Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[jduffy77]

You went to the trial without knowing the rules?

I can't imagine why they would have been overly concerned about the rules. The rules were written by experts to test the speed at which a cart travels ddwfttw. They showed up with a cart which they already knew went ddwfttw at around 3x WS.

 

[CORed]

A reworking of a cliche, that says you agree that Spork did not have the lever argument at the time. It is not possible to even make the claim without reference to force, and that removes any doubt about you.

Of course it's possible to make the claim without reference to force. Reference to force is, of course necessary to explain how it works. And when everything you say about force, work and power is wrong and demonstrates that you don't actually have any understanding of the concepts (I'm talking about you humber, just in so you don't try to fool yourself again), you don't help your case much.

 

[CORed]

Yes. And when in Germany, I twice demonstrated to a PhD and former NASA employee, that his electrical over-unity machine did not work, and pointed to the errors in his theory that accounted for that. He accepted that with good grace, but came back for a third try.

Judging by your performance in this debate, I would guess that the machine was not over-unity, and that you did not in fact demonstrate that it didn't work. The trouble with politely brushing off a crank is that he usually has no clue that he's been brushed off.

 

[spork]

Judging by your performance in this debate, I would guess that the machine was not over-unity, and that you did not in fact demonstrate that it didn't work. The trouble with politely brushing off a crank is that he usually has no clue that he's been brushed off.

True. JB and I had the advantage of speaking with the NASA engineers directly. They of course had to laugh at humber's emails just as we laugh at his lies and delusions here. After a very short time, they proved themselves smarter than the rest of us by choosing not to engage these cranks any more.

The part that's ironic and tragic, is that Steve Smith could post here that humber was and is completely wrong - and the only effect it would have is that Steve would go from exalted NASA expert to idiot sailing enthusiast in a single post.

 

[A.T.]

Judging by your performance in this debate, I would guess that the machine was not over-unity, and that you did not in fact demonstrate that it didn't work.

Judging by his truthfulness in this debate, I would guess that none of it ever happened.

 

[humber]

Humber, can you please confirm or correct my interpretation? Is your objection to the cart on a treadmill video the fact that the cart advances on the treadmill instead of gradually moving in the same direction as the treadmill?

If so, do you appreciate that this behaviour is exactly what a DDWFTTW is supposed to do?

No. The TM is not about a machine "advancing up a belt". That in itself is not proof of anything to do with the cart in the wind.

TAD have repeatedly claimed that the cart on the TM is exactly like the cart in the wind. There are some obvious problems of scale and how closely the belt surface mimics a road, but they can be accounted for, and not necessarily invalidate the model.

But, the claim that the belt is the road, fails in principle for many reasons ( one of the matters that Dr Camp was "stuck on" was the he did not accept the equivalence of road and belt.)
An obvious discrepancy is the distance covered by the cart with respect to the distance of the belt. Allowing for the notion itself, a (real) car moves as far as the road "moves the other way".
But, the belt is at fixed speed, so if the cart moves along the belt from the "windspeed" state, it is traveling forward further than the belt moves the other way. That is not how a real cart behaves.

If the belt represents the speed of the wind, then when the cart is in the "wind speed" state so stationary, the claim is that it is traveling at windspeed. But to increase the wind speed, the belt speed is increased, right? There is no logical connection between the "advancing" and speed. It is a spurious outcome. There are many faults with the TM, but I mentioned that one, because it is easily perceived.

Another is the test where the cart is prodded with a fork. It moves backwards as a result and continues to do so after the fork had stopped applying force.

If that happens to a real car, that can only happen if the car loses all its KE in the forwards direction and gains it the other way.
Two cars in a head on collision may result in both moving one way or the other. The direction of one is reversed, so it loses its KE it had from the direction of original travel, to gain it in the other direction, usually accompanied by skidding.

The TM cart so easily loses the KE is it said to have in the forwards direction, and gains it the other way, because it has no KE in the forwards direction that could even remotely represent a 0.16kg cart moving at 10mph, and is ample evidence that it is simply sliding on the belts surface, as the belt moves the other way.
When prodded, it is driven down the belt, and slowly recovers the lost momentum, and moves back to a the stable state I earlier described.

 

[humber]

Of course it's possible to make the claim without reference to force.

And how?

 

[humber]

True. JB and I had the advantage of speaking with the NASA engineers directly. They of course had to laugh at humber's emails just as we laugh at his lies and delusions here.

And how does that get you off the hook for not making them publicly available? You do seem to be fixated on me, but there are others who may want to know the conditions of the trial, and perhaps comment on them.
You selected NALSA, and do not have the authority to judge their ideas.
Why will you not make the raw data available?

Do you have those emails, BTW? Pure fantasy. I never sent any to NALSA.
.
And your response tells of how deeply you were involved with what is supposedly an impartial judge, and indicates that they had already presumed the outcome of the trail.

After a very short time, they proved themselves smarter than the rest of us by choosing not to engage these cranks any more.

Could that be more self-serving? You will find no emails from me. I did inquire about the earlier unofficial trails to a private member, but said nothing about the the theory of the cart, but asked some general questions of how they planned to test it. He said it would be land speed, and they were not concerned with thermodynamic or the C of E. He talked about motor bikes and how his sail cart reached 2.8WS in the same wind.

The part that's ironic and tragic, is that Steve Smith could post here that humber was and is completely wrong - and the only effect it would have is that Steve would go from exalted NASA expert to idiot sailing enthusiast in a single post.

Then why not phone him, and ask him to join the debate to see if your assumption has any validity?

 

[jduffy77]

No. The TM is not about a machine "advancing up a belt". That in itself is not proof of anything to do with the cart in the wind.

TAD have repeatedly claimed that the cart on the TM is exactly like the cart in the wind. There are some obvious problems of scale and how closely the belt surface mimics a road, but they can be accounted for, and not necessarily invalidate the model.

But, the claim that the belt is the road, fails in principle for many reasons ( one of the matters that Dr Camp was "stuck on" was the he did not accept the equivalence of road and belt.)
An obvious discrepancy is the distance covered by the cart with respect to the distance of the belt. Allowing for the notion itself, a (real) car moves as far as the road "moves the other way".
But, the belt is at fixed speed, so if the cart moves along the belt from the "windspeed" state, it is traveling forward further than the belt moves the other way. That is not how a real cart behaves.

The real cart on the road is behaving exactly the same in every way as the cart on the TM. The two are identical in all relevant ways.

If the belt represents the speed of the wind, then when the cart is in the "wind speed" state so stationary, the claim is that it is traveling at windspeed. But to increase the wind speed, the belt speed is increased, right? There is no logical connection between the "advancing" and speed. It is a spurious outcome. There are many faults with the TM, but I mentioned that one, because it is easily perceived.

The only person who "perceives" it that way is you. The cart on the TM and the cart on the road both accelerate until they reach the multiple of WS dictated by their advance ratios.

Another is the test where the cart is prodded with a fork. It moves backwards as a result and continues to do so after the fork had stopped applying force.

If that happens to a real car, that can only happen if the car loses all its KE in the forwards direction and gains it the other way.
Two cars in a head on collision may result in both moving one way or the other. The direction of one is reversed, so it loses its KE it had from the direction of original travel, to gain it in the other direction, usually accompanied by skidding.

The TM cart so easily loses the KE is it said to have in the forwards direction, and gains it the other way, because it has no KE in the forwards direction that could even remotely represent a 0.16kg cart moving at 10mph, and is ample evidence that it is simply sliding on the belts surface, as the belt moves the other way.
When prodded, it is driven down the belt, and slowly recovers the lost momentum, and moves back to a the stable state I earlier described.

Prodded with a fork a car would behave in exactly the same way as the cart on the TM, as long as the forces involved were in the same ratios.

 

[humber]

The real cart on the road is behaving exactly the same in every way as the cart on the TM. The two are identical in all relevant ways.



The only person who "perceives" it that way is you. The cart on the TM and the cart on the road both accelerate until they reach the multiple of WS dictated by their advance ratios.



Prodded with a fork a car would behave in exactly the same way as the cart on the TM, as long as the forces involved were in the same ratios.

Sounds like blunt denial. Gainsaying of the original claims.

 

[phunk]

An obvious discrepancy is the distance covered by the cart with respect to the distance of the belt. Allowing for the notion itself, a (real) car moves as far as the road "moves the other way".
But, the belt is at fixed speed, so if the cart moves along the belt from the "windspeed" state, it is traveling forward further than the belt moves the other way. That is not how a real cart behaves.

You're mixing frames of reference here. You're comparing the distance the cart moves with respect to the belt with the distance the belt moves with respect to the ground the treadmill is sitting on.

In reality, the belt and the cart move the same distance with respect to each other.

 

[jduffy77]

Sounds like blunt denial. Gainsaying of the original claims.

That is all that is necessary at this point since it has been explained so many times. I know you will not be educated but others who wish could look back or ask questions.

 

[jduffy77]

You're mixing frames of reference here. You're comparing the distance the cart moves with respect to the belt with the distance the belt moves with respect to the ground the treadmill is sitting on.

In reality, the belt and the cart move the same distance with respect to each other.

I find it amazing that he keeps mixing up the reference frames given how simple it is. We aren't talking general relativity here. He cannot process the fact that when he is standing at the side of the TM he is standing in a balloon for the road case.

 

[CORed]

And how?

This cart is capable of going directly downwind, faster than the wind powered by the wind.

 

[CORed]

I find it amazing that he keeps mixing up the reference frames given how simple it is. We aren't talking general relativity here. He cannot process the fact that when he is standing at the side of the TM he is standing in a balloon for the road case.

He did the same thing two years ago. A Gallilean Transformation, which consists of adding the same number to all velocities, is simply beyond his comprehension. Two years ago, he came up with all sorts of arguments that he claimed refuted the equivalence of the cart on the treadmill in still air to the cart on a road in the wind. In every one of them, he would find some velocity, neglect to change the frame of reference for that value, and say "See, it's different".

He is simply unable to grasp any frame of reference other than "the ground".

 

[humber]

He did the same thing two years ago. A Gallilean Transformation, which consists of adding the same number to all velocities, is simply beyond his comprehension. Two years ago, he came up with all sorts of arguments that he claimed refuted the equivalence of the cart on the treadmill in still air to the cart on a road in the wind. In every one of them, he would find some velocity, neglect to change the frame of reference for that value, and say "See, it's different".

He is simply unable to grasp any frame of reference other than "the ground".

And you fell for the cartoon, because it was sold to you in as a math and evidence free gift, but failed to notice that it was repackaged, re-spun, several times along the way.

 

[humber]

You're mixing frames of reference here. You're comparing the distance the cart moves with respect to the belt with the distance the belt moves with respect to the ground the treadmill is sitting on.

In reality, the belt and the cart move the same distance with respect to each other.

Nope. You accept the motion as being with respect to the belt, so the claim sticks. Now you want a ground too?
What about the "Physics on a Shoestring Video", where the cart is tethered to the frame? What can that be?
A cart on the road, tied to trees on the roadside, as the road moves with respect to the ground.
Galilean equivalency; what a joke.

 

[I Ratant]

So, humber, the mere poster, is questioning the word of a NASA engineer? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

.
There are -no- authorities whose statements may not questioned.
None.
No statement must be accepted solely due to the source.
There must be verifying facts to back any statement up.
Merely "gainsaying"...or as is way too common here, "unequivocal lie" is not a "friendly and lively" way to discuss differences in opinion, which all that is at the base of this long thread.
Facts.
Just the facts.
Real life demonstrations are preferred for physical situations.
Lets see some from all the participants.

 

[humber]

The example of the tank tells you that it's all a gimmick around wheels
A transform of a runner on the ground: The belt replaces the ground, but the runner is still providing all of the energy. If the belt did that, it would be useless as an exercise machine.

Can the treadmill belt work to drive the tank? Doubtful. How about the runner's feet?
Can't see how. But it can spin a wheel.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. The TM is not about a machine "advancing up a belt". That in itself is not proof of anything to do with the cart in the wind.

Do you understand that the cart on a treadmill in still air is intended to model a cart on the ground heading downwind, but from the frame of reference of the air, and not that of the ground or the cart? If you don't realise that then - newsflash - it is. And if you still can't see the relevance of the treadmill test to the cart in the wind then please ask for further explanation.

TAD have repeatedly claimed that the cart on the TM is exactly like the cart in the wind. There are some obvious problems of scale and how closely the belt surface mimics a road, but they can be accounted for, and not necessarily invalidate the model.

OK. Dimensional analysis aside, it appears now that you see the equivalence.

An obvious discrepancy is the distance covered by the cart with respect to the distance of the belt. Allowing for the notion itself, a (real) car moves as far as the road "moves the other way".

If your frame of reference is the car then yes, obviously it would remain static from your point of view. But other frames of reference are available. In this case, the still air in the room is your frame of reference. You, the observer, are moving with the wind. Everything else - the cart and the "ground" i.e. the treadmill - move relative to that.

But, the belt is at fixed speed, so if the cart moves along the belt from the "windspeed" state, it is traveling forward further than the belt moves the other way. That is not how a real cart behaves.

If the cart is travelling faster than the wind and you the observer are travelling at the same speed as the wind then, yes, it does behave exactly like that.

If the belt represents the speed of the wind, then when the cart is in the "wind speed" state so stationary, the claim is that it is traveling at windspeed. But to increase the wind speed, the belt speed is increased, right?

Right.

There is no logical connection between the "advancing" and speed. It is a spurious outcome. There are many faults with the TM, but I mentioned that one, because it is easily perceived.

Sorry, no, it's not easily perceived. It makes no sense. Are you simply confusing yourself between two different frames of reference - that of the cart and that of the wind?