Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[windgrins]

Vacuum Balloon at sea level?

I may have brought it up earlier. i think I even started a thread on it some time back. Memory fades. Lethargy prevents search.

btw, Windgrins...it wouldn't need to support 15 psi. This is where it gets funny. Bigger sphere; less vacuum? How about 5 psi?

No problem. Since sea level atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 PSI (If I remember correctly), If one wanted to have the vacuum balloon not crush at this pressure, why do you say that? Am I missing something?

WindGrins

 

[Llyricist]

No problem. Since sea level atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 PSI (If I remember correctly), If one wanted to have the vacuum balloon not crush at this pressure, why do you say that? Am I missing something?

WindGrins

I'm not sure how the bigger sphere enters into it, but by less vacuum I think he means not evacuating it fully, but leaving 5 psi in it. Which would decrease the differential pressure load to about 10 psi.

 

[humber]

Humber's correct up to here.

From his responses to me earlier, It's pretty clear he doesn't know what a Neutral Buoyancy Balloon is from his earlier statement about them:

1. "So, rises because the denser air replaces it."

2. "The balloon is less dense, so has less gravitational force for the same volume.
That's how a ship floats. "

He doesn't seem to understand that an NB Balloon doesn't rise-That's why we call it Neutrally Buoyant!

"Neutral buoyancy is a condition in which a physical body's mass equals the mass it displaces in a surrounding medium."

So, an imaginary sphere of water at the bottom of a lake, will have the same PE as one near the surface? That must be a problem for waterfalls.

It's gotten to the point where its just no longer fun to point out why this is obvious nonsense and has been demonstrated by both physics and physical experiment as such earlier in this blog.
Windgrins

Keep those error coming, Windgrins.

 

[jduffy77]

If it was not here, is was at RDF. The wager gambit is never taken up.
However, yours is particularly foolish, as you are offering 100:1 with a

minimum of $1k. The carts work as is, but for that money there are many who could repeat what I have already said is possible, or build a cart that will certainly fool you. The aim is to say "if your cart does work, why don't you take the wager".

I'll say one thing about you Humber, you sure are consistent. Even when you are not talking about physics you don't make any sense. I have no idea what your post means. I am offering the money. If you have a cart that works you can have it. Since I will not be looking at the cart whether it fools me or not is irrelevant.

And you have never had any experience with escrow, perhaps state gambling laws.

I guess it won't come as a surprise to anyone, but you are wrong again. There are few people alive who have had more experience with escrow and gambling than I have. As usual for you that fact is irrelevant though. I have detailed mechanisms by which we could make a wager a few times with you in the past. They don't require any experience in anything.

 

[ynot]

My house, office and workshop were totally trashed in recent Christchurch earthquakes and I have totally relocated to a different area of New Zealand. In the process of moving I dumped a full truckload of inventions and experiments I’ve done over the years. Included in this was the turntable equipment so I no longer have it to do experiments even if I wanted to

A) this makes me very happy

Spork revealing the true nature of the beast.

 

[humber]

No problem. Since sea level atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 PSI (If I remember correctly), If one wanted to have the vacuum balloon not crush at this pressure, why do you say that? Am I missing something?

WindGrins

Volume sphere: 4/3*pi*R^3
Area sphere = 4*pi*R^2

 

[humber]

I'll say one thing about you Humber, you sure are consistent. Even when you are not talking about physics you don't make any sense. I have no idea what your post means. I am offering the money. If you have a cart that works you can have it. Since I will not be looking at the cart whether it fools me or not is irrelevant.

Oh, so you will be satisfied by any cart that works? Send that in an email to
MyNigerianPrince.com.

I guess it won't come as a surprise to anyone, but you are wrong again. There are few people alive who have had more experience with escrow and gambling than I have.

I take it that those who are not alive, but had the same or more experience of escrow and gambling than you do, had the good sense not to be.

As usual for you that fact is irrelevant though. I have detailed mechanisms by which we could make a wager a few times with you in the past. They don't require any experience in anything.

Tell that to Spork, and get him to do the toothed belt test. The (your) money goes to charity.

ETA:
Well your heard it....To any engineering students out there, wanting to give their working life a quick fillip, the cart can be an Atwood's machine. Devise a mechanism for generating non-linearity between the belt and say, a wheel.

 

[jduffy77]

Oh, so you will be satisfied by any cart that works? Send that in an email to
MyNigerianPrince.com.

You are not making sense again, Humber. I know of no one in Nigeria who has claimed to have a cart like yours. Unfortunately I believe it is only you and RP who are kooky enough but my offer is open to anyone.

I take it that those who are not alive, but had the same or more experience of escrow and gambling than you do, had the good sense not to be.

I see English words here, I know the words, but it seems like they have been strung together randomly. I have no idea what you are saying.

Tell that to Spork, and get him to do the toothed belt test. The (your) money goes to charity.

Again, what are you talking about? How could Spork be involved? Are you suggesting he might bet against his own cart?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10.

For the record, the "profanity" was already masked. Apparently, the totally acceptable word "bull" is not ok even with **s after it.

So "bull" is Ok and "****" is ok, but don't leave the space out between them.

Lesson learned.

JB

 

[humber]

You are not making sense again, Humber. I know of no one in Nigeria who has claimed to have a cart like yours. Unfortunately I believe it is only you and RP who are kooky enough but my offer is open to anyone.

Oh, you offer those 100:1 odds, and they will definitely find someone.
Perhaps I can interest someone in being my proxy. He/she deals with you, Spork and so forth, and I provide the cart; 50/50 split.

There are few people alive who have had more experience with escrow and gambling than I have.

I take it that those who are not alive, but had the same or more experience of escrow and gambling than you do, had the good sense not to be.

I see English words here, I know the words, but it seems like they have been strung together randomly. I have no idea what you are saying.

Again, what are you talking about? How could Spork be involved? Are you suggesting he might bet against his own cart?

Yes. No money in it for you? Why should there be? You are sure enough to wager, so there can be no risk to Spork, can there?

 

[quarky]

No problem. Since sea level atmospheric pressure is approximately 14.7 PSI (If I remember correctly), If one wanted to have the vacuum balloon not crush at this pressure, why do you say that? Am I missing something?

WindGrins

Yes. As Lyricist points out, a partial vacuum.
As humber points out below, its a surface area/volume ratio dilemma, as so many are.

As radius increases, the vol/surface area ratio gets much friendlier...but does it make analogous demands on the structural requirements?

In other words, is bigger better? Me thinks so. Yet, at a certain size, the weight of the atmosphere becomes an issue...more at the bottom of the balloon than at the top. This is assuming a crude geodesic sphere. Unlike a membrane without an underlying structure, the vacuum balloon would presumably remain roughly spherical.

Good architecture would allow for this anomaly; struts would be sized for the zone of air pressure they were exposed to.

At radius of 1/2 mile, for instance, if all the air could be removed, the weight removed would allow the floating of 1' or more of reinforced concrete.
This is clearly not do-able, as per limits of materials; expansion/contraction coefficients, etc, etc.

I've gone off topic, but hopefully its a welcome respite from the pointless bickering.
Risking more off-topic scolding, I wonder if spork and Tad have ever pondered the vacuum balloon?
I've been thinking about it , off and on, for 40 years.

(Not proud of that either...my wife wants me to mow the lawn and so forth.)

 

[jduffy77]

Oh, you offer those 100:1 odds, and they will definitely find someone.

I don't think so Humber. That's why I know you don't believe what you write. 100 to 1 or 1000 to 1, its all the same. No one will actually bet on something that is impossible, although many will still claim it.

Yes. No money in it for you? Why should there be? You are sure enough to wager, so there can be no risk to Spork, can there?

If you want people to believe you are not a troll you have to work a little harder to make some sense. How can Spork and I wager on something which we agree on. We need a nitwit or a kook to take the impossible side.

 

[ynot]

DDWFTTW for “Dummies”

Some people accept that DDWFTTW works from observing the many practicle demonstrations provided but they still don’t understand how it works. There are also some that don’t accept that DDWFTTW works regardless of the demonstrations and claim that some tricks or mysterious forces are involved. Much effort has also been given to describing how DDWFTTW works but I wonder if a non-technical, simple, plain English description might helpful for some to gain a better understanding of the principle. If any others would like to participate in this thread to help produce such a description I would appreciate any productive and positive input.

Here is my first attempt. Terms used are for simple explanation rather than technical niceties. Please suggest any changes or additions or offer completely different descriptions.

(1) A “driving wind” blows the cart directly downwind and as the cart moves forward the wheels turn and roll forward over the ground.

(2) The wheels are connected to the blades and as they turn they spin the blades to function as a propeller (like a fan). The driving wind spins the blades indirectly via the wheels.

(3) The driving wind DOESN’T spin the blades directly and they DON’T function as a turbine (like a windmill).

(4) As the propeller spins it creates it’s own wind that blows in the opposite direction to the driving wind (against it). Effectively there are two winds pushing the cart, the driving wind and the propeller wind.

(5) When the cart reaches the speed of the driving wind it’s effectively in still air but it’s moving relative to the ground at the speed of the wind (the cart isn’t still in still air). The wheels and propeller are quickly turning and spinning and the propeller wind continues pushing the cart forward to speeds faster than the driving wind.

 

[lionking]

Is this thread really necessary? This issue has been generated thousands of posts with arguments going around in circles. The same will surely happen here.

 

[ynot]

Is this thread really necessary? This issue has been generated thousands of posts with arguments going around in circles. The same will surely happen here.

No one is forcing anyone to read or participate.

 

[humber]

Unfortunately I believe it is only you and RP who are kooky enough but my offer is open to anyone.

100 to 1 or 1000 to 1, its all the same. No one will actually bet on something that is impossible, although many will still claim it.

If you want people to believe you are not a troll you have to work a little harder to make some sense.

Have it your way. Anyone who wants to act as my proxy in this matter, PM me.

 

[casebro]

I do believe that theory IS perpetual motion, in that the cart, moving forward, spins the prop, which pushes the cart forward.

My own theory is that the wheel acts as a governor, keeping the prop spinning at just the right range of relative speed. In that range, the moving air creates lower air pressure on the leading edge of the prop, the higher pressure on the side of the prop pushes both the prop around, and the cart forward.

A spinning prop has more drag than a locked one. That is well know in sail boats with auxiliary engines, where in the captain will leave the engine in gear when not using it to prevent the prop from spinning.

This all may be a distinction without a difference though.

But food for thought: Why can't it also go cross wind? If all that matters is having the wheel turn the prop? In my theory, the cross wind would disturb the delicate balance of prop rpms to air flow.

AND IF IT IS SIMPLY THE WHEEL DRIVING THE PROP. WHY ISN'T INFINITE SPEED ATTAINABLE?

 

[humber]

As radius increases, the vol/surface area ratio gets much friendlier...but does it make analogous demands on the structural requirements?


At radius of 1/2 mile, for instance, if all the air could be removed, the weight removed would allow the floating of 1' or more of reinforced concrete.
This is clearly not do-able, as per limits of materials; expansion/contraction coefficients, etc, etc.

Risking more off-topic scolding, I wonder if spork and Tad have ever pondered the vacuum balloon?
I've been thinking about it , off and on, for 40 years.

(Not proud of that either...my wife wants me to mow the lawn and so forth.)

A sphere has the highest volume/surface are of any form, so is unlikely to be beaten as a basic shape.
A serious obstacle would be keeping the load line within the skin. Without internal pressure, the balloon is like an arch, so the load line must remain within the material or it will collapse.

 

[ynot]

I do believe that theory IS perpetual motion, in that the cart, moving forward, spins the prop, which pushes the cart forward.

My own theory is that the wheel acts as a governor, keeping the prop spinning at just the right range of relative speed. In that range, the moving air creates lower air pressure on the leading edge of the prop, the higher pressure on the side of the prop pushes both the prop around, and the cart forward.

A spinning prop has more drag than a locked one. That is well know in sail boats with auxiliary engines, where in the captain will leave the engine in gear when not using it to prevent the prop from spinning.

This all may be a distinction without a difference though.

But food for thought: Why can't it also go cross wind? If all that matters is having the wheel turn the prop? In my theory, the cross wind would disturb the delicate balance of prop rpms to air flow.

AND IF IT IS SIMPLY THE WHEEL DRIVING THE PROP. WHY ISN'T INFINITE SPEED ATTAINABLE?

This thread isn’t for a debate on whether DDWFTTW works or not. It’s for those that know it works and how it works to provide a simple as possible description of how it works so some disbelievers may gain an understanding of how it does work. There are other threads available to debate the validity of DDWFTTW. Please don’t derail this thread by doing it here.

If you read my “first attempt” above you will see that it’s a WIND that pushes a cart, that turns a wheel, that spins a prop. Without a wind the cart does nothing. You need to clearly understand this before you can move on to the next step.

If you have any questions regarding my description please feel free to ask. If you consider anything is incorrect in my description please feel free to point it out

 

[recursive prophet]

Thanks for starting this thread ynot. It was lonely being the only dummy on the other ones, despite spork's affable and unlimited patience with me in explaining it all.

So if the wind isn't actually turning the prop, where is it's energy being transferred to? The frame of Blackbird doesn't present a very big sail, and yours on the turntable even less so. Given that all the energy comes from the wind, where is the transfer point? Explain just how the difference between the air and ground speeds make this possible.

The original argument presented here back in '08 was that the vector analysis showed that the wind was hitting the rotating prop at various angles, achieving a leveraged tacking effect while going ddw. Later there was more emphasis on the wheels drive the prop thesis. But where else can the wheels get the energy to do this work except from the prop?

It is also claimed BB goes fastest moving directly downwind. Unlike sail craft, wind at angles slows it down. Can you explain how and why? And remember: idiots guide to props level. I've read many explanations for these questions. They seem logical, but based on assumptions that with my limited physics background are difficult to assess.