Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

None of you have the expertise to say what the cart can or can not do.

The data says it did not meet the claim, and so it does not matter what you think may happen.

Despite lack of appropriate qualifications or experiences, some of you seem willing to say the Professor and Dr Camp doesn't know what he is talking about. Only because you see in him some weak support, have you not labeled him an idiot.

That is not acceptable. Spork is not by any means an authority.
Support mathematically the electrical model USED by Spork in the submission. If you can't do that, then you can't claim to understand it.
The rest is your opinion, and not fact.

 

[humber]

It was pointed out to me that the lift vector is actually perpendicular to the relative airflow, so it is theoretically possible that a net forward force could happen given a low enough drag component.

Of course, humber is unable to produce the L/D characteristics of a biconvex 50% fat airfoil such as the pylons that would support any such claim in reality.

|I don't need to. The claim is yours. The data says that the cart is not ddw
The record is phony.

 

[Llyricist]

You wanna play argument from authority? Both the current and previous land sailing world speed record holders say a conventional sail craft could not do what you claim is trivial.

 

[Llyricist]

|I don't need to. The claim is yours. The data says that the cart is not ddw
The record is phony.

No, the claim is yours, I specifically don't claim there could be a net forward force from the lift of the pylons beyond wind speed.

 

[spork]

Whiteman defamed himself, by being arrogant while being wrong. But at least he apologized for the arrogance:

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=192336#192336


As for his wrongness, he took the Rhett-Allain-escape-route by declaring himself incompetent and running away.

But you should have heard how astonishingly condescending he was with JB and I on the phone when he was explaining that he was in fact the expert, and we were a couple of morons.

IIRC Whiteman's boss (the GA Tech president) congratulated spork & JB, and they featured them on their website:
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=59893

They've actually featured the project on the website a number of times, as well as the student paper, and the alumni journal.

 

[RossFW]

It was pointed out to me that the lift vector is actually perpendicular to the relative airflow, so it is theoretically possible that a net forward force could happen given a low enough drag component.

Of course, humber is unable to produce the L/D characteristics of a biconvex 50% fat airfoil such as the pylons that would support any such claim in reality.

Yes, but at speeds grater than windspeed, perpendicular to the Relative Air Flow would be AGAINST the direction of travel!

With an apparent tailwind, there would be a small component in the direction of travel, but in order for it to be big enough to record the accelerations observed, the perpendicular force would have capsized the craft.

Humber? You realise that above windspeed any angle of attack on the pylons would IMPEDE the craft?

Sail-craft can only beat the wind when their sails have an APPARENT tailwind- never the case with the BB above windspeed.

So how does it accelerate?

 

[Llyricist]

Yes, but at speeds grater than windspeed, perpendicular to the Relative Air Flow would be AGAINST the direction of travel!

No, beyond wind speed the lift vector would be angled forward. the drag vector would be angled against the cart's motion, by enough that the net would be backwards and strongly to the side given the lousy low speed L/D of such an "airfoil".

I have no disagreement with the rest.

 

[humber]

Yes, but at speeds grater than windspeed, perpendicular to the Relative Air Flow would be AGAINST the direction of travel!

With an apparent tailwind, there would be a small component in the direction of travel, but in order for it to be big enough to record the accelerations observed, the perpendicular force would have capsized the craft.

Humber? You realise that above windspeed any angle of attack on the pylons would IMPEDE the craft?

Sail-craft can only beat the wind when their sails have an APPARENT tailwind- never the case with the BB above windspeed.

So how does it accelerate?

That applies to boats with keels.

The cart is 15 degrees off ddw, in changing wind, so who cares?

Only ddw steady-state is worthy of note. If Spork wants to dilute the claim to his taste then, we can assume it will be a weak, but nobody else should be forced to drink it.

The topic is the specific trial and the measurement thereof. The data is worthless because it has been tampered with, and selected from a pile of failures.
Average wind direction is not valid, and an egregious and naive error.

A shot in the dark. I do not care about your theories of what is possible.
The trial was to settle that matter, and there is no call to bring it up in support of the trial. The result is statistically unlikely. It is a sham.
Not only that, but the net force does not come close to the calculation in the submission, so at least one is wrong. The TM does not predict constant acceleration, so there is another error. Claims of the "toque of a Corvette" suggest ad-hoc BS.

 

[RossFW]

No, beyond wind speed the lift vector would be angled forward. the drag vector would be angled against the cart's motion, by enough that the net would be backwards and strongly to the side given the lousy low speed L/D of such an "airfoil".

I have no disagreement with the rest.

In aerodynamics we usually just look at the resultent vector of the surface. Which bit is lift and which is drag is irrelevent because,as you state, lift plus drag would be in opposition to the motion of the cart and capsizing it.

except in the Humberverse of course....

 

[RossFW]

That applies to boats with keels.

The cart is 15 degrees off ddw, in changing wind, so who cares?

Only ddw steady-state is worthy of note. If Spork wants to dilute the claim to his taste then, we can assume it will be a weak, but nobody else should be forced to drink it.

The topic is the specific trial and the measurement thereof. The data is worthless because it has been tampered with, and selected from a pile of failures.
Average wind direction is not valid, and an egregious and naive error.

A shot in the dark. I do not care about your theories of what is possible.
The trial was to settle that matter, and there is no call to bring it up in support of the trial. The result is statistically unlikely. It is a sham.
Not only that, but the net force does not come close to the calculation in the submission, so at least one is wrong. The TM does not predict constant acceleration, so there is another error. Claims of the "toque of a Corvette" suggest ad-hoc BS.

So, in other words, you have consistently come up with an explanation of the results you now know is false, will not support, but will not admit is in error?

 

[humber]

So, in other words, you have consistently come up with an explanation of the results you now know is false, will not support, but will not admit is in error?

Talk to the hand. The trial fails to prove anything.
The theory is a rag-bag of ad-hoc gimmicks. The theory and TM do not match the result. Just because TAD do not have the integrity to hold to their original claim, does not allow for a substitute.
If Spork had the technical expertise he claims, then he would not need to seek support from so many academics. It is a sham.

The NASA expert Steve Smith gives alternative explanations that closely mirror the facts. There are no second prizes.

 

[GlennB]

The cart is 15 degrees off ddw, in changing wind, so who cares?

Only ddw steady-state is worthy of note. If Spork wants to dilute the claim to his taste then, we can assume it will be a weak, but nobody else should be forced to drink it.

Average wind direction is not valid, and an egregious and naive error.

So, basically, humber has created an impregnable but imaginary tree-fort where his demands for evidence can never be met. In this case a 100% stable wind in terms of direction and speed. This way he can not only protect his ego but actually magnify it.

Seen it so many times in the CT forums. What a tosser.

 

[Llyricist]

In aerodynamics we usually just look at the resultent vector of the surface. Which bit is lift and which is drag is irrelevent because,as you state, lift plus drag would be in opposition to the motion of the cart and capsizing it.

Well in real life that is true, but it is dependent on the specific angle of attack and l/d of the specific airfoil at that specific aoa and speed.

Which is why I press him to present that information to support his claim that the angle off wind could result in a net forward force at all, let alone sufficient to overcome all the other forces acting against the motion of the cart.

 

[humber]

So, basically, humber has created an impregnable but imaginary tree-fort where his demands for evidence can never be met. In this case a 100% stable wind in terms of direction and speed. This way he can not only protect his ego but actually magnify it.

Seen it so many times in the CT forums. What a tosser.

Where is your math? Well, there is none. Seen it so many times from cart supporters.
The trial says you are wrong.

 

[RossFW]

Where is your math? Well, there is none. Seen it so many times from cart supporters.
The trial says you are wrong.

Yet, when you say the cart accelerates because the pylons act as sails, nothing, including YOU, says you are right.

So, do you stand by your claim or not?

 

[spork]

I wonder if humber thinks we'll believe his lies if he repeats them often enough?

 

[RossFW]

So, basically, humber has created an impregnable but imaginary tree-fort where his demands for evidence can never be met. In this case a 100% stable wind in terms of direction and speed. This way he can not only protect his ego but actually magnify it.

Seen it so many times in the CT forums. What a tosser.

Actually, you CAN produce EXACTLEY that state.

What you do is move a SURFACE in air that is STILL wrt the ground.

Now, from the Frame of Reference of that surface......

 

[RossFW]

Well in real life that is true, but it is dependent on the specific angle of attack and l/d of the specific airfoil at that specific aoa and speed.

Gliders are the most efficient aircraft made. The resultent vector from their reaction is ALWAYS in opposition to their direction of flight, or else they could stay up forever!!

 

[Llyricist]

Gliders are the most efficient aircraft made. The resultent vector from their reaction is ALWAYS in opposition to their direction of flight, or else they could stay up forever!!

Like I said, in real life, it is always true. I'm just turning humber's "show the math" back against him.

 

[GlennB]

Actually, you CAN produce EXACTLEY that state.

What you do is move a SURFACE in air that is STILL wrt the ground.

Now, from the Frame of Reference of that surface......

Gasp

Ah but, I recall the TM test saw the wee buggy go a few degrees off-true. Then there were dudes prodding it backwards with a finger or something. Not admissible! humber is still safe in the fort.