Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[D'rok]

That's not correctYou do not understand. The prop does not turn the wheels. The wheels turn the prop.

Humber, after all this time, do you really still not understand this basic fact?

 

[humber]

That's not correctYou do not understand. The prop does not turn the wheels. The wheels turn the prop. The wind bears on the retreating face of the propeller blades and applies a force which tends to oppose their rotation (which is a loss) and a force which presses the propeller forward. That forward force is transmitted though the mast and pushes the craft forwards, which forces its wheels to turn.

1) The power is said to come from the wind
2) The ratchet will prevent force from the wind being applied to the wheel
3) Your proposal would result in a reduction of force.

The usual bleating about me not understanding that the wheel driving the prop fails, because the claim is that the power comes from the wind.
The original claim, and there have been many, was that the ground drives the wheel.

When that became too cranky, the wind became responsible, but the idea fails if the claim that the wheel drives the prop is maintained.

A turbine which drives the wheels forwards can take energy from the wind, and the force in the shaft will increase and drive the cart forwards.

But, a wheel that is said to drive the prop, but takes energy from the wind ( or the difference between the ground), in order to drive the cart means that force will fall, as the wind is applied.
That is basic mechanics. If the force were to rise, then it would increase without bounds. Spin it, and it would drive itself harder and so forth. A PM machine.

Spork's proposal has always been PM, and so many have said. He denies this, saying it looks like it is, and devises many ruses to hide that fact, but
he has been caught out by the ratchet he left behind. It's mostly word games
The ground driving the wheels, becomes the wheel driving the prop
Then it becomes "the difference" driving the wheel.

The cart is 100% explicable from what is known of the wind. It's a sail cart.

Given that your objection is based on your inablity to grasp the way in which the craft operates, I have to suspect your pronouncements on its instrumentation are similarly unreliable.

And you were saying about being reasonable?
That reply is both juvenile and simple denial.

ETA:
I fully understand the "wheels drive the prop" claim, but I think Newton is right

 

[D'rok]

That's not correctYou do not understand. The prop does not turn the wheels. The wheels turn the prop.

Humber, after all this time, do you really still not understand this basic fact?

1) The power is said to come from the wind
2) The ratchet will prevent force from the wind being applied to the wheel
3) Your proposal would result in a reduction of force.

The usual bleating a bout the wheel driving the prop fails, because the claim is that the power comes from the wind.
That results in a the wind reducing the force, not increasing it. You have been had.

I guess not. Wow.

 

[Llyricist]

Yep, he thinks wind is air moving, period, full stop. That the only possible force that moving air can exert on a prop is torsional. That Newton's third law applies to the input and output forces of a lever, thus gearing makes no difference.

I could go on, but I'm sure others will chime in with a long list of additional misconceptions.

 

[Modified]

2) The ratchet will prevent force from the wind being applied to the wheel

No, it won't. How can you suggest that after you've seen the "down ruler faster than the ruler" carts? You would use the same argument there, that the gearing will prevent force from the ruler being applied to the ground wheel, but it does not. The upper wheel turns "against" the ruler just like the prop turns "against" the wind.

Let's see, after all this time, if we can get you to answer two simple yes/no questions without your usual dodging.

1) Does the down-ruler-faster-than-the-ruler cart work?

2) If so, is there some fundamental difference between the ruler/wheel interface and the wind/prop interface that prevents the dwfttw cart from working in the same way?

 

[humber]

No, it won't. How can you suggest that after you've seen the "down ruler faster than the ruler" carts? You would use the same argument there, that the gearing will prevent force from the ruler being applied to the ground wheel, but it does not. The upper wheel turns "against" the ruler just like the prop turns "against" the wind.

Let's see, after all this time, if we can get you to answer two simple yes/no questions without your usual dodging.

1) Does the down-ruler-faster-than-the-ruler cart work?

No. I have a video for that. I will post it. It is interesting that you insist that refusal to accept BS is seen as dodging,
when Spork will not answer to the simplest question. He is a crank, so has feet of clay.

2) If so, is there some fundamental difference between the ruler/wheel interface and the wind/prop interface that prevents the dwfttw cart from working in the same way?

No, both don't work. The geared ruler cart is a simple machine, which increases force. Nothing to see. The faster-than-the-paper is manipulation. I have a made a video to show that.
They have nothing to do with the cart, or the matter at hand.

See the drawing I appended to JTH's post.
One poster here is no smarter than his caveman icon suggests.

ETA: The ratchet simply prevents any force at all. If the ratchet were not there, a headwind could drive the wheel.
That is excluded, because of the ratchet.

But, Newton says forces oppose. If they didn't, there would be a positive feedback, and so PM.
There can only be one source of force. It's either the wheel, or the wind.
If there are both, then no torque will develop. It's called "bootstrapping"

 

[Llyricist]

And he just demonstrated all three features of the humberverse I pointed out.

 

[D'rok]

No. I have a video for that. I will post it.

Oh please do.

Here's the under the ruler video in question. Awesome demonstration.



ETA: Follow up video with direct analogy to treadmill.

No, both don't work.
See the drawing I appended to JTH's post.
One poster here is no smarter than his caveman icon suggests.

That's Mr. Barbarian to you, oh crankiest of Internet physics cranks (although Michael Mozina may prove hard to dethrone).

 

[D'rok]

And he just demonstrated all three features of the humberverse I pointed out.

Yup. That was spooky.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. That was spooky.

After you get to know him it is only comical. If you could use humber's wrongness on the stock market you could make Bill Gates fortune look like pocket change. He has an uncanny ability to predict the wrong answer for any test.

 

[humber]

You are all looking so weak. Attacking me, when I have put something in front of you that challenges both your ideas, and your skills. Don't want to eat your greens?
That speaks of belief.

There are gaping holes in the trial and direct and clear evidence of fraud. The chart has been manipulated to hide the truth, yet you seem to be quite happy to accept that.

Why are you not asking Spork to explain that, or validate the measurement methods?

What are you doing on a forum that bears James Randi's name?

 

[Llyricist]

As a kind of corollary to the Bugblatter Beast phenomenon, he assumes that if he can't see the refutations, no-one else can.

 

[humber]

Yup. That was spooky.

Miss D'rok.
You have nothing but the hot air of desperation. Blunt ignorance can do that.

There are two videos here. Not as polished, but just the same as anything Spork has made.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/7690/u56.mp4
http://img864.imageshack.us/img864/5312/i0i.mp4

The upwind cart works because, despite its appearance, the prop is better than Spork's. Spork knows little of aerodynamics, so sees L/D ratio as a sign of "goodness".
But it's a ratio. In terms of functionality, would you rather have a 100W prop with and L/D ratio of 4 or a 400W prop with and L/D ratio of 3?

He lampoons Platt's cart, but Platt knows enough to realise that a prop designed to work at speeds >2000 rpm, may not be so useful, so he made one. I used a blade from a 4" desk fan, it works.

There is a video where the BB's prop is turned by hand. From the loss of KE that occurs as it slows, it can be calculated that the static power at 15 rpm is 3W. Laugh.

The "TM" in this video is a belt sander. Yes, the cart moves off the belt, but there are clues that tell you why it does that, which mean, like Spork's TM, it has nothing to do with a cart in the wind.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1811/9ih.mp4
http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/6015/ql0.mp4

 

[Myriad]

What are you doing on a forum that bears James Randi's name?

"Real skeptics would believe me when I make **** up." We hear that rather often (as, I'm fairly sure, does Randi).

The problem, humber, is that your arguments are not convincing. You are playing a losing hand. A losing hand loses, whether you fold or not.

The real-world results of your plying of your arguments have been, and will continue to be, congruent with their not being convincing.

So, what's next?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[spork]

"Real skeptics would believe me when I make **** up." We hear that rather often (as, I'm fairly sure, does Randi).

The problem, humber, is that your arguments are not convincing. You are playing a losing hand. A losing hand loses, whether you fold or not.

The real-world results of your plying of your arguments have been, and will continue to be, congruent with their not being convincing.

So, what's next?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad,

While I understand this is not in the area of the paranormal, I'd love to get Randi's opinion on this thing. Any chance he'd weigh in?

What's next for us is going upwind faster than the wind. I picked up the second carbon mast yesterday, so we should be ready to start building the turbine blades. All we need now is humber's prediction that it can't possibly work. He can later tell us how we're going about it all wrong.

 

[Michael C]

Myriad,

While I understand this is not in the area of the paranormal, I'd love to get Randi's opinion on this thing. Any chance he'd weigh in?

Randi's appearances on this forum are very rare indeed. You could always try mailing him directly.

What's next for us is going upwind faster than the wind. I picked up the second carbon mast yesterday, so we should be ready to start building the turbine blades. All we need now is humber's prediction that it can't possibly work. He can later tell us how we're going about it all wrong.

He's already predicted that often enough on Talk Rational. So has Christoph (as he's known here, or Harold Bricer/Yevgheni/Prang/ for those who have met him on other forums) who has decided that upwind can work, but not faster than the wind: he confuses the percentage of wind speed that an upwind cart can reach with its efficiency, so he thinks an upwind cart going faster than the wind would be over-unity.

I'd love to see your upwind trials. Are you still planning to bring the cart to Europe?

 

[humber]

"Real skeptics would believe me when I make **** up." We hear that rather often (as, I'm fairly sure, does Randi).

The problem, humber, is that your arguments are not convincing. You are playing a losing hand. A losing hand loses, whether you fold or not.

The real-world results of your plying of your arguments have been, and will continue to be, congruent with their not being convincing.

So, what's next?

Respectfully,
Myriad

That is simply rhetoric. And none if it excuses you from not asking Spork to explain, or are you biased, rather than objective?

Those 4 videos are not mine. Yet, the upwind cart, which uses a rotor that will function as a prop, works, but Spork's doesn't. He use and internet programme and toyed with the numbers, but does not know what he is doing.
He's a sales manager working in sports promotion.

I can prove the 3W claim for the BB's prop, and have done so. The response form the cart brigade had been silence. That is because it is correct, but belief does not provide a reply.

The "TM" of those other videos is a belt sander; a means of driving the wheel, and not a "Galilean Equivalent", yet it does what Spork's does.

I take it that you know nothing of meteorology, or you would be able to respond in an appropriate manner. Dynamic systems of that sort, are first year engineering. General theory, which applies to many disciplines, but applied in this case, to a vane.

The real world trail is a farce. In the Jenkins' video, the camera pans to the vane, and he says uneasily "significant headwind". That's right. There is a headwind coming about 30 degrees off ddw.

 

[Modified]

No. I have a video for that.

OK, you're completely caught here. The drfttr cart works. It is very easy to build and demonstrate.

 

[humber]

Myriad,

While I understand this is not in the area of the paranormal, I'd love to get Randi's opinion on this thing. Any chance he'd weigh in?

James Randi is not just about the paranormal. Homepathy does not make that claim, neither did Jaques Beneviste.

What's next for us is going upwind faster than the wind. I picked up the second carbon mast yesterday, so we should be ready to start building the turbine blades. All we need now is humber's prediction that it can't possibly work. He can later tell us how we're going about it all wrong.

You will cheat. It will be in conditions where there are winds that will surely allow it to work. There are already established upwind trails, but they have rules and competitors, that would clip your wings, so you will make up your own.

Hence your prophylactic prediction of what I would say.

The fact is, I told you how your cart could work, well before you proposed it.

 

[sol invictus]

1) Does the down-ruler-faster-than-the-ruler cart work?

No.
...
No, both don't work. The geared ruler cart is a simple machine, which increases force. Nothing to see. The faster-than-the-paper is manipulation.

The "down-the-ruler-faster-than-the-ruler" cart is very simple. No ratchet, no wind, no prop - it's just a gear.

You can demonstrate it for yourself with a wine bottle or glass: place your finger under the neck and push straight forward. When I do that experiment, I see the bottle move "down-finger" faster than my finger. Is that also wrong?

When I do the (trivial) arithmetic that governs its motion, I find that the speed of the bottle is greater than the speed of the finger. Is that also wrong?