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

[humber]

Your point was irrelevant -- and thus any agreement/disagreement the same.

Pyrrhic victory. It was your point.

Easy, see my corning example in my above post.

Done and dusted.

No, the opposite. Too *little* friction and it goes back with the belt -- I know ... I have one.

That is mistaken and illogical. In the limiting case of zero friction, you would not expect the cart to move back with the belt.

Depends on your definition of "stable" and your definition of "equal surface velocities".

(1) Stable enough to sustain a perturbation encountered in the real world.
(2) Stable enough to demonstrate the production of power commensurate with real world conditions at the equivalent velocity.

(3) The speed of the belt, and wheel circumference at the contact point of the wheel and belt, are equal but opposite in direction. This means that the said contact point lies directly beneath the axle, so not motion is possible.
The cart creeps forward by a slight modulation of this balance.

A very cute little assertion, but just plain wrong.

Forward motion by a driven wheel is not possible unless the contact patch with the road is to the rear of the axle. This is irrefutably so.

LOL -- they don't need to "publicly claim that increased friction improves performance" -- it's self evident in the racing world where everyone scratches and claws and spends millions in an attempt to increase their performance through the increase of friction between the tire and the ground.

They do not increase the friction. They try to increase the power to the ground.

Take a properly installed wing producing downforce on the race car -- three things increase: 1: drag. 2: friction between tire and pavement. 3: performance ( reduced lap times, etc). Drag and friction sound like very bad things -- but when used properly, they clearly increase performance.

Not the same thing at all. Ground force, for example, a result of the car's underbelly is not friction. Generally, you are confusing traction and efficient use of friction, with increased friction.

Well, you haven't given me enough information to agree or not ... in a room with still air, moving back with the belt (same velocity as the belt) is definitely just like being stationary on the grid with a wind blowing down the grid equal to the velocity of the belt. With those stipulations in place, I can agree.

Then you agree that only when the cart is moving back at the speed of the belt is that "equivalent" wind produced. I would like to see how the cart performs under that condition.

 

[humber]

Strawman.

No. A simpll a derisive remark.

I just love this one ... "real moving air mass". ROFLAO!!

That is correct. Would you otherwise like explain why you chose a fan to mimic the real wind?

Question Humber: How does the prop on a Boeing ram air turbine generator know if the "real air mass" is moving or not? I guess if the pilot lowers the RAT in an emergency the passengers better freakin' hope that the "real air mass" is moving or they will likely all wind up dead.

There is motion of the plane through the air. Even in still air (zero velocity w.r.t the ground) the generator can still work, because the KE of the plane and or it's remaining engines, can power it by driving the turbine against the air. When the plane's velocity is zero, its too late to deploy it.

[qimg]http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/rat/rat.jpg[/qimg]

I wish I could understand the above sentence, but in this particular case I'm quite sure I'm safe in just saying "WRONG!".
JB

Simple. Stall the propellor by hand. Lower the cart to the belt, and release the prop. It will not climb the belt.

 

[Furcifer]

What I get is that you don't understand simple inertial frames of reference. No shame in that alone, but you might want to brush up on them before accusing me of deliberately avoiding a question that I've addressed and answered directly and truthfully multiple times in the last few posts.

JB

My understanding of inertial reference frames has nothing to do with a treadmill being long enough to show such an event.

With a light enough cart you might even be able to show this on an average treadmill. I'm not sure really. What I am sure of is there is no video of a cart starting from rest on a treadmill without being held down.

You've clearly avoided that and attacked me. How borish.

 

[humber]

Everything you say here is trivial, except your reiteration that;
"Force is required for motion"

Yes. All objects that are in or will be in motion have force applied to them. They hve been accelerated.

Is Mass required for motion too? Maybe, depends what motion you are trying to describe. Your usual lack of definition and condition in statements. You really need to note the distinction between Kinematics and Kinetics.

Dumb-mass question.

Humber, I'm sure it is completely obvious to nearly everyone reading this that if a sufficiently long treadmill were available, the cart would self start just as it does on a "real" road in "real" wind.

"Sufficiently long..." is just pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
The cart should be able to show that it can accelerate from any length of belt. If it cannot make some progress in 1 meter, then anymore will not help. It is not the purpose of scientific tools to shrug of failure by assuming that it "would work anyway". Not only is there no evidence that it can climb the belt, but theory says that is impossible.

That Spork and JB have published a video of the outdoor events satisfies me that their cart will start on a long enough treadmill indoors. You still contend that there is a mechanical or temporal or some other fundamental difference between the two situations. Classical Physics theory as most here know it seems to be in conflict with your statements. And you cannot properly explain why.

I have done so Semper. If you think it through, and the necessary conditions for motion by a wheeled vehicle, you will see that it is impossible on the belt.
The wind is a no-brainer. Of course the wind will drive a propellor. They are designed to do that. The treadmill is nothing like a cart in the wind.

 

[humber]

The question raised is being avoided like the plague, because the cart can't do it. "Windspeed" is an artificial balance state, that can only be obtained by operator influence.

 

[spork]

The value of friction on the belt is arbitrary, as long as it is within the bounds of the cart's balance mechanism

Do you know how tiresome your imaginary "balance mechanism" is? I think you could really use a balance mechanism.

Rather like you can tell a stationary cart from a moving one.

There is no such thing as a truly stationary or truly moving cart. It's all relative.

You're not reading the question correctly

Apparently he is interpreting the problem the same as everyone but you (including the person that posted it).

Using a fan doesn't count.

That's like saying "no hands" after getting someone to agree to your pissing contest.

My understanding of inertial reference frames has nothing to do with a treadmill being long enough to show such an event.

It seems that way to you because you don't understand inertial frames.

What I am sure of is there is no video of a cart starting from rest on a treadmill without being held down.

I'm quite sure there is. Take a look at the video with the fan again. The cart starts from rest, it happens to be on a treadmill, and it's not being held down. It seems you're having a hard time accepting that wind over the surface is equivalent to the surface moving under the air.

You've clearly avoided that and attacked me. How borish.

He's clearly answered the question - and it looks like you're on the attack.

 

[Furcifer]

The question raised is being avoided like the plague, because the cart can't do it. "Windspeed" is an artificial balance state, that can only be obtained by operator influence.

Please don't tell me that whole diatribe was lost on you.

 

[semper]

Yes. All objects that are in or will be in motion have force applied to them. They hve been accelerated.
...

Of course the wind will drive a propellor. They are designed to do that. The treadmill is nothing like a cart in the wind.

You meant " All objects that are in or will be in motion have HAD force applied to them." But that still doesn't make for a particularly meaningful or helpful statement. We can observe and study motion without knowing anything about forces, then we can use the techniques of motion study to determine the results of forces on objects. Try it in that order Mr Humberg.

And once again you state that you believe the propeller on the cart is acting as a turbine. What evidence can possibly change your mind?

 

[humber]

Do you know how tiresome your imaginary "balance mechanism" is? I think you could really use a balance mechanism.

If that is the case, then you can refute it. Go ahead. Step by step.
We can do it right now.

 

[humber]

You meant " All objects that are in or will be in motion have HAD force applied to them." But that still doesn't make for a particularly meaningful or helpful statement. We can observe and study motion without knowing anything about forces, then we can use the techniques of motion study to determine the results of forces on objects. Try it in that order Mr Humberg.

That is correct. The velocity of an object is the current result of all the forces that have acted upon it. There is no reason to prefer velocity to acceleration or to KE as a characteristic of particular significance.
If I take your view, force would have no place in the Universe. A lot of playing around with definitions, to sustain a case for an absurd model.

And once again you state that you believe the propeller on the cart is acting as a turbine. What evidence can possibly change your mind?

The RAT is a turbine. I don't know how you got the rest.

 

[humber]

Originally Posted by spork View Post

Do you know how tiresome your imaginary "balance mechanism" is? I think you could really use a balance mechanism.

If that is the case, then you can refute it. Go ahead. Step by step.
We can do it right now.
Still waiting....

ETA;

Spork
That's like saying "no hands" after getting someone to agree to your pissing contest

I don't think it's the hands that are missing.

 

[spork]

If that is the case, then you can refute [the balance mechanism]. Go ahead. Step by step.
We can do it right now.
Still waiting....

No need to wait any longer. Just look at the videos. The cart is trying to climb the treadmill and shoot off the front - or fall off the back when the tread is going to slow. Or you can look at any of the analyses posted by any one of us. There is NOTHING to suggest any balance mechanism.

There is ONE video where JB and I went to a good deal of trouble to MAKE it balance as long as possible so it would run without intervention. Even then it finally failed to stay on the treadmill, and fell off the back.

I can hardly wait to see what nonsense you spew to explain how everything I've said here supports your case. That is the surest sign that you're completely delusional.

 

[humber]

No need to wait any longer. Just look at the videos. The cart is trying to climb the treadmill and shoot off the front - or fall off the back when the tread is going to slow. Or you can look at any of the analyses posted by any one of us. There is NOTHING to suggest any balance mechanism.

There is ONE video where JB and I went to a good deal of trouble to MAKE it balance as long as possible so it would run without intervention. Even then it finally failed to stay on the treadmill, and fell off the back.

I can hardly wait to see what nonsense you spew to explain how everything I've said here supports your case. That is the surest sign that you're completely delusional.

No. Repetition of a disputed claim. How does the cart move, and why?

 

[mender]

Perhaps like this, but this was done well before this patent. Zero-g is not free-fall.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080236282
Plenty of others.

You are wrong in both cases, Mender. I may start a list.

Feel free to start a list humber, I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I learn quite a bit that way.

I may not be understanding the intent of the patent but I'll give it a try. It appears that it is using the tri-axial accelerometers as an electronic analog for gyroscopes to determine whether the hard drive is in free fall without a spin (all readings below a specific threshold showing that it is falling) or that the hard drive is spinning as it falls (mentioned as the most likely case but also the one that would normally confuse a single accelerometer). As the hard drive falls and spins, the software compares the various readings looking for a particular pattern to the below threshold readings in order to execute a lockdown for the hard drive to protect the disc.

The main question is of course whether this particular device can differentiate between free-fall in a gravity field (which it most likely assumes from the sudden change from a 1 g reading - up by the way - to something other than a steady 1 g reading) and zero acceleration in a micro-gravity environment. I don't think it can, but that may be my limitation, not the device's.

 

[spork]

No.

Yes.

Repetition of a disputed claim.

It's you making the claim (that there is some imaginary balance mechanism). There is simply no evidence to support such silliness

How does the cart move, and why?

Asked and answered (a few thousand times).

 

[Dan O.]

Free-fall is not zero-g.

So, as you are under the influence of gravity everywhere in the universe, what IS zero G?

Thanks Ross, I missed that one.


Where humber is wrong (continued...)

• "Free-fall is not zero-g." #3393

 

[semper]

That is correct. The velocity of an object is the current result of all the forces that have acted upon it. There is no reason to prefer velocity to acceleration or to KE as a characteristic of particular significance.
If I take your view, force would have no place in the Universe. A lot of playing around with definitions, to sustain a case for an absurd model.

The RAT is a turbine. I don't know how you got the rest.

So you are saying that a Ram Air Turbine is a turbine eh, how profound.

And more, "The velocity of an object is the current result of all the forces that have acted upon it." Wonderful Mr Humber, velocity with respect to WHAT?? and Current Result from WHEN?? This goes back a fair way in your postings and I don't think you have any idea how to reconcile the confusion it brings you. It is no wonder you cannot figure out the simplest mechanics problems when you are so burdened by a hopeless methodology/belief structure. Proper use of Newton's laws could set you free.

 

[humber]

Feel free to start a list humber, I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I learn quite a bit that way.

I may not be understanding the intent of the patent but I'll give it a try. It appears that it is using the tri-axial accelerometers as an electronic analog for gyroscopes to determine whether the hard drive is in free fall without a spin (all readings below a specific threshold showing that it is falling) or that the hard drive is spinning as it falls (mentioned as the most likely case but also the one that would normally confuse a single accelerometer). As the hard drive falls and spins, the software compares the various readings looking for a particular pattern to the below threshold readings in order to execute a lockdown for the hard drive to protect the disc.

The main question is of course whether this particular device can differentiate between free-fall in a gravity field (which it most likely assumes from the sudden change from a 1 g reading - up by the way - to something other than a steady 1 g reading) and zero acceleration in a micro-gravity environment. I don't think it can, but that may be my limitation, not the device's.

(1) I said this was one of many. I did not look too closely.
(2) Not original. many more.
(3} My device will work. Refute that.

 

[humber]

Yes.

It's you making the claim (that there is some imaginary balance mechanism). There is simply no evidence to support such silliness

Asked and answered (a few thousand times).

Someone is missing a pair.

For a vehicle driven by an axle, the wheel must exhibit 'slip'. This is usually provided by flexure of the tyre. In the case of forward motion, the contact point with the road - the friction that provides the reaction to the driving force - must lie behind the axle. (You can wiikki that.)

If not, and the contact point is directly below the axle, that is indicative of no motion, because it is simply not possible in that state.
The belt moves from the front to the rear of the cart, so it is impossible for a contact patch to develop behind (to the rear) of the axle, so forward motion is not possible.
Only if the cart has a power source that is independent of the belt ( as in an R/C car for example) is motion up the belt possible at all. The cart cannot generates more power from the belt than it receives, so motion is certainly not possible.
The cart is is in a state of balance, as described many times, where a small independent source of energy (momentum) can caused the cart to creep forward as conditions vary. (see the Russian puzzle)

ETA: That's part of a general argument for powered vehicles and belts. Without presenting supporting evidence, I say:

"The existence of a belt suggests that motion is being suppressed" ( Humbertica Principia.)

That is the general case for belts of this sort;
(a) Runner's Treadmill
The runner exercises by muscle motion and cardiovascular stimulation. (Running without motion)

(b) Aerodynamic Testing
The effect of the air over the car is investigated, and may involve reproduction of the boundary layer by the use of a belt to simulate motion of the car over the road. (Interaction with moving air without vehicular motion.)'

(c) Dynamometer
The car is placed on a belt (or roller) such that the engine's power and torque can be measured and the power dissipated in a dummy load (Power-to-the-wheels without motion)

(d) An orange spinning on a belt (Rotation without motion.)

 

[humber]

So you are saying that a Ram Air Turbine is a turbine eh, how profound.

And more, "The velocity of an object is the current result of all the forces that have acted upon it." Wonderful Mr Humber, velocity with respect to WHAT?? and Current Result from WHEN?? This goes back a fair way in your postings and I don't think you have any idea how to reconcile the confusion it brings you. It is no wonder you cannot figure out the simplest mechanics problems when you are so burdened by a hopeless methodology/belief structure. Proper use of Newton's laws could set you free.

Time has an arrow. Nothing is lost, nor is it in frames.