Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Llyricist]

Deary me, JBTH, I have already explained that.
The cart's theory, is why YOU don't want people like Spork, and their cranky "intuitions", to have anything to do with the design or maintenance of an aircraft in which you may one day find yourself a passenger. Trust me.

Aircraft are indeed slowed down by their propellers -s ome are deliberately designed to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllable_pitch_propeller
"the reversible propeller can also create reverse thrust for braking or going backwards without the need of changing the direction of shaft revolutions."
But that is by way of information.

There is drag, but also "lift". The engine applies power to the prop shaft, such that thrust can be generated to overcome the drag and then some.
That is an entirely different proposition, from running the aircraft on the drag it generates by moving through the air that generates the drag.

What about the chart and the two carts? NALSA have created a non-record.

Once again, the power to turn the propeller comes from the relative motion of the ground.

The energy for the cart system comes from the KE of the air wrt the ground.

 

[jadebox]

The engine applies power to the prop shaft, such that thrust can be generated to overcome the drag and then some.

You've just explained, in rather simple terms, how the cart works.

The movement of the cart on the ground applies power to the prop shaft, such that thrust can be can be generated to overcome the drag and then some.

-- Roger

 

[humber]

You've just explained, in rather simple terms, how the cart works.

The movement of the cart on the ground applies power to the prop shaft, such that thrust can be can be generated to overcome the drag and then some.

-- Roger

Uh, huh. But if that's true, you don't need the prop. Just connect the wheel that is driving the prop, to another wheel and away you go.
The cart is a proposal for a PM machine, that tries to avoid that stigma by circumlocution.

 

[Llyricist]

Uh, huh. But if that's true, you don't need the prop. Just connect the wheel that is driving the prop, to another wheel and away you go.
The cart is a proposal for a PM machine, that tries to avoid that stigma by circumlocution.

Which comes full circle back to your belief that the cart travels the same distance through the air as it does over the ground.

 

[RossFW]

Uh, huh. But if that's true, you don't need the prop. Just connect the wheel that is driving the prop, to another wheel and away you go.
The cart is a proposal for a PM machine, that tries to avoid that stigma by circumlocution.

Actually, that would work fine, provided the two sets of wheels were acting on surfaces that had different velocities. Indeed, the "Under the ruler, faster than the ruler" is EXACTLEY as you describe.

In the absense of two surfaces with a relative velocity, a surface and an airstream with different velocities, with wheels moving over the surface and a propellor working in the airstream would work just fine.......

 

[Llyricist]

Though it is an excuse to post this again:

That's the basic form, add a torque converter between the front sprocket and axle, and a steering mechanism for a more practical implementation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Deary me, JBTH, I have already explained that.
<bluster snipped>
Aircraft are indeed slowed down by their propellers -s ome are deliberately designed to do that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controllable_pitch_propeller
"the reversible propeller can also create reverse thrust for braking or going backwards without the need of changing the direction of shaft revolutions."

And my car can be slowed by engine braking. Irrelevant evasion.

There is drag, but also "lift". The engine applies power to the prop shaft, such that thrust can be generated to overcome the drag and then some.

And the cart's wheels apply power to its drive chain. So if you want to attack the principle, you'll have to do it elsewhere.

That is an entirely different proposition, from running the aircraft on the drag it generates by moving through the air that generates the drag.

You still think the propeller is being turned by the headwind. How much bigger a hammer is required to hammer the point home? The wheels turn the prop so that the wind pushes on the prop and the prop pushes the cart.

 

[Myriad]

Though it is an excuse to post this again:

That's the basic form, add a torque converter between the front sprocket and axle, and a steering mechanism for a more practical implementation.

Yep. Or this version, that could get the car of an old-fashioned chain-driven roller coaster up the hill faster than the chain is going:

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[D'rok]

Though it is an excuse to post this again:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21480&stc=1&d=1300730369

That's the basic form, add a torque converter between the front sprocket and axle, and a steering mechanism for a more practical implementation.

I look forward to Humber's contortions over this one.

 

[Llyricist]

I look forward to Humber's contortions over this one.

It won't work for the same reason the BB doesn't. The walkway can only turn the front wheels backwards. (Been there, done that, at another forum).

He absolutely has no conception of leverage.

 

[D'rok]

It won't work for the same reason the BB doesn't. The walkway can only turn the front wheels backwards. (Been there, done that, at another forum).

He absolutely has no conception of leverage.

Yikes.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

It won't work for the same reason the BB doesn't. The walkway can only turn the front wheels backwards. (Been there, done that, at another forum).

He absolutely has no conception of leverage.

This whole thing from humber is just one extended argument from ignorance. He doesn't get it, so it must be faked. I don't see this as any different from someone claiming that because rockets need air to push against, we never went to the moon.

 

[Llyricist]

This whole thing from humber is just one extended argument from ignorance. He doesn't get it, so it must be faked. I don't see this as any different from someone claiming that because rockets need air to push against, we never went to the moon.

Yeah, but the arrogance of his ignorance makes it difficult to let slide. Not to mention some of the hilarious things he ends up saying.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I think the difference is humber's willingness to present facts and equations to support his belief -- a level of mis-understanding that's much more unusual than the simple lack of understanding we usually see.

 

[humber]

And my car can be slowed by engine braking. Irrelevant evasion.

Evasion? And you compare a cranky wind cart to a car with an engine?
The brakes don't drive the car, but saying that drag drives the cart, is the same thing.

And the cart's wheels apply power to its drive chain. So if you want to attack the principle, you'll have to do it elsewhere.

Which drives the prop, which drives the wheel.
"Ground Power" the energy that dare not speak its name.

You still think the propeller is being turned by the headwind. How much bigger a hammer is required to hammer the point home? The wheels turn the prop so that the wind pushes on the prop and the prop pushes the cart.

I don't think so, but Lyricist ( aka Axeman) does. Sol_inviticus does. All the other Carteers do, and Spork does.

Evasion? Tell me why this is not correct. Special vehicle class;
"Can I take it over, Daddy"

STEADY STATE is important!
The red line is the BB, but another cart has less mass, so accelerates faster, meaning that at the point of measurement it is faster, but may have a lower terminal (steady-state) speed, yet steals the record from the BB.
That is a major flaw in the entire procedure.
But, it works the other way too. If the BB gains from some short term wind pattern, you may find it can't sustain that over time. In that case, the yellow cart is legitimate, but the BB is not.
The deal was steady-state ddw, not "whatever"

 

[humber]

This whole thing from humber is just one extended argument from ignorance. He doesn't get it, so it must be faked. I don't see this as any different from someone claiming that because rockets need air to push against, we never went to the moon.

One is PM, the other isn't.

 

[humber]

Yikes.

Cotton reels and puppy dog's tails
Coloured building blocks and crayons.

Carteers are funny.

 

[CORed]

One is PM, the other isn't.

Wrong again. Neither is perpetual motion.

 

[D'rok]

Cotton reels and puppy dog's tails
Coloured building blocks and crayons.

Carteers are funny.

Will Llyricist's cart work as advertised? If not, why not?

 

[Llyricist]

I don't think so, but Lyricist ( aka Axeman) does. Sol_inviticus does. All the other Carteers do, and Spork does.

Wrong, none of us think the relative headwind turns the prop. Only you do.