Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[spork]

.
And yet, you comprehend what is being discussed.

Yes, he understands what the topic is, just as he understands that you've not contributed any actual information - or even a well posed question.

 

[quarky]

This thread should become a major motion picture. It has 'the stuff'.

Some strong opinions. I'm somewhat amazed at Humber's staying power.
It must mean a lot to him.

May i ask, humber, what you do in real life?
Clearly, you know some stuff. I'm curious: Why so passionate about this one,fairly obscure experiment, with its claims?

 

[recursive prophet]

One has to wonder why you still wonder when every time you ask that question it gets answered the same way.

Actually, there have been quite a variety of responses over the last 2 years as to why so many would keep responding to claims "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." I'll concede the hypnotizing train wreck has oft been mentioned. However, given that this has been going on since 11/08, we're talking about the most extended, slow motion train wreck ever to enter the cloud of physics. Even a "type A cubed" personality like you, who has set a world speed record flying like a bird with a rig you designed, can't resist watching. You, who built Blackbird, and spork who helped design it, still can't really avoid reading Humber's prevarications. Doesn't most great humor contain elements of truth? And as I've mentioned several times, what about Feynman's sprinkler? It ain't always cut and dried despite appearances. Is it? They ALL claimed it was elementary physics.

@Humber: I may have asked this before, but how would you account for the speeds NALSA recorded Blackbird attaining at El Mirage? Even assuming a 20% angle for the tailwind 3x it's speed seems pretty substantial.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Actually, there have been quite a variety of responses over the last 2 years ....

Find an answer that doesn't reduce to "his **** is so unbelievably stupid that it entertains me to watch it spew."

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

what about Feynman's sprinkler? It ain't always cut and dried despite appearances. Is it? They ALL claimed it was elementary physics.

Once someone drops the sprinkler in the tank and turns on the pump, everyone gets to see which direction it rotates. After that, arguing that 'elementary physics' says it's going to turn the other way is just silly.

That's what we did - we built it and did it.

JB

 

[I Ratant]

Got too dark...

 

[zooterkin]

The sphere. Motion is relative. Are you now claiming that when the balloon and fluid are not at the same speed, that the relative motion is not zero?

Are you claiming that when the balloon and fluid are not at the same speed, that the relative motion is zero?

 

[EHocking]

A Stirling engine is a heat engine operating by cyclic compression and expansion of air or other gas, the working fluid, at different temperature levels such that there is a net conversion of heat energy to mechanical work.[1][2]
Like the steam engine, the Stirling engine is traditionally classified as an external combustion engine, as all heat transfers to and from the working fluid take place through the engine wall. This contrasts with an internal combustion engine where heat input is by combustion of a fuel within the body of the working fluid. Unlike a steam engine's (or more generally a Rankine cycle engine's) usage of a working fluid in both its liquid and gaseous phases, the Stirling engine encloses a fixed quantity of permanently gaseous fluid such as air.

You undermine what little credibility you have on this thread when you cut and paste tracts of text and try to pass them off as your own words.

The better bet is to attribute the text to its source, in this case Wiki.
Thus, Sterling engine^WP.

Use the [ wiki ] and [ /wiki ] hypercode to link to the article you lifted your text from.

Laughs.

I'm sure this will get some.

Because I am Wikipedia is right.

Fixed that for you...

ETA: Ooops, he did it again. Cutting and pasting Wiki articles and passing the content off as his own superior knowledge.

Aw..diddums.

Steeerike!

Examples of everyday heat engines include the steam engine, the diesel engine, and the gasoline (petrol) engine in an automobile. A common toy that is also a heat engine is a drinking bird. Also the stirling engine is a heat engine. All of these familiar heat engines are powered by the expansion of heated gases. The general surroundings are the heat sink, providing relatively cool gases which, when heated, expand rapidly to drive the mechanical motion of the engine.

Heat engine^WP

 

[EHocking]

I can't find any errors in the post. Are you sure you're trying?

Because it is a Wiki article and not humberphysics

 

[EHocking]

...No idea what Planet Oil Barrel is, a Google search of it comes up with you being the only one to ever mention it.

Yeah, I had to Google it.

It relates to this article that spork et al also used to try to explain the concept of a propellor's work DDW.

 

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by CORed
I can't find any errors in the post. Are you sure you're trying?

I accept your apology on behalf of the Wiki articles I am cutting and pasting from and trying to pass off as my own writing.

Fixed that for you.

 

[I Ratant]

Yeah, I had to Google it.

It relates to this article that spork et al also used to try to explain the concept of a propellor's work DDW.

.
Now THAT was worth reading!
Thanks!

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
Now THAT was worth reading!
Thanks!

In that case here is a video animation of plane oil barrel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGRFb8yNtBo

For kicks you can ask humber to find a flaw in the logic of it.

 

[temporalillusion]

Yeah, I had to Google it.

It relates to this article that spork et al also used to try to explain the concept of a propellor's work DDW.

Ah ok, yeah I've seen that video before.

 

[EHocking]

Ah ok, yeah I've seen that video before.

So had I, but I had to Google to find the connection between it, the discussion and humber's use of "Planet Oil Barrel" as a perjorative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I forgot that the video that I linked form YouTube is the same as in the Wired article. I just added ad block to my Firefox 4 yesterday and I guess along with ads not showing up certain videos don't appear either. Still, as I said, ask humber what is logically wrong with that animation. He will either ignore you or if you are lucky he will take you on another tour of the humberverse.

 

[I Ratant]

No, the average speed is 500m/s (assuming that's the right number).

Still air is when the average velocity is 0.

.
'splain the terms please.
Here's something going around 500m/s.
Is the average speed of the air molecule discussed 500m/s for a nano-meter as it bangs into other air molecules?
Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

.
'splain the terms please.
Here's something going around 500m/s.
Is the average speed of the air molecule discussed 500m/s for a nano-meter as it bangs into other air molecules?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Velocity has both a magnitude and a direction. Speed is only the magnitude part of velocity. When you average velocity of all of the air molecules in still air the direction component makes the speeds cancel out. For example if you only measure all of the velocities of all of the molecules moving somewhat East and all of the molecules somewhat west you will find that they are of equal and opposite values. When you add 1 + -1 you get 0. When you add all of the velocities of the various molecules together you get zero due to the fact that they have a direction. When you add up all of the speeds of the various atoms you only add up their magnitudes and then you divide by the number of them to get an average speed.

 

[I Ratant]

That's what I thought.
Why that number even came up baffles me..... which is not a first, here.
I should expect to see Avagardro's number invoked soonly?

 

[Llyricist]

Velocity has both a magnitude and a direction. Speed is only the magnitude part of velocity. When you average velocity of all of the air molecules in still air the direction component makes the speeds cancel out. For example if you only measure all of the velocities of all of the molecules moving somewhat East and all of the molecules somewhat west you will find that they are of equal and opposite values. When you add 1 + -1 you get 0. When you add all of the velocities of the various molecules together you get zero due to the fact that they have a direction. When you add up all of the speeds of the various atoms you only add up their magnitudes and then you divide by the number of them to get an average speed.

Yep, and in the case of Humber's link, they were trying to relate temperature to the individual kinetic energies of the molecules added up. Since the KE formula requires velocity, and they were short cutting the process of calculating all the individual kinetic energies by averaging them, the terminology got sloppy.