Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

As far as everyone else is concerned thanks Humber, you have again done what you so often do. Introduced incontrovertible proof of your own wrongness as evidence in your defense.

Nice filibuster. There is no doubt that a tailwind turns the rotor CCW
( opposite to the prop mode). That is a turbine. The power of a turbine falls when it does not directly face the wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design#Yawing

"The power output losses can simply be approximated to fall with cos3(yaw angle"

Maximum when yaw = 0
The opposing force from the tailwind falls as the cart deviates from ddw. The sail force produced by the changing wind, increases. Hence, it's better when not ddw. Planet Oil Barrel is a fantasy.

I do not know if you are capable of being shown where you are lying/wrong but I do know for certain that you cannot accept being shown. I know this because you have been shown all your errors and misunderstandings regarding the chart more than a hundred times.

"you do not know that I am capable"
Give it a shot.

I also know that you will not, or are not capable of understanding, even the most basic concepts required; such as the difference between instantaneous and averaged data points.

Again. You show what you have got, and there are others, not just me, and all can see how soundly you can thrash mentally defective Humber.

 

[jduffy77]

Nice filibuster. There is no doubt that a tailwind turns the rotor CCW
( opposite to the prop mode). That is a turbine. The power of a turbine falls when it does not directly face the wind.

As you have been told the wind cannot turn the rotor as it is being turned by the wheels. You have been told that there is a rigid connection to the wheels but you insist on pretending that it is free to be spun by the wind. If you want some new folks to talk to you, you should at least pretend to understand this as it is obvious to all but you.

"you do not know that I am capable"
Give it a shot.

Again. You show what you have got, and there are others, not just me, and all can see how soundly you can thrash mentally defective Humber.

The problem is you do not have enough understanding to begin a conversation. A Chinese speaker cannot communicate effectively with a Russian no matter how well intentioned.

I could list 20 points on the chart alone which you will not, or cannot address. If you want to show you are serious why don't you start by answering a few.

Why do you keep bringing up the push? The cart was not in a race. There was no finish line.

Why do you keep bringing up your belief that the cart was not steady state? The first problem is that you are still confusing steady state with equilibrium speed. The second problem is that equilibrium speed, or any absolute speed, is not relevant to anything. Only relative speed compared to the wind is relevant.

Why do you keep comparing averaged data points to instantaneous data points? You have been told many times how foolish it makes you look and yet you do not stop.

 

[I Ratant]

Other than being of no more importance than the number of angels a pinhead can handle, going downwind faster or slower than the wind has no practical use, with such cumbersome machinery.
Henry Ford's first production vehicle that problem, with the added ability to go crosswind, and even gasp! upwind, with no configuration changes, just point and go.
And the "down chain crawler"... really...

 

[jduffy77]

Other than being of no more importance than the number of angels a pinhead can handle, going downwind faster or slower than the wind has no practical use, with such cumbersome machinery.
Henry Ford's first production vehicle that problem, with the added ability to go crosswind, and even gasp! upwind, with no configuration changes, just point and go.
And the "down chain crawler"... really...

I Ratant, you may just be confused but since you remind me of Humber whom I enjoy conversing with I will take the time to point out that I have never seen anyone involved with the cart say anything about it changing the world. What do you mean when you say it is “of no more importance than the number of angels a pinhead can handle?”

I am asking because something I have noticed is how often the same self righteous blowhards who pronounce the pastimes and hobbies of others to be a waste of time are not doctors who give up their lives to help people in Haiti. What kind of yardstick do you use to judge others hobbies?

I have known some who laugh at sports as being a waste of time and then go home and lovingly dust off their collection of model airplanes. I have seen people whose hobby is posting thousands and thousands of posts on internet forums. They go from one inane topic to another smugly posting opinions on all sorts of drivel. So, since you bring it up I would be interested in knowing what sorts of endeavors you find “important” enough for you to spend time on?

 

[humber]

As you have been told the wind cannot turn the rotor as it is being turned by the wheels.

And what turns the wheels? Can't be the ground. No such thing as ground power. To replace that ( it was once the source of power), the prop is mow said to "extract" energy from the wind. How does it do that, if it does not drive the wheel? It takes energy from the air, to drive itself to take energy form the air? Oh, "that may sound like PM, but it's not"...oh yes it is.
Or does it push the cart which drives the wheel which rotates the prop? "The woman who swallowed a bird to catch the fly...."

It is common to put rotors in a shroud, a venturi.
Like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827104702.htm

The headwind against the cart's body opposes the cart. That is accepted.
If a panel were fitted over the venturi, I would expect that to be a drag force too, so why does it suddenly drive the cart, because it hits the rotor instead? Voodoo.

You have been told that there is a rigid connection to the wheels but you insist on pretending that it is free to be spun by the wind. If you want some new folks to talk to you, you should at least pretend to understand this as it is obvious to all but you.

Why not ask Spork if the ratchet is there or not? Either way does not help explain why water becomes wine at the prop. It's just a sign of the ad-hoc engineering, and that should tell of the merit of other claims like "the torque of a Corvette".

That absurdity been repeated by so many blogs and reports, because it all comes from the press kit that TAD have been spamming to every possible recipient. I may as well get a supporting from my mum. It is worth more because, at least, she would not give it to me unless she didn't believe it to be true.

The problem is you do not have enough understanding to begin a conversation. A Chinese speaker cannot communicate effectively with a Russian no matter how well intentioned.

How about the universal language of math?
Logic?

I could list 20 points on the chart alone which you will not, or cannot address. If you want to show you are serious why don't you start by answering a few.

No, I have put my case and several charts. You have posted none. You point to where my charts are wrong.
I have shown how to calculated the RMS value. Shown how the NALSA data is not the same as Spork's. EXPLAIN.

Why do you keep bringing up the push? The cart was not in a race. There was no finish line.

Doh. That's the point. If is measured when the runway runs out, or do you have other justification as to why they chose that time?

Why do you keep bringing up your belief that the cart was not steady state? The first problem is that you are still confusing steady state with equilibrium speed.

Not confusing anything. A cart can use the short term wind. NIST use 10 minutes or more. A 105 second burst says nothing about the cart's ability to beat the wind. It's simply fraudulent to claim a record on the basis of a short term change in the wind. And Steady State IS equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_statde.
If Spork and JB bandy about terms they do not understand, then that is too bad for them, and obfuscation for those who do. Please do not repeat that same mantra. Acceleration means nothing.

The second problem is that equilibrium speed, or any absolute speed, is not relevant to anything. Only relative speed compared to the wind is relevant.

Out of luck there. If you want to use the peak speed of the cart under acceleration, then that should be compared to the peak speed of the wind.

Even with the push, the average speed of the cart compared to the average speed of the wind is; 13.5mph for the cart, 11mph for the wind. No push 8.5mph for the cart. The question is about thermodynamics. If the cart's average speed is below that of the wind, then there is more time to gather energy, out of a greater volume or air. Steady state removes that gain.

The push adds energy. When that is removed, the cart is below the average speed of the wind. The trial is uncontrolled, and can start and stop when the competitor dictates. Failures are unquestioningly ignored and da boys get to take it over,

Why do you keep comparing averaged data points to instantaneous data points? You have been told many times how foolish it makes you look and yet you do not stop.

The BLACK line in Spork's chart IS 10 second averaged. How many times?
The shown deviation of the wind to the South meets all your objections, yet the cart still accelerates. So how do you explain that?

Secondly, two different methods have been applied. NALSA use the arithmetic mean. All the samples over the 10 second period are added together and divided by the number of samples, to yield the usual notion of average; -4.1 degrees. That is a single number, so would be represented by a horizontal line over the 10 second period. So what does the changing Black line represent?

That is the Nth time I have asked you to explain that, and why there are other differences. Spork refuses to answer, or provide the raw data, and that says he is hiding something.

 

[humber]

Other than being of no more importance than the number of angels a pinhead can handle, going downwind faster or slower than the wind has no practical use, with such cumbersome machinery.
Henry Ford's first production vehicle that problem, with the added ability to go crosswind, and even gasp! upwind, with no configuration changes, just point and go.
And the "down chain crawler"... really...

Well, yes, but you will be surprised how many think otherwise, and there are ambitions to use this cart for wind energy, so adding to the burden of existing scams and lame-brained schemes.

Your diagram has been made so many times, but Carteers have no use for opinions outside of their own. ETA: The use of the red lines is a deft idea.

 

[GlennB]

And what turns the wheels? Can't be the ground.

Strangely, you're wrong.

I built a wheat-grinding machine working on ground-power.

A cart, with a little sail. The sail drove the cart, the ground drove the wheels, and I rigged up a grinder geared to the wheels and fed wheat grain in there to make flour.

I might need to refine my design for maximum efficiency, wheat-grinding wise, but it was huge fun. And the locals cheered so.

 

[I Ratant]

I Ratant, you may just be confused but since you remind me of Humber whom I enjoy conversing with I will take the time to point out that I have never seen anyone involved with the cart say anything about it changing the world. What do you mean when you say it is “of no more importance than the number of angels a pinhead can handle?”

I am asking because something I have noticed is how often the same self righteous blowhards who pronounce the pastimes and hobbies of others to be a waste of time are not doctors who give up their lives to help people in Haiti. What kind of yardstick do you use to judge others hobbies?

I have known some who laugh at sports as being a waste of time and then go home and lovingly dust off their collection of model airplanes. I have seen people whose hobby is posting thousands and thousands of posts on internet forums. They go from one inane topic to another smugly posting opinions on all sorts of drivel. So, since you bring it up I would be interested in knowing what sorts of endeavors you find “important” enough for you to spend time on?

.
I have a very dusty collection of model airplanes.
The cart moves downwind faster than the wind.
BFD.
Is there any practical reason to do this, other than it can be done?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When a wheel rolls, there is an opposing force of rolling resistance.
A tyre rolled down a ramp on to a level surface will eventually stop because of that (and drag with the air). That "roll down test" is used to test both car and bike tyres. Friction opposes the wheel, so is a force decelerating it - applied to turn the wheel the other way. Without it, the wheel will not roll, but slide. Friction may be a loss, but no wheel can roll without it.
Which way it turns depends of the direction of that frictional force.
I will find the calculation for that, when I find the post again. Nobody responded when I posted it - 3 times. Will you do that, this time?

Cool story. Doesn't appear to have any relevance to the way the gearwheel will turn when the chain moves relative to the rail, but I guess we shouldn't expect miracles.

That will cost energy.

Yes. That will cost energy. And?

Tried it have you? There's more to it than that. It is best via video.

Looking forward to it.

So you say. The driving thing is a rack, so its a rack and pinion. Instead of "imagining" that, make the rack a fixed length and push on the end. See how far that end moves.

All racks have a "fixed length". What are you talking about?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There is no doubt that a tailwind turns the rotor CCW
( opposite to the prop mode).

You watched the BB run on video. You probably watched it a thousand times, looking for flaws. So - exactly where in the run does the prop reverse direction?

 

[humber]

Cool story. Doesn't appear to have any relevance to the way the gearwheel will turn when the chain moves relative to the rail, but I guess we shouldn't expect miracles.
Yes. That will cost energy. And?


Looking forward to it.

All racks have a "fixed length". What are you talking about?

That's why you need the video. Nothing else will stop Carteers.
Seeing is believing is their motto, and believe me, you are going to see it,.

The other remarks don't really matter, because the idea is a non-starter.

There will never be any gain from gearing. Wind is a finite power source.
That is p=f*v. Terminal velocity is limited by power. The power of the opposing drag force sets that limit. Once the power demand of those losses is the same as the power input, that is that.

 

[jduffy77]

.
I have a very dusty collection of model airplanes.
The cart moves downwind faster than the wind.
BFD.
Is there any practical reason to do this, other than it can be done?

If you mean practical application then no. As for practical reason I would say that depends on individual outlook. I would put it ahead of playing cricket, writing posts on internet forums and climbing Mt. Everest; but behind cancer research.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is common to put rotors in a shroud, a venturi.

The headwind against the cart's body opposes the cart. That is accepted.
If a panel were fitted over the venturi, I would expect that to be a drag force too, so why does it suddenly drive the cart, because it hits the rotor instead? Voodoo.

Let me try to give you a clue: What is it about an aeroplane's propeller that means it pushes the plane forwards instead of dragging it back?

No - don't gallop off in the wrong direction again - I'm not talking about the fact that it's driven by an engine. After all, the cart's prop is driven too (but please, just for a moment let's stick to the point, so don't confuse yourself by digressing on how it's driven).

The salient point is that the propeller is driven faster than it would turn if it were freewheeling in the wind.

Think about it for a moment.



That's it.

Simple, isn't it?

So I guess we can put that part of your objection onto the scrapheap. Right?

Why not ask Spork if the ratchet is there or not?

I don't know if you'll remember, but it has been mentioned before - about a billion times - that the ratchet does not operate while that cart is making a run. Does that ring a bell? Maybe you forgot. Or maybe you didn't.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There will never be any gain from gearing. Wind is a finite power source.
That is p=f*v. Terminal velocity is limited by power. The power of the opposing drag force sets that limit. Once the power demand of those losses is the same as the power input, that is that.

I just want to quote this because it's true. It's so depressing quoting humber's nonsense all the time that I wanted to try quoting some genuine facts for a change. Refreshing.

Of course, it has no bearing on his objections to BB. That works just fine within the constraints of the laws of physics.

 

[humber]

You watched the BB run on video. You probably watched it a thousand times, looking for flaws.

Apart from the luminously incandescent flaw that IS Captain Zardos'
spaceship, not really,

So - exactly where in the run does the prop reverse direction?

Exactly when the chain breaks in the "blow up run". It spins up quite quickly.

The force producing that rotation, does not go away when the chain is put back on, after it goes back to the shop for re-Bungling.

I expect that you will appreciate that force will develop in that chain as it impedes that rotation, which, anyone else would see as tending to drive the cart in reverse. But, Carteers have some "new age" ideas about gears, so won't see that.
The net force available to the prop, is reduced by the turbine force; the rotor does not have to turn the other way.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

you need the video. Nothing else will stop Carteers.
Seeing is believing is their motto, and believe me, you are going to see it.

Better be good, after this big buildup.

 

[humber]

I just want to quote this because it's true. It's so depressing quoting humber's nonsense all the time that I wanted to try quoting some genuine facts for a change. Refreshing.

Of course, it has no bearing on his objections to BB. That works just fine within the constraints of the laws of physics.

But you think there is some magical way of getting more power.
Let's say the geared gizmo is driven by a sail. The power available to that sail is dependent upon the wind speed and sail area, but the gears have no influence upon that. It won't go any faster because you tried to "fool" it.

 

[humber]

Better be good, after this big buildup.

Well, I'm not Spork, so I don't expect you to see it as an Epiphany or Vision. But, apart from some sarcasm, it will be clear how it works. The first is the "reel moves faster than the paper" thing.
That monkey Terry - he has a potty mouth.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Exactly when the chain breaks in the "blow up run". It spins up quite quickly.

Ah. So, the cart only behaves in the way you describe when it is broken. OK. So it doesn't do that in normal operation - during the record-setting run, for example? Got it.

The force producing that rotation, does not go away when the chain is put back on, after it goes back to the shop for re-Bungling.

I expect that you will appreciate that force will develop in that chain as it impedes that rotation, which, anyone else would see as tending to drive the cart in reverse.

That's right. It tries to oppose the rotation of the prop. Exactly as I tried to explain to you in this very thread.

 

[jduffy77]

The headwind against the cart's body opposes the cart. That is accepted.
If a panel were fitted over the venturi, I would expect that to be a drag force too, so why does it suddenly drive the cart, because it hits the rotor instead? Voodoo.

Not voodoo, it only appears like magic to you because you cannot understand it, just as a plane would appear to be voodoo to a caveman. The prop is on a continuous downwind tack. It is slowing down the wind. You have been told this before.

Why not ask Spork if the ratchet is there or not? Either way does not help explain why water becomes wine at the prop. It's just a sign of the ad-hoc engineering, and that should tell of the merit of other claims like "the torque of a Corvette".

That absurdity been repeated by so many blogs and reports, because it all comes from the press kit that TAD have been spamming to every possible recipient. I may as well get a supporting from my mum. It is worth more because, at least, she would not give it to me unless she didn't believe it to be true.

You have so thoroughly confused yourself at this point it is impossible to begin to educate you. Since you don’t understand the forces involved you can’t begin to understand what torque is being referred to. I don’t think you even know what torque is and I know you don’t understand the difference between torque and force. You absolutely cannot begin to grasp the difference between net torque and an individual torque. I say this not because you are a nitwit, but because you don’t understand what the prop is doing.

How about the universal language of math?

You do not understand math.

Doh. That's the point. If is measured when the runway runs out, or do you have other justification as to why they chose that time?

Whose point mine? It is measured when the runway runs out. Equilibrium speed has nothing to do with it.

Not confusing anything. A cart can use the short term wind. NIST use 10 minutes or more. A 105 second burst says nothing about the cart's ability to beat the wind. It's simply fraudulent to claim a record on the basis of a short term change in the wind. And Steady State IS equilibrium.

If Spork and JB bandy about terms they do not understand, then that is too bad for them, and obfuscation for those who do. Please do not repeat that same mantra. Acceleration means nothing.

It is you who do not understand, although you have been told. In the context of the cart steady state means no stored energy or energy added from outside the wind/cart/ground system is required for the cart to travel ddwfttw indefinitely.

Out of luck there. If you want to use the peak speed of the cart under acceleration, then that should be compared to the peak speed of the wind.

Even with the push, the average speed of the cart compared to the average speed of the wind is; 13.5mph for the cart, 11mph for the wind. No push 8.5mph for the cart. The question is about thermodynamics. If the cart's average speed is below that of the wind, then there is more time to gather energy, out of a greater volume or air. Steady state removes that gain.

You continually refuse to say whether or not your meaningless average speed calcs included the lunch break? If not why not?

The push adds energy. When that is removed, the cart is below the average speed of the wind. The trial is uncontrolled, and can start and stop when the competitor dictates. Failures are unquestioningly ignored and da boys get to take it over,

You're really embarrassing yourself again. The cart doesn’t remember the push. A bowling ball does not continue to accelerate after it leaves your hand either.

The BLACK line in Spork's chart IS 10 second averaged. How many times?
The shown deviation of the wind to the South meets all your objections, yet the cart still accelerates. So how do you explain that?

Secondly, two different methods have been applied. NALSA use the arithmetic mean. All the samples over the 10 second period are added together and divided by the number of samples, to yield the usual notion of average; -4.1 degrees. That is a single number, so would be represented by a horizontal line over the 10 second period. So what does the changing Black line represent?

That is the Nth time I have asked you to explain that, and why there are other differences. Spork refuses to answer, or provide the raw data, and that says he is hiding something.

Humber this is too crazy, and too wrong, even for you. Go back and read it again.