Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[A.T.]

Here more info on it:

http://lukeyoder.com/?page_id=143

http://www3.lehigh.edu/images/userImages/jem406/Page_8893/WEB_Stilson_Yoder.pdf

Their key point is that the L/D ratio of the tires (lateral force/drag force) is equally important as the aerodynamic L/D ratio of the vehicle.

[qimg]http://lukeyoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LD_Equation-450x206.jpg[/qimg]

And since you cannot improve much on the aerodynamic side compared to the Greenbird, they concentrate on the tires, which seems like a good idea.

The professor involved was behind another record braking vehicle:
http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/resolve7/land-speed-record.html

And last but least: A certain Luke Yoder is involved, who probably combines the jedi-powers of Luke and Yoda.

Interesting stuff.

Unlike Greenbird, their vehicle apparently has a symmetrical design. There are two sails, both at an angle to the vertical. I imagine that the two sails are angled so that the wheel forces on the ground are more evenly distributed between right and left than on a traditional land yacht: the angle of the sail on the upwind side increases the wheel force on the ground while the angle of the sail on the downwind side decreases the wheel force.

I think they want to use the horizontal surfaces as well to counter the moment and balance the wheel loads:
http://lehighlandyacht.com/?page_id=64

 

[windgrins]

Humber's Tour de France comment.

I sure hope you weren't talking about *this* portion of the quote when you refer to "intelligent"

Humber Quote:
"F1 has produced interesting developments that were the result of engineers trying to work around the rules. KERS became so good, that the rules had to be changed in response."

... 'cause it's of course a total crock.

JB

Nope, I had no knowledge about that part. The following actually seemed to be a thoughtful comment:

Humber: "The Tour de France is about human effort, and opening up the definition of bikes would lead to it being a battle of technology. Drugs are now the problem instead, I suppose."

I'm not sure I 100% agree but the sentence is constructed so that it is interesting and arguable (albeit off topic). And on the surface, not completely, obviously wrong. A rare pleasure!

I'll settle for this much with Humber.

WindGrins

 

[humber]

I already spent my money buying a beautiful bridge in New York City.

Did you think it was value for money?

 

[humber]

I'm not sure I 100% agree
WindGrins

Are you ever sure what you agree with?

 

[humber]

Correct. The belt of the treadmill is equivalent to the ground. Outdoors, the ground doesn't change direction, or flow around objects, either. The point is that no instrumentation can tell you whether we move the ground or the air - because there is no such distinction in reality. They are one and the same.

Put an accelerometer on the ground, and then wait until the wind blows.
The accelerometer will read no change.
There you go. A tip for you.

 

[humber]

"Chief Scientist" LOL

 

[tobermoryphil]

You won't be seeing it.

I rather suspect none of us will!

My offer of £1000 for Humber to demonstrate it satisfactarily still stands, by the way.
An offer, not a bet.

 

[humber]

I rather suspect none of us will!

My offer of £1000 for Humber to demonstrate it satisfactarily still stands, by the way.
An offer, not a bet.

Get you pals together and multiply that by 100, and that will justify the effort, and the lab time, and make damn sure you pay up.
I don't want any whining carteers, who denied I Ratant's video, even though he did that for free.
So far, Hocking, Cored and Spork, have all backed away from their bravado.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Put an accelerometer on the ground, and then wait until the wind blows.
The accelerometer will read no change.
There you go. A tip for you.

And put an accelerometer on a long conveyer belt moving at a constant speed, and read it after a few seconds.....and...

Humber once again proves he can't understand treadmills. I suppose he will have to jump up and down on one with his accelerometer- look, guys, I've got a reading!

 

[humber]

I would be willing to bet that the flow field around the cart is exactly the same if one could have an equally controlled environment like a giant wind tunnel.

ETA: Now that I've read further, I see Spork weighed in on this in pretty much the same way. I'm always amused that, in general, physics causes people to come to the same answer!

WingGrins

And the answer to your blistering amplifier conundrum is 100, isn't it?

 

[humber]

And put an accelerometer on a long conveyer belt moving at a constant speed, and read it after a few seconds.....and...

Humber once again proves he can't understand treadmills. I suppose he will have to jump up and down on one with his accelerometer- look, guys, I've got a reading!

Then, the belt moves, and so will read. And when the belt is off, you need to start it, so the accelerometer will read. Put it on a belt that is already moving and it will read until that constant speed is reached.
Put an accelerometer on a balloon and it will read until a constant velocity is reached.
Put an accelerometer in the ground and you will wait a very long time indeed, for it to change as the wind blows or not.


Spork made this claim
"The point is that no instrumentation can tell you whether we move the ground or the air - because there is no such distinction in reality. They are one and the same."

That's Sportvision's "Chief Scientist", folks. Or so he says.

 

[A.T.]

And put an accelerometer on a long conveyer belt moving at a constant speed, and read it after a few seconds.....and...

Humber once again proves he can't understand treadmills. I suppose he will have to jump up and down on one with his accelerometer- look, guys, I've got a reading!

Humber doesn't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. Ask him what the acceleration of a ball on the top of it's trajectory is, when you throw it up vertically.

 

[windgrins]

Don't know and don't care-It wasn't my mouthy statement!.

And the answer to your blistering amplifier conundrum is 100, isn't it?

I don't know. I haven't bothered do an analysis and I don't feel compelled to do one, since I made no claim about my abilities! It wasn't my bluster about how smart I was in X-Band. It was your claim about sharp you are in your speciality. I still haven't seen an analysis backing your claim up. A guess, without an analysis, wouldn't say much about my abilities now would it-My professors certainly didn't seem to think so and that's not why they awarded me a degree.

What I will say is this: if I shoot off my mouth about how smart I am in a particular subject matter, If someone shows up and says, OK you are so smart, show me how to do this trivial problem in this area, then I better be able to handle a trivial problem or they will likely declare me a blowhard and full of hot air!

Got it?

Regards,

WindGrins

 

[tobermoryphil]

Then, the belt moves, and so will read. And when the belt is off, you need to start it, so the accelerometer will read. Put it on a belt that is already moving and it will read until that constant speed is reached.
Put an accelerometer on a balloon and it will read until a constant velocity is reached.
Put an accelerometer in the ground and you will wait a very long time indeed, for it to change as the wind blows or not.


Spork made this claim
"The point is that no instrumentation can tell you whether we move the ground or the air - because there is no such distinction in reality. They are one and the same."

That's Sportvision's "Chief Scientist", folks. Or so he says.

So how do you tell any of the the following apart, using ONLY the readings from an accelerometer, and from an anemometer reading wind speeds:

a/The ground, with a 10 mph wind blowing
b/ a conveyor belt, moving at a constant 10 mph in still air
c/ the deck of a stationary aircraft carrier, in a 10 mph headwind
d/ the deck of an aircraft carrier travelling at 10 mph in still air
e/ the deck of an aircraft carrier, travelling at 15 mph, with a 5 mph tailwind

The accelerometer will of course just confirm that there is no increase or decrease in velocity of whatever it is sitting on.

 

[humber]

I don't know. I haven't bothered do an analysis and I don't feel compelled to do one,

Can't afford the 15 seconds?

since I made no claim about my abilities

And that is why you signed off "EEwindgrins ", is it?

 

[humber]

So how do you tell any of the the following apart, using ONLY the readings from an accelerometer, and from an anemometer reading wind speeds:

a/The ground, with a 10 mph wind blowing

Bury the anemometer. It won't work.

b/ a conveyor belt, moving at a constant 10 mph in still air

Put the accelerometer on the belt as it is moving or when it moves. It will read. Put the accelerometer on the ground at any time, in any wind, and it won't.

c/ the deck of a stationary aircraft carrier, in a 10 mph headwind
d/ the deck of an aircraft carrier travelling at 10 mph in still air
e/ the deck of an aircraft carrier, travelling at 15 mph, with a 5 mph tailwind

Jump, and then use your brains to tell you which is which. They will all give different results.

The accelerometer will of course just confirm that there is no increase or decrease in velocity of whatever it is sitting on.

Like the ground, you mean? Chief Scientist Spork says there is no way to tell if the ground is moving or the wind is blowing.

Spork's conversations with Dr Camp must have been like an adult trying not to hurt a child's feelings. Nice man, Dr camp.

.

 

[humber]

Humber doesn't understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. Ask him what the acceleration of a ball on the top of it's trajectory is, when you throw it up vertically.

Tell that to Spork and Windgrins who think gravity does not act on an NB balloon.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Humber- you are still good for a chuckle- carry on jumping!

On aircraft carriers, as well as to (the wrong) conclusions.

Please explain exactly how your brain differentiates between the three aircraft carrier options; by the way, its foggy, so you cannot see the sea.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

c/ the deck of a stationary aircraft carrier, in a 10 mph headwind
d/ the deck of an aircraft carrier travelling at 10 mph in still air
e/ the deck of an aircraft carrier, travelling at 15 mph, with a 5 mph tailwind

Jump, and then use your brains to tell you which is which. They will all give different results.

I'd love to see a brief description of what you think the "different results" might be. It could provide an illuminating insight.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Tell that to Spork and Windgrins who think gravity does not act on an NB balloon.

Who says it doesn't? trouble is, Humber, gravity also exerts exactly the same influence on the surrounding air, which has identical density to the balloon.