Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

Humber,

PS, You have your blades backwards (rotate the blades 90 degrees CCW around their center to fix or reverse your rotation arrow) in your irrelevant diagram.

It pains me to have to help you (not make) your point!

Windgrins

Not in the least bit important. It looks nicer that way.

All planes move the same distance. If the blade were parallel to the ground each point would clearly move the same distance, so is true of all shapes and angles. You fell for the sales pitch, not the prop pitch.

 

[windgrins]

Twisted concepts

We can add that to your " actual understanding" of the equations.
Go ahead, point to the errors....

The error is that the drag equation does not produce a result that rotating propellers with pitch only have drag and produce no thrust while turning in the design direction.

Your argument is the equivalent of using Maxwell's equations to tell me my phone doesn't ring.

In general, we believe you have the ability to copy and paste a valid equation from another source. You have demonstrated little knowledge of how to appropriately apply any of them.

PS, If your comment about pilots was inferring anything about my credentials, I don't think you have a clue about them so those would be better left alone. If it was a generic generality, no issue.

I prefer to not base my discussion on an appeal to credentials but rather upon the demonstrable validity of the physics and logical inferences therein.

WindGrins

 

[humber]

The error is that the drag equation does not produce a result that rotating propellers with pitch only have drag and produce no thrust while turning in the design direction.

Oh yes it do.

Your argument is the equivalent of using Maxwell's equations to tell me my phone doesn't ring.

And which of Maxwell's equations are you talking about? Want to talk micro-wave amplifiers? X-band is my specialty. What is yours?

In general, we believe you have the ability to copy and paste a valid equation from another source. You have demonstrated little knowledge of how to appropriately apply any of them.

then you can so readily point to the errors, can't you?

PS, If your comment about pilots was inferring anything about my credentials, I don't think you have a clue about them so those would be better left alone. If it was a generic generality, no issue.

I was specifically aimed at you, though often generally applicable. Your "credentials" speak for themselves in the number of howlers so far posted.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not in the least bit important. It looks nicer that way.

You really don't have a vestige of a clue what you're talking about.

What if the propeller wasn't moving forward? Can you stretch your imagination that far? A propeller being spun in still air. Can you apply Newton's impact theorem to that? If so, would it be "the least bit important" which way the prop spun?

As you have drawn the diagram, the air would be impacting the front faces of the blades. If you had drawn it correctly the air molecules would be impacting the rear faces of the blades, would it not?

If you understand the above, now consider the cart moving forward very slowly as the prop spins. The air molecules still impact the rear faces of the blades. You can speed the cart up a bit more and the air continues to strike the rear faces of the blades but at a more oblique angle. As it goes faster still it would eventually reach a speed where the blades cut through the air edge-on. You could then increase the pitch or the speed of the prop to keep the impacts on the rear faces of the blades. If you gear the speed of the prop to the speed of the wheels the blades automatically speed up as the speed increases.

This is entirely trivial. Your objections are ridiculous. I can't believe you cannot grasp it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...then you can so readily point to the errors, can't you?

Have you actually read any of this thread?

 

[humber]

Have you actually read any of this thread?

Downed. Crank and followers exposed.

 

[humber]

You really don't have a vestige of a clue what you're talking about.

What if the propeller wasn't moving forward? Can you stretch your imagination that far? A propeller being spun in still air. Can you apply Newton's impact theorem to that? If so, would it be "the least bit important" which way the prop spun?

Wheels drive the prop, which drives the wheels, which drives the prop....
A claim of PM.
I Ratant's cart and the street tantrum video show that the basic idea is wrong. Of course, Carteers will deny all and everything, and that is expected. The amusement is in watching you all try.

 

[windgrins]

Show me you can do it for the simple first!

And which of Maxwell's equations are you talking about? Want to talk micro-wave amplifiers? X-band is my specialty. What is yours?

Sure, Show me you can analyze a simple circuit first.

Assuming a Beta of 100 for the following transistor, derive the gain of the amp (blue input/red output) as a function of the circuit elements (R1, R2, c1,c2, q1).

Show your work and give me a reasonable gain of the circuit given the components listed.

Also show me the frequency response as a function of the parameters and compute the freq where the amp has half normal amplification.





EEGRins AKA WindGrins

 

[CORed]

If it's any help, here's what humber said at TR.

That raises one question: In the extremely unlikely event that anybody is dumb enough to take the bet on humber's terms, how big a cut will he give his "chartered engineers"?

Clearly, humber's plan is to offer the bet on terms nobody in their right mind would accept, then accuse the "carteers" of backing out.

 

[CORed]

Have you actually read any of this thread?

The only difficulty with pointing out humber's errors is that there are so many of them that nobody with an actual job has enough time to point out all of them.

 

[CORed]

Not in the least bit important. It looks nicer that way.

All planes move the same distance. If the blade were parallel to the ground each point would clearly move the same distance, so is true of all shapes and angles. You fell for the sales pitch, not the prop pitch.

Very good humber. You just proved that propeller driven airplanes can't fly. It's amazing how many suckers bought into that scam.

 

[windgrins]

Humber's NB balloons with PE

No you don't. A buzz word jockey, for whom a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Balloons with out PE...closing speed that falls to zero...

OK Humber,

What was originally stated was the NB balloons have no PE.

you believe NB balloons have PE.



Here's a tank of water with a NB sphere within. Without taking it out of the tank or changing the water level in the tank (because this is what is defined as the closed system), Illustrate how the sphere has PE or can do work.

Again, within the system. You don't get to take it out of the tank.

WindGrins

 

[humber]

Sure, Show me you can analyze a simple circuit first.

Assuming a Beta of 100 for the following transistor, derive the gain of the amp (blue input/red output) as a function of the circuit elements (R1, R2, c1,c2, q1).

Show your work and give me a reasonable gain of the circuit given the components listed.

Also show me the frequency response as a function of the parameters and compute the freq where the amp has half normal amplification.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_488654dbc29f22ef9a.png[/qimg]

EEGRins AKA WindGrins

You won't get x-band out of a 2N3904, so try again with a problem that is not from a text book.

 

[humber]

OK Humber,

What was originally stated was the NB balloons have no PE.

you believe NB balloons have PE.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_488654dbc4088b9808.png[/qimg]

Here's a tank of water with a NB sphere within. Without taking it out of the tank or changing the water level in the tank (because this is what is defined as the closed system), Illustrate how the sphere has PE or can do work.

Again, within the system. You don't get to take it out of the tank.

WindGrins

So you want to compound your error, by repeating it?
Hold the sphere were it is. Remove the water and then let it fall.
Then put the sphere on the bottom, and remove the water, and then let it fall. That may alert even you to your error.
You can now stop knocking on doors for TAD.

 

[Modified]

So you want to compound your error, by repeating it?
Hold the sphere were it is. Remove the water and then let it fall.
Then put the sphere on the bottom, and remove the water, and then let it fall. That may alert even you to your error.
You can now stop knocking on doors for TAD.

That is one way to look at it. By the same token though, you might say any object on the ground has gravitational PE, since you can always remove the earth under it and it will fall.

 

[Llyricist]

You won't get x-band out of a 2N3904, so try again with a problem that is not from a text book.

So you only understand how electronics works in a certain frequency range? LOL

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Here's a tank of water with a NB sphere within. Without taking it out of the tank or changing the water level in the tank (because this is what is defined as the closed system), Illustrate how the sphere has PE or can do work.

Again, within the system. You don't get to take it out of the tank.

WindGrins

Dude -- let me drop that tank with the balloon in it on your foot and then you can try to tell me there's not PE.

JB

 

[humber]

Very good humber. You just proved that propeller driven airplanes can't fly. It's amazing how many suckers bought into that scam.

Ha Ha Ha.

 

[humber]

Dude -- let me drop that tank with the balloon in it on your foot and then you can try to tell me there's not PE.

JB

Do you know how NB balloons work, JB? Like all the others but, lift is zero.
An NB balloon exactly displaces the same weight of air.
You are claiming that air does not gain KE with height. What Spork thinks, you catch as a cold.

 

[humber]

That is one way to look at it. By the same token though, you might say any object on the ground has gravitational PE, since you can always remove the earth under it and it will fall.

doh.

ETA:
And if the balloon burst, the mass of the rubber will fall to Earth. That means it has PE.
Spork say the escaped gas will rise, as if it had -ve PE, that cancels out the PE of the rubber.