• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Perhaps you need to look at the context of the reply. An aeroengineer should have seen that perhaps there is a distinction concerning negative drag, rather than your interpenetration. Negative resistance phenomenon occur in all sorts or things, including air.
3. What's the "energy of the spheres"?
4. Which way does a piece of paper bend if you wave it through the air?

[ETA: whoops, missed one:

5. What the hell are you on about now? Words are supposed to have meanings. You're just spouting codswallop again! Go on. Give me another good laugh. What are the bubbles that form in air, the "cavities" that alter its drag by "cavitation", pray tell?

P.S. You should be careful talking about other people's interpenetration like that. As it happens, I'm pretty cool about it, but...]
 
Last edited:
Try again. Air is a fluid. For someone who knew nothing about it, you seem to have learned a lot in a short time. I also said "sometimes".
Oh, I've known about cavitation for a very long time. I, too, am waiting with bated breath to find out the nature of the bubbles in the air. What do you suppose is in them? Plasma? Vacuum? Soap? Straw men?

(Also, nobody seems to have pursued it, but I have been curious about humber's assertion that the contact patch has to move behind the axle in order for a wheel to move, and that this is a difference between the cart on the treadmill and the cart on the road. I have no idea why he is saying this, and it seems like the implications could reveal still more interesting things about the humberverse.)
 
I think that I have shown at least 3* ways in which "treadmill wind" is not like real wind.
Gravity and friction dependence, the boundary problem, the lack of actual wind power or motion, the way the wheels spin at "windspeed" that contradicts motion, no velocity w.r.t the ground, no significant KE from any "frame". Operator interference, instant acceleration to winspeed, experimental fitting, falsifiability, no ground (the belt is not the road, but the earth), lack of any work and of course the solution to the cart 'balance' claim. Other than that, it's 100% good.
You may think that you've done it (dreams are free after all), but you actually haven't. In my opinion, you haven't convinced anybody of anything that supports your long-running fantasy that "'treadmill wind' is not like real wind", in any way at all. But in the interests of keeping the record straight, is this list above still current and complete from your perspective?

* I have new one. Post later today.
Just in case you forgot about this also... it's about 36 hours later now... I need a laugh and I'm still waiting...

ETA3: I've just been re-reading your older posts. Perhaps the trolley scenario you put to H'ethetheth was "the new one"?

ETA1: Did you mean just "3 ways", or "13 ways"? A naive count looks more like the latter, (ETA2: although perhaps you ran out of fingers and just started again?) Perhaps you could restate the list as bullet points (and on separate lines) just to make it quite clear which items are truly distinct in your view, and which are simply related or supporting claims.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I've known about cavitation for a very long time. I, too, am waiting with bated breath to find out the nature of the bubbles in the air. What do you suppose is in them? Plasma? Vacuum? Soap? Straw men?
:D Well, they contribute to negative drag, and must be something to do with molecules or sub-atomic particle physics. I wonder if they're negative dragons.

(Also, nobody seems to have pursued it, but I have been curious about humber's assertion that the contact patch has to move behind the axle in order for a wheel to move, and that this is a difference between the cart on the treadmill and the cart on the road. I have no idea why he is saying this, and it seems like the implications could reveal still more interesting things about the humberverse.)
Hmm. Depends what you mean by 'pursue'. I asked, but just once. No answer. Shall I add it to the list?
 
Last edited:
From WIKI
Cavitation is defined as the phenomenon of formation of vapour bubbles of a flowing liquid in a region where the pressure of the liquid falls below its vapour pressure.

Full Link:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation

So we can add "Gas" "Liquid" "Fluid" and "Cavitation" to words Humber doesn't know the meaning of!

Come on Humber, you've been caught out. Cavitation can only occur in a liquid. You have used a word you clearly didn't understand. JUST ONCE admit you were wrong.

You might fin it uplifting...
 
This calculation is no possible without the actual data of the cart, otherwise all carts would be the same.
Your technique. Form a conclusion. Make an ad-hoc numerical example that supports that conclusion, and ask then that it be denied, while the only data is that which you have imagined. Real cart data please. ( or chute, kite..)

I just want to be clear on this, humber. You are saying that there isn't enough information for you to answer my first question? I'm only asking a question to see if you can do some math like you say you can. Providing a proof of the amount of force available is futile if you can't follow along.

My technique is better expressed as attempt an explanation only for you either to ignore it because you don't understand it, or flatly and without any logical (to people in the real world) reason, deny that it has any relevance because it doesn't talk about KE.

Still, the cart seems to work a lot like a toy car on a sheet of paper. I can get mine to stay still on a supermarket belt by adding the appropriate number of coins to weight it. Still, with your knowledge of physics, you should be able to tell me why.

Easy: look up Newton's first law.

ETA:
One is enough. The BMW team think so. One fewer results in no model at all.
The mistake is to think that a car; a powered car driving along a road, is like that same car, stationary on a backwards belt running at the same speed. It is not. Now, here we do not even have air to worry about, yet it is not only wrong, but impossible. Care to tell me that is not true? Assume no air drag if you like.

Har-har, "assume no air drag". The BMW team is testing the movement of air over their cars. When they want to include the effects of the tires turning, they start the treadmill. Obviously they know a lot more about what they are doing and what they are testing than you do.

Here's the question again. If you can;t get an answer using the information provided, you won't be able to follow my proof, as it requires a working knowledge of numbers and such.

"I will ask you to consider the following scenario that makes use of normal physics. Remember that the ground is considered to be flat and smooth.

A fishing reel with lots of line is attached by a scale to the ground. The other end of the fishing line is attached to a sail cart. The sail cart with a fishing line attached to it is released in a 10 mph wind. It reaches 9 mph, losing 1 mph because of rolling resistance.

You apply the brake on the fishing reel to slow the cart down to 8 mph and read the amount of pull (force) on the scale. Let's say it reads 100 grams. Based on these numbers, what is the rolling resistance of the cart when it is traveling at 9 mph in a 10 mph wind?

Now you slow the cart to 6 mph. What is the reading on the scale now?"

Just for the record, and before I post the answers and without anyone else posting answers, does anyone else feel that there isn't enough information to answer the questions?
 
Last edited:
"I will ask you to consider the following scenario that makes use of normal physics. Remember that the ground is considered to be flat and smooth.

A fishing reel with lots of line is attached by a scale to the ground. The other end of the fishing line is attached to a sail cart. The sail cart with a fishing line attached to it is released in a 10 mph wind. It reaches 9 mph, losing 1 mph because of rolling resistance.

You apply the brake on the fishing reel to slow the cart down to 8 mph and read the amount of pull (force) on the scale. Let's say it reads 100 grams. Based on these numbers, what is the rolling resistance of the cart when it is traveling at 9 mph in a 10 mph wind?

Now you slow the cart to 6 mph. What is the reading on the scale now?"

Just for the record, and before I post the answers and without anyone else posting answers, does anyone else feel that there isn't enough information to answer the questions?
I must admit that I found this problem description a little difficult to follow Mender. I'll PM you in a few minutes with my specific comments so as not to spoil any aspect of it for anybody else, and then you can choose whether to ignore what I say altogether or make changes, etc. :blush:

ETA: PM Sent. Already wondering if I'm looking at this in all the wrong ways (probably!) but will not muddy the waters any further. Over to you now.
 
Last edited:
humber:
I mention the maximum power theorem,

I'm an electrical engineer, and that's an electrical engineering term. wikipedia agrees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_theorem

In EE, all it means is that if you have an amplifier with an internal resistance of 4 ohms, then if you want to transfer maximum power to the load, it should be 4 ohms too.

Do you have a URL to the Maximum power theorem you're talking about?

Also, out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

I don't know. Too complicated and a lot of guessing? Power is not measured like that.

Huh? Power is work per time. Work is force times distance.

Power (watts)=force(newtons) * distance(meters) / time (seconds)

If you can extract 10 watts of power from a windmill, you can lift 1 kg at 1 vertical meters per second, or half a Kg at 2 m/s, or 2 kg at one-half m/s or whatever, it's all 10 watts.

Oh, and I thought of a better electro-generator cart design.

take a cart, attach a tower with a propeller on top. have the shaft of the prop drive the shaft of a generator. have the casing of the generator sit on it's own set of bearings too. The casing will be connected via a gearbox to the rear axle. The rear axle will spin the outer casing of the generator. The propeller will spin the center shaft of the generator. say we use gearboxes and propeller pitches so that 1 mph translates into 100 rpm rotation, for the prop shaft or the generator casing.

Now, with the cart standing still, in a 10 mph tailwind, the wheels are stationary and so the casing is stationary. The propeller feels a 10 mph wind, so it spins at 1000 rpm. The case is stationary.

The electrical generator is rated to put out 12 watts of power at 1000 rpm.

So take the 12 watts and put it into a motor driving the front tire, this starts accelerating the car to 1 mph.

At 1 mph, the prop feels 9 mph of wind so it spins at 900 rpm. But the cart has a ground speed of 1 mph, so the back wheel spins the generator casing at 100 rpm. The rpm of the shaft compared to the casing is 1000 rpm. so, 24 watts, so continue acclerating.

when the cart is moving at 10 mph, the prop doesn't feel any wind, so the shaft of the generator isn't moving compared to the cart. but the wheels of the cart are turning at 10 mph, turning the generator casing at 1000 rpm, so 24 watts, so continue accelerating.

The generator puts out some amount of power based on the RPM between the shaft and casing of teh generator. Normally, the casing is stationary, and you just have to deal with the RPM of the prop. But if we mount the casing of the prop to the body of the cart, the generator won't put out power when the cart is moving at windspeed.

By making the tires turn the casing, and by making the prop-mph-to-shaft-rpm the same as the wheel-mph-to-casing-rpm, we're guaranteed that the propeller to shaft RPM is always constant, regardless of the speed of the cart compared to the wind. The only thing that matters is the speed of teh wind compared to the ground, and the size of the prop which determins how much power you can actually convert per mph.
 
This stuff is not really correct Greg. If an inertial frame is "nothing more than a frame of reference moving at a fixed velocity", then what frame are you using to measure that velocity against. Can it be any old frame? I think not! And "if you're moving at a fixed velocity, you're in an inertial frame and that's all there is to it" is also incorrect. Let's say I'm fixed to a rotating surface and my frame of reference is rotating with that plane. My velocity is zero, but I'm certainly not in an inertial frame.


If you're fixed to a rotating surface then you are constantly accelerating (in a circle). If you are accelerating, then you do not have a fixed (unchanging) velocity.

Anything which is not undergoing acceleration can be used to measure velocity against (and consequently, used as a frame of reference).

If I'm floating through space (hopefully in a space-suit) I can use myself as a reference, and accurately determine that my velocity is precicely zero, as measured from my own frame of reference.
 
As in mind over-energy? Isn't that when smoke starts coming out of one's ears? Not that it matters ...

Greg, better check your last big post, it appears that you suddenly went from producing 12 watts to 24 watts with the same relative generator speed.
 
You have not manged to demonstrate how your fisg tank is like the treadmill.


Oooh! Treadmill... fish... Python senses tingling...

Monty Python said:
Bishop of Leicester: It is the dawn of time. This earth we know so well is a smoldering, inhospitable place. No plants grow,
no creature can survive. The hard, uncrackable rocks that form our mountain ranges our being crushed and folded by forces
that will take millions of years to shape. These are the forces! This is the power that drives the hand that drinks "Treadmill",
the mighty lager, with the world's first great taste of fish!
Recording Coordinator: Bishop, don't say "of fish".
Bishop of Leicester: Uhm?
Recording Coordinator: Don't say "of fish" in the end. It doesn't mean anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom