Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[ThinAirDesigns]

All tied in with you, or Sports broadcasting.

Just another humber lie. *NONE* of the other near score of teams/individuals had I ever met before they succeeded (and I've only met one, since).

To humber, "tied in with you" means that they are trying to build and test a DDWFTTW device.

JB

 

[humber]

You do not have support from one independent academic.
But against are Platt, Camp, Allain, Whiteman, Kammen. All out of your reach, and publicly maligned.

 

[A.T.]

.

Does not.

Hmmm.... Maybe you can help humber with his inquiry if the wheels on a car rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise, in forward motion..

Hint: Read the diagram legend bottom left and try to understand how this corresponds to the 3d real world situation, and 2d pictures of it from different perspectives.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

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

ROFLAO!! - tell me humber ... who has Livermore Labs "registered" with as a testing body? Fermilab? Cern?

Do please tell us of this authority somewhere with which testing entities register to please you.



JB

 

[Myriad]

But against are Platt, Camp, Allain, Whiteman, Kammen.

Interesting. And what registered testing and record-keeping body do they represent?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

You do not have support from one independent academic.
But against are Platt, Camp, Allain, Whiteman, Kammen. All out of your reach, and publicly maligned.

Well, forget that Platt isn't an academic, Forget that Camp now openly states that DDWFTTW violates no natural laws. Forget that Allain, Whiteman and Kamman will now no longer say it's impossible but rather avoid the topic like the plague.

All I need to show your opening sentence above to be another humber lie is to say the name 'Drela' -- one of the foremost aero academics of our time laughs at your lie.

The simple truth is this - currently, you have no academic who says it *can't* be done, while we have many who say it can.

JB

 

[humber]

Just another humber lie. *NONE* of the other near score of teams/individuals had I ever met before they succeeded (and I've only met one, since).

Uh huh. It that like the street video made to only show "self-start", though Spork is in a position where he can film the anticipated distant path? Post-hoc lying.
That you tried oh-so-many times, yet still got an mixed bag of results?

To humber, "tied in with you" means that they are trying to build and test a DDWFTTW device.

JB

Sure. Four members from your sponsors, Joby just turned up, it that right?
Jenkins too. No planning for the flight necessary, is that right?
Stan Honey and Volvo are tied together. Two from Volvo Racing.
Chris Morris is your "aero consultant".
Sundry enthusiasts, and professional cameras, so Sportvision too.

The absences are notable too. No critics, no meteorological authority, and nothing official from SJSU, who seem to be very quite.
What does the SJSU professor say? The one handling the students you borrowed?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

The absences are notable too. No critics, ...

I just love this one - because a knowledgeable and experienced critic flew in on his own dime to witness the event and came away saying "I was wrong -- it just was done", now humber rewrites history to claim no critics were there.

ROFLAO

JB

 

[humber]

Well, forget that Platt isn't an academic, Forget that Camp now openly states that DDWFTTW violates no natural laws.

He bagged your TM, and said that "faster than the wind" did not violate any laws, not ddwfftw.

Forget that Allain, Whiteman and Kamman will now no longer say it's impossible but rather avoid the topic like the plague.

I have an email from Whiteman that contradicts you. Kammen has not retracted. In the Wired article, it is clear that both Allain and Platt still hold to their side.

All I need to show your opening sentence above to be another humber lie is to say the name 'Drela' -- one of the foremost aero academics of our time laughs at your lie.

Funny. He has not said one word of in support of your cart, and his ddw claim is totally different from yours, both conceptually and mathematically, and has never published it nor will it be, because it has equations that resolve to 0 in the denominator. Naughty.
His remarks about the TM are ambiguous, and he is not an expert in that field.

The simple truth is this - currently, you have no academic who says it *can't* be done, while we have many who say it can.

Most say it can't, and you have none that have proven it can be done, but
simply claim it can.

 

[humber]

I just love this one - because a knowledgeable and experienced critic flew in on his own dime to witness the event and came away saying "I was wrong -- it just was done", now humber rewrites history to claim no critics were there.

ROFLAO

JB

Sure...he did. He has a vested interest in his own record.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

... his ddw claim is totally different from yours, both conceptually and mathematically, ...

If by "totally different" you mean "indentical", then yeah, totally different.

JB

 

[I Ratant]

Holy crap you're thick.

Ever thought about standing on the other side of the cart to look at the prop? Maybe pick a video or pic shot from the other side?

Just a suggestion. LOL

JB

.
Finally something more than "No".
Looking at the prop on the right side of the cart from the right side of the cart,
the leading edge of the prop is going down, to the right. Like the inset image of the prop I put there.
Black prop on this image.
Looking at the prop on the left side of the cart from the left side of the cart,
the leading edge of the prop the prop is going up, to the left. Green prop on this image.
Neither situation is represented in "C", which shows a ----pusher prop--- left hand twist, in propellor terms.
Ever so charming to converse.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
The most sensible post ever!
Good on yez!
Gentlemen, DEFINE your terms.

 

[I Ratant]

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?

.
Clockwise. Viewed from where? Front, back, side????
Good starting place.
These MUST be defined.

 

[I Ratant]

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

.
The social interaction comes as a burden.
Egos are involved.
When as the Illuminating Philosopher quarky has observed, the basic terms in use are being used improperly.
Keeping egos to a minimum is a chore.

 

[humber]

If by "totally different" you mean "indentical", then yeah, totally different.

JB

No. Drela's is a turbine, and he uses energy from swirl and and other effects to claim a small "sail force" not related to the angular motion of the prop.
You have no idea at all of his claim, and on the forum where he posted it, he did not once address you or Spork.

 

[A.T.]

I just love this one - because a knowledgeable and experienced critic flew in on his own dime to witness the event and came away saying "I was wrong -- it just was done", now humber rewrites history to claim no critics were there.

I'm sure humber means "no critics were present, after the first run".

 

[I Ratant]

Hmmm.... Maybe you can help humber with his inquiry if the wheels on a car rotate clockwise or counter-clockwise, in forward motion..

Hint: Read the diagram legend bottom left and try to understand how this corresponds to the 3d real world situation, and 2d pictures of it from different perspectives.

.
Until the propellor orientation in the diagram agrees with real life, I won't bother.

 

[humber]

.
The social interaction comes as a burden.
Egos are involved.
When as the Illuminating Philosopher quarky has observed, the basic terms in use are being used improperly.
Keeping egos to a minimum is a chore.

Except, I Ratant, the cart was never about physics, but self-promotion. As I have said, and has not been denied, the cart is a spring board to an energy generation scheme. (scam)

That is why is the cart was first raised as a "brain-teaser", rather than the direct posting of a hypothesis. Mythbuster's fodder.

Until skeptics forced TAD's hands, there was not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory, and most of the videos were made in response to criticism. That street video is a failure for the cart, not a success.

Harold Bricer posted a calculation that demonstrated that when ddw, the cart would travel 50-60% of WS. It indeed does that. as witnessed by the Jenkin's video and the trial data. Those videos are a failure for the cart.

It takes off when the wind is not ddw, and like the street video, becomes "success"

 

[humber]

I'm sure humber means "no critics were present, after the first run".

Not controlled, not measured, so nobody could be critical nor supportive.

There were several students from SJSU, and promise of SJSU's instrumentation. All but one dropped out, the instruments never appeared, and the professor has been silent.
JB has not once mentioned his opinion on the matter, but many times so many others.
Why would he avoid the one so close to home?