Poster
I am sincerely and truly flabbergasted by Rhett Allain. He is a professor of physics at Southeastern Louisiana University. His home page there says that he's "interested in physics for elementary teachers, computational methods in introductory physics and student understanding of the nature of science." He writes on his blog that he saw my mechanical analogy, but "it looked unnecessarily complicated".
Should we inform his superiors at Southeastern Louisiana University?
Should we inform his superiors at Southeastern Louisiana University?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
It's pretty bizarre. Southeastern Louisiana University is not exactly a shining beacon of quality in higher education, but that really doesn't excuse this. "Unnecessarily complicated" - it's ludicrous.
There was a study a while back that showed that junior faculty with blogs were far less likely to get tenure than those without. Junior faculty with really bad blogs are probably in even more trouble...
It would have been impolite to include you name. However, he does take you for a fool.
I know you don't care. Though you did ask about me. I don't tell, but you shout yours. MSc (?!), 25 patents, Chief Scientist....
Translation - I condescendingly agree that despite JB being uneducated, I flatter myself that he must be smarter than that may imply, because he agrees with me. (The premise being that uneducated implies poor understanding.)
Let me offer you a starker example. You require lack of knowledge as a membership requirement, then use that to insult their intelligence.
I think that perhaps Prof Allain was being kind when he said 'complicated'. Too childish for an adult, yet too convoluted for a child.
Anyway,the video is demonstration of relative displacements, that's all.
So another student who had not learned according to you.
All are examples that you have provided, and the example of the former prisoner was used pejoratively. ( FYI: Prison IQ tests report a higher average than the general public)
Yes, it does. Flat out.
Fitting suggests that Spork stops the experiment when things go wrong. When things appear to be right, they are right. He does not try to falsify his experiments. He is rubbish at experimental science.
No Christian. What it means, is that you have missed the point. The potential for failure but such trivial means (it almost does so in #6), is significant. A precarious balance that determines is the treadmill is a frame of reference or just a treadmill trying to simulate a road.
So there you go "hovering". So what does it mean when it goes backwards?
Not quite at "winsdpeed"? So is should be accelerating towards windspeed at at that time? There appears to be no difference at all. Left, right, back forward. Random motion.
Yes, the wheels can still spin at beltspeed and the cart just sit there and hover/skim/float over the surface if the force is low.
The only way you could get a job at NASA, is if you did "take it the wrong way"I hope no one at NASA takes this the wrong way, but I figure that's what I'll do if things go horribly wrong at my current job.
Last edited:
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,018
Thanks for that, spork, you made my day. It was a case of googling and checking a few dictionary definitions. At this stage I obviously wasn't seriously expecting to find that kinematics represented a valid criticism of Flossie's cart, but I have learned a helluvalot from humber, in a weird kind of a way. I wish I knew what the 'system Q' is - does anyone know what he's on about there? He never gave me a clue. If I'm ever going to understand the humberverse properly...
I looked at more of your videos and was amazed to find the experiment on a bicycle counter-steering. I hadn't seen it when I mentioned the same problem set by my maths teacher at school. I enjoyed the T-Rex ride. The build videos for the cart are great. That's a really beautiful design.
One of the funny things about humber's objections is that there are just so many of them. If the cart didn't work, it would almost certainly be for a single reason, but he's had half a dozen, and they don't even bear any relation to each other, let alone the particular universe in which we live.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
It could simply be a belief that all attempts to explain the world that FSM created are unnecessarily complicated.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Q factorWP is a term used in electronics to describe the quality of a tuned circuit. Q is computed as the ratio of the reactance to the resistance. To translate this to a mechanical system (say a pendulum), Q would be a ratio between the mass of the pendulum to the loss due to friction.
Last edited:
John Freestone
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,018
Examiner: So, Mr Humber, as I showed you, increase the gas and gently let out the clutch pedal. Get the balance wrong one way, we'll roll back down the hill, the other, and we'll move off up the hilll. That's it: you've got them nicely balanced now. Feel that, how we're just hovering?
Humber: Jesus, you mean I'm flying this thing already?
Humber: Jesus, you mean I'm flying this thing already?
I don't know if I've actually seen worse - but I've seen several just as bad. It makes me weep for the state of even our higher institutions of learning. I'd like to believe that when Mythbusters does this segment, some professors will lose thier jobs - but that's just my idle (and evil) imagination running wild.
Again, I can't take much credit for the latest design. For the most part is was shamelessly stolen from Mark C on the heli forum. To say Mark was a skeptic would be an extreme understatement. But when he learned it was possible (when our first cart demonstrated marginal success) he had this little thing built in about 90 minutes - and was standing on the rooftops apologizing for his earlier claims. I have a ton of respect for a guy like Mark, that can not only do his best to test a principle he's sure is invalid, but is quick to admit he made a mistake.
Last edited:
Where was I? Oh yeah, I was commenting on this thread when I suddenly learned a lot about power and energy loss the hard way. The ice storm knocked out the electricity in my town, it took NINE DAYS for the power company to get me back on line, and in the meantime I had to deal with temperatures dropping to 10 F and making sure that my house didn't freeze.
Anyway...
I'm inclined to just continue sitting back to watch this semi-entertaining bunch of words bounce back and forth, but humber "pressed my buttons" by posting a link to lecture notes by a friend and colleague of mine (Prof. Drela). These notes do not at all support humber's position, but it's annoying to see Drela's work being waved around ostensibly in support of a fallacy.
I'm interested in educating the recalcitrant, and we have a clear example here. I'f you'd be willing, humber, I'll engage you in a dialogue here in which I will explain how a cart like the one in the videos can go DDWFTTW. I recognize that your grasp of physics does not allow you to understand how the treadmill test is a direct, excellent demonstration of this, so the dialog will stay away from the treadmill example and deal only with carts moving relative to some big parcel of dirt
At the end of this dialog, I believe* that you will agree that such a cart can work. I don't have any hope right now of getting you to understand that the one in the videos is actually doing so, and you'll be welcome to believe that although it can easily be done, spork et al are committing a fraud**, and their cart isn't actually doing it.
Shall we begin?
(In case you didn't pick up on it, I insulted you several times in the paragraphs above. I would have opened with the traditional "With all due respect...", but I'm already providing more than that.)
*Who am I kidding? Why do I think I can succeed where so many others have failed? What I actually believe is that I'll be faced with a bunch of words from you than have some degrees of syntax, but nothing to redcommend them in the way of semantics.
**There is a major fraud being committed in the videos, by the way, that is clear. It has already been admitted elsewhere that the white plastic thing is not actually a spork.
Anyway...
I'm inclined to just continue sitting back to watch this semi-entertaining bunch of words bounce back and forth, but humber "pressed my buttons" by posting a link to lecture notes by a friend and colleague of mine (Prof. Drela). These notes do not at all support humber's position, but it's annoying to see Drela's work being waved around ostensibly in support of a fallacy.
I'm interested in educating the recalcitrant, and we have a clear example here. I'f you'd be willing, humber, I'll engage you in a dialogue here in which I will explain how a cart like the one in the videos can go DDWFTTW. I recognize that your grasp of physics does not allow you to understand how the treadmill test is a direct, excellent demonstration of this, so the dialog will stay away from the treadmill example and deal only with carts moving relative to some big parcel of dirt
At the end of this dialog, I believe* that you will agree that such a cart can work. I don't have any hope right now of getting you to understand that the one in the videos is actually doing so, and you'll be welcome to believe that although it can easily be done, spork et al are committing a fraud**, and their cart isn't actually doing it.
Shall we begin?
(In case you didn't pick up on it, I insulted you several times in the paragraphs above. I would have opened with the traditional "With all due respect...", but I'm already providing more than that.)
*Who am I kidding? Why do I think I can succeed where so many others have failed? What I actually believe is that I'll be faced with a bunch of words from you than have some degrees of syntax, but nothing to redcommend them in the way of semantics.
**There is a major fraud being committed in the videos, by the way, that is clear. It has already been admitted elsewhere that the white plastic thing is not actually a spork.
Dan's absolutely right of course. But I'd like to clarify that Q factor hasn't got a thing to do with the DDWFTTW cart anymore than "hopping" or "hovering" does (a fact that I'm quite certain Dan understands).
While I think everone but humber understands the following point, I guess it bears mentioning anyway. When I mention that JB has the cart "hovering" on the treadmill, I'm using the term in the 2-dimensional sense. In other words JB has the speed and incline of the treadmill balanced carefully enough that for the moment the cart is neither advancing nor retreating. As you can imagine, the cart is neutrally stable in this configuration (it has no specific tendency to hold its postion, nor does it have a direct tendency to diverge from that position). This particular video was made in response to a skeptic that wanted to see the cart hold position on the treadmill for a longer period of time unnaided. Somehow humber feels the fact that we were able to manage that precarious balance for a little under two minutes proves his bizarre "theory" of operation.