Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[quarky]

If nothing else, I can appreciate the nay-sayer's stance because it brings out this dialog.
Humber is actually playing the skeptic's role here. Some irony, for sure.

Ultimately, what I'm seeing in this long debate is a matter of semantics. It's starting to remind me of the Monty Hall problem.

We need a better definition of the base parameters.

 

[Llyricist]

Unsupported if you hand wave away the NALSA trial, that is.

Or if you don't have a clue of how to interpret it. Or if you don't have a clue of how to get the data that looks even better for the cart than the averaged data provided to the general public.

 

[Llyricist]

Or if you don't have a clue of how to interpret it. Or if you don't have a clue of how to get the data that looks even better for the cart than the averaged data provided to the general public.

Or worse yet, you think it's a trivial matter for a normal sail cart to go 2.8 times wind speed when less than 20 degrees off DDW.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Humber is actually playing the skeptic's role here. Some irony, for sure.

I'll agree that he's being skeptical, but not in the way we normally use the word. In the sense skeptic is used around here, it implies that there's a search for evidence, and that there's some level of legit evidence that would convince the skeptic. In this case, regardless of evidence, the 'skeptic' remains skeptical. I prefer the term denialist. No matter the evidence, he'll continue to deny and loudly add his 'nuh uh, can't happen' to the debate.

 

[recursive prophet]

If nothing else, I can appreciate the nay-sayer's stance because it brings out this dialog.
Humber is actually playing the skeptic's role here. Some irony, for sure.

Ultimately, what I'm seeing in this long debate is a matter of semantics. It's starting to remind me of the Monty Hall problem.

We need a better definition of the base parameters.

Excellent points quarky, all of which have been raised elsewhere. A peer reviewed paper would be nice also. Given all the interest this subject has generated online, I don't find the 'there are no papers on whether the laws of gravity are true either,' etc. argument very convincing.

Unsupported if you hand wave away the NALSA trial, that is.

I do wonder about this somewhat. We're talking about a few tests run by a sports group that had never done a similar one before. With Greenbird ground speed was the only real parameter considered, wasn't it? Wind direction, accurate wind speed measurements, and gradient effects were inconsequential wrt that record as far as I know. Just sayin....

 

[Llyricist]

I do wonder about this somewhat. We're talking about a few tests run by a sports group that had never done a similar one before. With Greenbird ground speed was the only real parameter considered, wasn't it? Wind direction, accurate wind speed measurements, and gradient effects were inconsequential wrt that record as far as I know. Just sayin....

Get off it, they are the people that know better than anyone else what angle off the wind it takes for a sail craft to beat the wind. You are suggesting here that Humber's bald assertions trump their years of experience. Good luck with that.

 

[mender]

Not enough friction will obviously not turn the wheel, so the prop will turn.

Oh good, another Boogerism for the list.
Where do you get these?
Thanks, Booger. See you later.
Don't go changin'.

 

[recursive prophet]

Get off it, they are the people that know better than anyone else what angle off the wind it takes for a sail craft to beat the wind. You are suggesting here that Humber's bald assertions trump their years of experience. Good luck with that.

Wasn't it their only testing experience where wind direction and speed were both major factors? I didn't say anything about Humber. Are you suggesting that a first time test by a sports club trumps peer reviewed papers in recognized scientific journals? No room at all for a little skepticism about that, or with the defensive manner in which questions posed have often been handled?

 

[Michael C]

If nothing else, I can appreciate the nay-sayer's stance because it brings out this dialog.
Humber is actually playing the skeptic's role here. Some irony, for sure.

Ultimately, what I'm seeing in this long debate is a matter of semantics. It's starting to remind me of the Monty Hall problem.

We need a better definition of the base parameters.

Could you elaborate? In what way do you see this debate as a matter of semantics? What base parameters do you consider need to be better defined, and why?

 

[mender]

Are you suggesting that a first time test by a sports club trumps peer reviewed papers in recognized scientific journals?

Certainly; people in sports clubs are often as highly credentialed as the ones writing articles and are much more likely to be current because of their interests. Especially when the "sports club" is also the one that certifies record attempts in that area of interest. Who better?

No room at all for a little skepticism about that, or with the defensive manner in which questions posed have often been handled?

Wouldn't you consider conspicuous lying about facts much more indicative of a weak position? Isn't this supposed to be about physics, and not social interaction?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Isn't this supposed to be about physics, and not social interaction?

C'mon mender - are you new? LOL You're asking that question of RCP?

Asked and answered.

JB

 

[Modified]

Ultimately, what I'm seeing in this long debate is a matter of semantics.

There has been little if any debate over semantics here, only frustration over humber's use of ambiguous semantics to avoid ever taking a definite position on a simple issue or admitting an error.

 

[quarky]

There has been little if any debate over semantics here, only frustration over humber's use of ambiguous semantics to avoid ever taking a definite position on a simple issue or admitting an error.

I haven't read the whole argument, and I'm a fan of spork. The semantics would be a definition of tacking, I guess.

 

[humber]

Wasn't it their only testing experience where wind direction and speed were both major factors? I didn't say anything about Humber. Are you suggesting that a first time test by a sports club trumps peer reviewed papers in recognized scientific journals? No room at all for a little skepticism about that, or with the defensive manner in which questions posed have often been handled?

Peer-reviewed journal says ddwfttw is not possible. All claims by critics of that paper that >WS upwind have never been met.
It's a club, with no scientific standing or official accreditation whatsoever.
Four Joby engineers were present. That costs money. Jenkins can't be bothered with the emails and otherwise indifferent, but flies in from the UK. Vovlo Racing are there, 4 from TAD, a zealot journalist. But only one official NALSA member.
You only need to have followed the forums to see how skeptics are treated.
Brute peer pressure, directed not at science nor NALSA, but one man, Bob Dill.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I haven't read the whole argument, and I'm a fan of spork. The semantics would be a definition of tacking, I guess.

The definition of tacking, while perhaps interesting, has nothing to do with whether DDWFTTW has been proven overall. It's been accomplished countless times by a near score of independent parties by now.

JB

 

[humber]

There has been little if any debate over semantics here, only frustration over humber's use of ambiguous semantics to avoid ever taking a definite position on a simple issue or admitting an error.

So you say. I am saying that the cart is an unequivocal fraud.
No need to discuss the possibility of ddw, but talk about deception and outright cheating.
TAD manipulated both NALSA and the data.

 

[humber]

The definition of tacking, while perhaps interesting, has nothing to do with whether DDWFTTW has been proven overall. It's been accomplished countless times by a near score of independent parties by now.

JB

And by the BB too. The wind deviation over the 10 seconds period is 11.03 degrees RMS, and that is the closest it gets. Much more for the rest of the course.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

So you say.

Nope - so say the results of close a score of independent parties.

JB

 

[humber]

I'll agree that he's being skeptical, but not in the way we normally use the word. In the sense skeptic is used around here, it implies that there's a search for evidence, and that there's some level of legit evidence that would convince the skeptic. In this case, regardless of evidence, the 'skeptic' remains skeptical. I prefer the term denialist. No matter the evidence, he'll continue to deny and loudly add his 'nuh uh, can't happen' to the debate.

And the street video, where the rotor turns the wrong way and stalls.
A video where the cart is blown off the treadmill by a distant fan.
Obvious manipulation of NALSA's data
Selection of the site and run length by prior knowledge.
A wind vane that was forced onto the CV so that the camera won't let you see the wind changes.
The "genuine enquirer" for the NALSA data, is LLyricist. Spork knew that.

That is but a small sample of your denial.

 

[humber]

Nope - so say the results of close a score of independent parties.

JB

All tied in with you, or Sports broadcasting.
Google
Joby
Volvo Racing.
TAD
Steve Smith


NALSA are not a registered testing body, anywhere. Show me the proof that they are.