Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

If it was powered by wind gradients, it would be even more amazing. It would still be a wind-powered vehicle that goes DDWFTTW. But additionally it would be the most efficient wind powered vehicle.

[/quote]
And pixies too.

We already did the calculation using your formula and your figures and saw that wind gradients cannot possibly account for its travelling at 2.8x windspeed. Wind gradients can't explain it. Forget about wind gradients.

So you say, and the data says it's not good at it, let alone not possible.

More of your hand-waving, humber? Have you also tried flapping your arms? Flopping about like a fish? Chasing carts in a circle with a fan? Running a non-wind cart on a treadmill?

Let us know how well those work out for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs
"You're not fooling anyone you know."

[/quote]
More canned wit from the used joke salesman.

What you say is generally of no value. Nonetheless it appears you accept that there are several different devices capable of engaging mass systems in motion to effect propulsion and that the direction and speed obtained can be considered downwind faster than the wind. Yet the Albatross does not "tack" according to your definition since it is in no way connected to the ground. You are now trying to make the point (wrongly) that the BB used the wind gradient to go ddwfttw, if that were the case, it still went ddwfttw. You really are as clueless as you are pointless.

Like not ddw in a maelstrom .That poor wind vane takes a beating.

I truly believe that very few posters, now or ever, truly grasp the depth of Humber's ignorance, especially in the matter of the TM equivalence.

Yours took seconds.

We can stand so in awe

We can stand in awwh, for your loss of the magic cart.

To be honest, I believe that Humber is really starting to run off all the Newbies that are actually trying to understand and learn something.
It would be nice for all concerned, if Humber would try to state a clear objection using the agreed upon meaning of the words, justify it with accepted physics principles, and actually listen to the responses. It's pretty clear this is not going to occur so I personally will only respond when there is some actual coherent info presented, as I would spend an inordinate amount of time responding to nonsense, otherwise.
Regards,
WindGrins

A cart made by two cranks. One says he has a paper for publication but is too lazy to complete and submit it. Partly true. He was too lazy to learn what he needed to meet his goal of academic recognition. But, now, in late middle age, he wants to gain that, but again, the easy way.
How's that?

Now that's disappointing. I had foolishly assumed your reply to my question would bear some relation to my question.
I guess we will, in fact, never know.

OK.

JBTH,
Thanks for providing the earlier data. Even if the gradient was 150% and the BB somehow managed to tap into this for the result, as long as it was going faster than WS at the top of the prop, it would have achieved the DDWFTTW claim in contradiction to the post. This was clearly illustrated as having been achieved by the high streamer on the BUFC cart in earlier videos. Even if this were the case, Spork and JB's only error would be in attribution of the principle by which it achieved this. Clearly this isn't so, however.

Gradient AND tacking by the changing wind.
It is never ddw for one nano-second.
Not even a challenge for a bucket.

 

[A.T.]

Humber still cannot find any errors in my diagram

It's all BS. All of it.

Pure hand waving as usual. Humber still cannot name a single particular thing that is wrong in the diagram, and explain why it is wrong.

 

[Llyricist]

It's laughably wrong. You have no magic cart. It's all BS. All of it.

That's correct, the cart is not magic. And if by "it", you are referring to your contributions on this subject, that is also correct.

 

[humber]

Pure hand waving as usual. Humber still cannot name a single particular thing that is wrong in the diagram.

You made it. Nuff' said.
The ship has sunk. The Captain and First Mate have taken the life boat.
The data, kept from public gaze, says you have no record, and never will.

 

[windgrins]

I forgot a key criterion

Originally Posted by windgrins:
To be honest, I believe that Humber is really starting to run off all the Newbies that are actually trying to understand and learn something.
It would be nice for all concerned, if Humber would try to state a clear objection using the agreed upon meaning of the words, justify it with accepted physics principles, and actually listen to the responses. It's pretty clear this is not going to occur so I personally will only respond when there is some actual coherent info presented, as I would spend an inordinate amount of time responding to nonsense, otherwise.
Regards,
WindGrins

A cart made by two cranks. One says he has a paper for publication but is too lazy to complete and submit it. Partly true. He was too lazy to learn what he needed to meet his goal of academic recognition. But, now, in late middle age, he wants to gain that, but again, the easy way.
How's that?

.

My omission-I should have added "relevant" in my list of conditions. But my reply, to demonstrate by example, is:


" "

Regards,

WindGrins

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Take the integral over half a cycle at 120prm, and there is more than enough energy to feed the carts 300J/sec demand.

So you accept that the BB can accelerate to (2.8/1.065) times the peak windspeed which impinges on any part of it?

That's 2.63 times your estimated peak windspeed.

 

[A.T.]

The ship has sunk. The Captain and First Mate ... bla bla bla

Humber goes from hand waving to gibberish. That is usually the last phase in running away from something he cannot refute, like the simple diagram here..

 

[humber]

So you accept that the BB can accelerate to (2.8/1.065) times the peak windspeed which impinges on any part of it?

That's 2.63 times your estimated peak windspeed.

And if the wind is 40 degrees off ddw?

 

[humber]

Humber goes from hand waving to gibberish. That is usually the last phase in running away from something he cannot refute, like the simple diagram here..

I have already trashed it. RP wanted to know what you response was to be.

All this time defending a sham...not you...it can't be...but it is.

 

[Llyricist]

And if the wind is 40 degrees off ddw?

Then it accelerates much slower, and any drop in wind speed causes the cart to slow down. It's in the data.

 

[humber]

Then it accelerates much slower, and any drop in wind speed causes the cart to slow down. It's in the data.

No it isn't. On the contrary, and I can prove that beyond a doubt.

 

[A.T.]

I have already trashed it.

Where? All I saw from you was gibberish and derailing.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Llyricist]

No it isn't. On the contrary, and I can prove that beyond a doubt.

Go ahead.

 

[humber]

Go ahead.

NALSA will be sent the result. No need for any Carteerian input, whatsoever.

 

[humber]

Where? All I saw from you was gibberish and derailing.

RP seemed to "get it". It's a brain teaser.

You bicker amongst yourselves...

 

[Llyricist]

NALSA will be sent the result. No need for any Carteerian input, whatsoever.

In other words, you've got nothing.

 

[A.T.]

NALSA will be sent the result.

"By Monday" I guess.

 

[A.T.]

In other words, you've got nothing.

Sorry I wasn't counting. Which repetition of the announcment cycle is this already?

I will contact NALSA... (months pass)... NALSA is not important, I go to higher authorites... (months pass)... I will contact NALSA...

 

[Jack by the hedge]

NALSA will be sent the result. No need for any Carteerian input, whatsoever.

Thread over, then.

Do come back sometime to let us know what NALSA say when you send them your analysis.

 

[spork]

In other words, you've got nothing.

In the unlikely event that humber does send something to NALSA, I will post it here so we can all enjoy a good laugh.