(quoting the original post in the first quote block. The rest are simple quotes. But everything is from the same post)
Not "in general" Humber, you specifically said "maximum power theorem". One doesn't cite an actual theorem and then say you were only talking about power "in general".
(1) Do your own work, Greg, or accept mine
(2) Electrical maximum power theorem is one manifestation of that theorem.
Conversion if necessary, can be made using in the standard list of analogues.
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/analogy.html
So, I may not be the best person to work with you because I generally have certain expectations of people beyond formulas and equations. A big one for me is I generally expect people (myself included) to acknowledge when they make mistakes.
I do not want to hear any more of this crap. Admitting mistakes is just that.
Why make a fuss? Is it that I should have the expectation that you are infallible? Those who prevaricate or deliberately try to misunderstand, are taken for short ride down humber lane...or runway.
I screwed up earlier talking about inertial frames and ended up making a confusing glob of words with reference frames. They're not the same. Someone pointed it out, I admitted I screwed up. I screwed up with another post with the scenario where the cart used a generator and electric motor and it always generated 12 watts. Except at one point I wrote 24 watts. Someone pointed it out. I admitted I screwed up. I had a cart design using one moving part and fixed vanes. It doesn't work. I admitted I screwed up.
What will you do should you make a
big mistake, Greg? Spontaneously combust?
Perhaps the pain of admission would be more tolerable, if you did not so often simply assume you are right.
(I have not looked at that, model yet, but I bet there are more mistakes...)
You cited a specific theorem that has only one meaning, specifically relating to electrical resistors. It has nothing to do with newtonian objects moving around. And I would expect someone to say "Yeah, I was wrong" when its pointed out, not "I was talking about power in general".
Except that it is not wrong. This is typical. Narrowing the definition to try and shift the blame. Considering that you were, and still are, entirely ignorant of this theorem, perhaps you are wrong again.
Let me help you out. I was wrong, power transfer is organized and controlled by elves. Happy now?
You are being illogical; why ask a liar to tell the truth? If I were to be such a liar, do you expect that I would wilt under the glare of your piercing interrogation?
Either way it's all about you and hubris! None of you see that.
What it means to me is trying to teach you something means not only overcoming whatever hurdle there may be in understanding that thing, it means also overcoming whatever hurdle there is in getting you to admit a mistake so we can move on to whatever the correct thing is.
I gave you more than enough information, Greg. How do you think I learned it? Do your homework. Easy science has long gone.
If you say 24 watts when it's really 12 watts and you refuse to actually say "Yeah, its 12 watts, I was wrong when I said 24", then I have no way of knowing if you still think its 24 or if you've realized your mistake, understood the problem, and have correctly figured out that its 12 watts.
F...
And if I can't tell if you've corrected a mistake, then I have no way of knowing if we're ever making any progress. And I like to make progress. So, you're avoidance of coming out and admitting when you're wrong has removed one of my big incentives to engage in conversation with someone.
Progress is not made through this method. Assuming all "mistakes" are deception or evasion, should be left at the church door. It is your lack of understanding and willingness to learn that are the obstacles. If you want to save face, stick it in the sand. Enough.
"If at first you don't succeed, fail again, fail better" (Beckett). Get it?
For me, it's not just about equations and formulas and being right, its about being willing to be wrong, learn from that, and move forward. We're not movign forward. Or if we are, I have no way of knowing. If you say "I used the wrong term", then at least I know we're making some sort of progress. If not, then you're basically asserting that "maximum power theoem" has something to do with newtonian objects moving around, and it doesn't.
It's also about understanding, and accepting that process will entail making mistakes. Talk to the hand.
well, then we've just demonstrated that they are inertial frames.
An inertial frame is a frame where Newtons three laws hold true.
That is so, but also true for the conservation of energy. Just like the ground.
Just because the laws hold, does not mean that it is a new frame of .
reference. A logical, not physical error.
They hold true for a windmill on the ground in a 10 mph wind, and they hold true for a windmill on a treadmill movign at 10 mph.
They would. Like an engine on bus, works like an engine on a dyno.
In either case, the windmill produces the same amount of power. So Newton's laws apply to both.
Only if
all parameters are the same. For example, to run the belt-generator, requires that the windmill first be accelerated to windspeed. That is KE that is not in the stationary generator. There will be some loss that is not recoverable when the motor is tuned off and the KE returned.
"Steady State" is misused to cover these sort of inconvenient facts.
If the windmill produced more power in one scenario than another, then we'd have to accoutn for an extra force. If the treadmill was accelerating, then that would cause the windmill to generate more power, which would mean it isnt' an inertial frame. But newton's three laws hold true in both cases, so their both inertial frames.
Also for a windmill simply being driven by a belt. Losses are losses, gains are gains, the books will balance.
except you said "I am not interested in the cart. yo-yo's are a distraction." So, we've shown how the cart is an inertial frame using the power generated by a windmill, and then you say the cart wont' work. But then you're not interested in the cart.
You have reiterated an error.
Perhaps you can see why I might be having a hard time understanding what it is you wnat to talk about here.
Inertial frames as applied to the treadmill, is BS. That is what I am telling you. Not about Einstein, hobos in cars, inertial frames or equivlancy, but this specific application and abuse of those precepts.
Ah, so, the treadmill isnt' the problem. THe cart is the problem. The power is generated by the difference between the wind and the ground.
No, the treadmill is the problem. Please do not tell me what I think, Greg.
If you have a standard windmill planted in the ground and the wind isn't moving relative to the ground, if there is no difference between wind and ground, then the windmill can generate no power.
Nobel prize sighted.
(2) The cart cannot go faster than teh wind if there is no wind over the ground. Because there is no difference in velocity between wind and ground, so there is no power to be extracted.
Field's medal sighted.
The cart can only extract power if there is a difference between wind and ground.
Yes.
And because the cart uses a simple mechanism to extract power based on the difference, it doesn't matter how fast the cart is going, there is always a difference between wind and ground speed.
Energy cannot come
from the ground. See your own remark (2)
Why is there no energy when there is no wind?
If the cart is on a treadmill indoors, and the treadmill is moving at 10 mph, then the cart has power available equal to the cart stationary in a 10 mph tailwind. Windmill on the ground in a 10 mph wind. Windmill on a treadmill moving at 10 mph. Either way it has power available because there is a difference between the air and ground.
There is no wind on the treadmill that is independent of the belt. So, yes, you could say that is "ground power" but that is a substitute for the real wind's power. In reality, there is no motor driving the road.
Because of the way the prop is geared to the ground wheel, it will extract power based on the difference betwen wind and ground, no matter what the speed of the cart is.
Between the wind and ground. Period.
Why do you not see wind-generators on tracks? Siemens have some very bright engineers, and they seem to have missed that golden opportunity to make history.
ETA;...I mean, where the 9.999999 m/s BL going right to left, dragged by the belt, passes the still air in the room? Like I asked before, if you just filled in the blanks on eomy earlier diagram, we'd already have solved these little problems.
