Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[I Ratant]

Funny stuff, troll.

.
It would be at least as important as adding another ball-point pen to the world's best collection of same.
And how would the "achievement" be diminished by knowing the difference between the maximum attainable unassisted speed and the mechanically augmented speed?
.
Just for you, a wallpaper image of the thing....
.
.
.
I thought my solution to mounting the prop shaft was pretty neat.

 

[spork]

.
How much improvement over a downwind cart with a freewheeling prop versus powering the prop is there?
Finding that out for this project would give it some cachet of professional credibility.

And there it is right there. That's the sort of thing that makes you incredibly annoying (and wrong).

The only way to tell is to try it.

Yup. That's why they built the 777 rather than doing any analysis first. They figured "no way to know without trying it".

If you followed this thread you'd know that I predicted Pi times wind speed based on the simulation. And even then I could only take some reasonable educated guesses as to some of the input numbers.

troll.

 

[CORed]

.
How much improvement over a downwind cart with a freewheeling prop versus powering the prop is there?
Finding that out for this project would give it some cachet of professional credibility.
Would the cart get to 50% windspeed? 75%?
What would be the actual gain?
The only way to tell is to try it.

For his next experiment, I Ratant pours a bucket of water onto a sloping surface to answer the burning question: Will it run uphill or downhill?

 

[spork]

For his next experiment, I Ratant pours a bucket of water onto a sloping surface to answer the burning question: Will it run uphill or downhill?

That's unfair. He'll first pour a bucket of water on a non-sloping surface. That way he has established a control - all scientific-like. The investors in water-wasting technology will require that.

 

[A.T.]

I just found that the prop alone will push the cart.

Yeah, when below windspeed. You needed a test to see that?

 

[A.T.]

.
I thought my solution to mounting the prop shaft was pretty neat.

For further tests you should try to move the streamer out of the propeller circle. Above or better at prop hub height on the side.

A interesting challenge would be a simple cart like this, that stabilizes itself in the downwind direction, below and above wind-speed.

 

[Cuddles]

Once again this thread seems to be degenerating. Stop the personal insults and bickering or further mod action will follow.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[humber]

He sure seems to me on the right track already in Humbers quote; "the treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame".

There are so many things wrong with the TM, that it's equivalence is just a side issue. It's easy to narrow the field to what the beseecher wants to hear.

The belt is the road. That comes from the notion that if driving along the road, the observer (aged 7), sees the road "move backwards". That allows the backwards moving belt to be the road.
But, the faster the car goes, the faster the "road" goes.
But on TM, the belt speed is fixed, and the cart is said to travel faster than it. At WS, you may tell yourself that the cart and road have the same relative speeds from each POV, but >WS makes no sense. The cart is traveling faster than the "road"

 

[humber]

So, a Ph.D. renders him infallible? I thought that only applied to the Pope.

And a salesman is?
Your arguemnt is hyperbolic, taking something to breaking point with an absurdity.
The TM does not require "infallibility" but some knowledge of physics. It is the lack of that knowledge, which generates the appeals to the Doctors, while holding the position that they are experts but fools at the same time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are so many things wrong with the TM, that it's equivalence is just a side issue. It's easy to narrow the field to what the beseecher wants to hear.

The belt is the road. That comes from the notion that if driving along the road, the observer (aged 7), sees the road "move backwards". That allows the backwards moving belt to be the road.
But, the faster the car goes, the faster the "road" goes.
But on TM, the belt speed is fixed, and the cart is said to travel faster than it. At WS, you may tell yourself that the cart and road have the same relative speeds from each POV, but >WS makes no sense. The cart is traveling faster than the "road"

There is so much wrong with this, but that is typical humber. First off you can see that he believes in a Flat Earth since his prejudice for the surface of the Earth can be the only frame of reference is showing through. And of course the only place where the surface of the Earth would be special is on a Flat one.

humber, the speed of the treadmill can be varied, so there goes that analogy. If you seriously want to debate the treadmill I will be happy to do so. And just for you we will keep it to a simple level, since you do try to lie and cheat whenever you can.

Oh wait... I think I hear flat fat feet running away from the debate he lost a couple of years ago.

 

[humber]

Yes he was. I claimed that I suspected I could bring him around - not that I was 100% certain I could (you'll be surprised how rarely I make such a claim).

I spoke to him on the phone, and found him to be a completely reasonable and open-minded guy. After a couple of calls and emails, he came to understand exactly how DDWFTTW is possible. He still had trouble accepting the treadmill test as being equivalent to a wind-over-road test, but he didn't care to spend a whole lot more time on it - and I sure as heck didn't see any need to hold his feet to the fire.

You phoned and e-mailed him many times, and he still trenchantly disagrees with the TM.
By dint of haruspicy, you have read support for your cart, whereas he says that he thinks the cart may not break the C of E,
He adds that does not mean the cart can travel ddwfftw, and that he can't think of a way that such a machine could be built.

It all depends on how you framed the questions that you did NOT post.
You have taken an example of where he says the C of E may not be broken, and restated that as support for ddwfftw.

Yes he's still wrong about the treadmill. I can point to plenty of PhD's that started off on the wrong side of DDWFTTW and have since come around.

He's the PhD and Professor. And you?

I think if Dr. Camp cared to discuss the treadmill with me for another 20 minutes, I could probably bring him around on that too. But I see no reason to trouble the man. It certainly wouldn't change humber's "mind", nor would a care if it did.

But you didn't mind repeatedly phoning him even though he said he did not have much time and was busy, or making snide remarks about his college
being "liberal arts". Do I need to post what you said about Dr Wayne Whiteman?

 

[humber]

There is so much wrong with this, but that is typical humber. First off you can see that he believes in a Flat Earth since his prejudice for the surface of the Earth can be the only frame of reference is showing through. And of course the only place where the surface of the Earth would be special is on a Flat one.

Still living with that one? It's rather a myth that people though the Earth to be flat. Read a history book.

humber, the speed of the treadmill can be varied, so there goes that analogy.

Oh dear. The belt speed can be varied, but the cart goes faster than it when "above WS"; faster than the road at any speed of the belt.

How? It's "intuitive". It slides over the surface. Every video shows that the cart is only tenuously attached to the belt. A prod with a forks sends it sliding backwards. it moves in slow drifting circles. Angular motion over the "road" A table fan at several meters away blows it off the belt, as JB waits in anticipation of that occurrence. You can see how he as learned to tell when its about to fail. He removes it from the belt before the embarrassing failure. At one stage, it runs with its wheels against the spirit level. And even speeds up, when the fan air hits it.

It was developed by trial and error. Tinker until the friction is "just right".
I put a question to Mender about how the cart behaves when not in line with the belt - that is, it is placed at an angle to the belt. He has been oddly silent.

That video was made to counter a claim made by Harold, that a fan in front of the cart would cause it to move faster up the belt.

Do you know why? It's something that damages the "ground power" claim that was in vogue at the time. But, we now have the "headwind" driving the cart, so why didn't Spork agree that the fan should make the cart move faster? He's changed his story because of Steve Smith.

 

[jduffy77]

There are so many things wrong with the TM, that it's equivalence is just a side issue. It's easy to narrow the field to what the beseecher wants to hear.

The belt is the road. That comes from the notion that if driving along the road, the observer (aged 7), sees the road "move backwards". That allows the backwards moving belt to be the road.
But, the faster the car goes, the faster the "road" goes.
But on TM, the belt speed is fixed, and the cart is said to travel faster than it. At WS, you may tell yourself that the cart and road have the same relative speeds from each POV, but >WS makes no sense. The cart is traveling faster than the "road"

How big would a TM have to be before you could not tell if you were standing on a TM or a road?

 

[jduffy77]

You phoned and e-mailed him many times, and he still trenchantly disagrees with the TM.

What makes you say that? When I read the email it seems like he is saying lets not even bother with the TM as I no longer need it to understand how ddwfttw works.

 

[humber]

.
The flat plate area of that prop is about 8 sq. in.
No reason to expect a flat plate to not move the cart.
The prop disk area is 10 times that much.
I kinda think the cart would also move.
.
Any definitive test could determine the amount of improvement (or not) of each stage in building up to the full drive-prop condition.
And would be expected to be included and analyzed in a proper engineering report.
But I won't bother getting the equipment to measure the wind speed and direction, the wheel rpm and the prop rpm.
The wind pushes the cart better with the prop rotating.
Golly, write that down.

I was curious about the bias in direction. If that was due to the prop, or the effect of the chassis. When that faces the wind, it can deflect or take energy from the incoming free-stream.
Of course, the prop will work better as a sail when it turns. When fixed, the depleted air, arrives at the other side of the prop, so you have something like Betz's limit at work. But, a turning prop moves the blade into fresh air.
I have a geared prop but use a fan. It behaves as you describe.
It won't move forwards on the chassis alone, but the prop adds a sail when the prop is free of the wheels. But, when geared, it can go towards the fan, but slower.

 

[Modified]

How big would a TM have to be before you could not tell if you were standing on a TM or a road?

We've tried that before with humber. It won't go anywhere. And don't point out that the earth is spinning, that won't help either. He seems to believe that the gravity of the earth creates a special reference frame.

 

[spork]

.
The flat plate area of that prop is about 8 sq. in.
No reason to expect a flat plate to not move the cart.
The prop disk area is 10 times that much.
I kinda think the cart would also move.
.
Any definitive test could determine the amount of improvement (or not) of each stage in building up to the full drive-prop condition.
And would be expected to be included and analyzed in a proper engineering report.
But I won't bother getting the equipment to measure the wind speed and direction, the wheel rpm and the prop rpm.
The wind pushes the cart better with the prop rotating.
Golly, write that down.

I was curious about the bias in direction. If that was due to the prop, or the effect of the chassis. When that faces the wind, it can deflect or take energy from the incoming free-stream.
Of course, the prop will work better as a sail when it turns. When fixed, the depleted air, arrives at the other side of the prop, so you have something like Betz's limit at work. But, a turning prop moves the blade into fresh air.
I have a geared prop but use a fan. It behaves as you describe.
It won't move forwards on the chassis alone, but the prop adds a sail when the prop is free of the wheels. But, when geared, it can go towards the fan, but slower.

I'd like to congratulate you two on finding one another. I think you'll be very happy together.

 

[humber]

What makes you say that? When I read the email it seems like he is saying lets not even bother with the TM as I no longer need it to understand how ddwfttw works.

He was phoned over months.

Read his replies. He says that he thinks the cart may not break the C of E, yet that does not mean the cart may go faster than the wind. Not very consistent?
What do matter think he was actually responding to?
We have only half of the story, and selected bits for publication. That is of course the pattern. Hide all failures. Spork was forced to post any response, because I told Spork I had emailed Dr Camp. But not that it was only to warn him about the potential for his name to be defamed. I asked nothing about the TM or cart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still living with that one? It's rather a myth that people though the Earth to be flat. Read a history book.


Oh dear. The belt speed can be varied, but the cart goes faster than it when "above WS"; faster than the road at any speed of the belt.

How? It's "intuitive". It slides over the surface. Every video shows that the cart is only tenuously attached to the belt. A prod with a forks sends it sliding backwards. it moves in slow drifting circles. Angular motion over the "road" A table fan at several meters away blows it off the belt, as JB waits in anticipation of that occurrence. You can see how he as learned to tell when its about to fail. He removes it from the belt before the embarrassing failure. At one stage, it runs with its wheels against the spirit level. And even speeds up, when the fan air hits it.

It was developed by trial and error. Tinker until the friction is "just right".
I put a question to Mender about how the cart behaves when not in line with the belt - that is, it is placed at an angle to the belt. He has been oddly silent.

That video was made to counter a claim made by Harold, that a fan in front of the cart would cause it to move faster up the belt.

Do you know why? It's something that damages the "ground power" claim that was in vogue at the time. But, we now have the "headwind" driving the cart, so why didn't Spork agree that the fan should make the cart move faster? He's changed his story because of Steve Smith.

humber''s poor reading comprehension kicks in again.

Sorry humber, it is you that is making the Flat Earth claims. I am just here to point out to you when you do.

You should try writing your next silly claim again, it makes no sense, even for you.

And you still have failed to show one time that the carts slip on the treadmill, they roll and go from side to side, rolling is not sliding. I know that may seem strange to someone who drives with his parking brake on for better traction, but that is the way that wheels work.

The "headwind" was never said to be driving the cart except by certain idiots who don't know how or why the cart works.

So did you want to debate the treadmill or not? Remember we all know you cheat so the rules will be stringent for you, but a genius like yourself should be able to handle that. Right

 

[spork]

What do matter think he was actually responding to?

This makes at least as much sense as any of humber's posts. At least there's a chance this one does not contain a lie. We may never know.