Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Jack by the hedge]

And you assume significant expertise is necessary to finding fault with Carteerian diatribes?

Where are your legions of converts, then?

 

[humber]

If, on the other hand, the person is walking, then whether they're on the ground or on a treadmill they must produce the walking. Equivalence.

Why should a wheeled object be different? It isn't.

Person power.
Wind power.
None of the latter on the TM. The road powers the cart. Unplug it, and see how well it runs without the electric motor driving it. What a joke...kitchen sink physics.

 

[humber]

Where are your legions of converts, then?

Profpangloss thinks you may be members of a cult. There are no converts to the contrary of The Church of The Cart, just normal folk.

 

[3point14]

And you assume significant expertise is necessary to finding fault with Carteerian diatribes?

Yes thanks. Haven't found one yet. Completely understand the concept and how it works. It isn't even counter-intuitive. Actually, I got a little bored because, frankly, there isn't a fault with the cart or it's concept.

Some elements of the discussion are still interesting though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christoph/ChrisopherMa/Harold/Schroeder/Yevgheni/profpangloss arguments are only the equal of chasing tails. He will not stick to consistent positions. This is typical.

For two years now we've seen his argument and they are unchanged -- he simply can't follow relative motion.

The argument 'the ground can't power anything' changes to something else when it's shown that a simple wind turbine is ALWAYS powered by the ground in the frame of the wind -- the argument must change so he changes it.

He claims that a treadmill can't create wind and then ducks the obvious -- that any anemometer in the world will register the same speed as the threadmill if placed on the belt.

Same old flawed arguments and he won't convince a soul precisely because of those flaws.

JB

Yes, and he also will not answer any of the questions that Harold has avoided. He is becoming more and more obvious each time he changes his name. He avoids the yes/no questions on the treadmill like the plague because it leaves him no room for idiocy. The answers to all of the questions are obviously yes and even he can't find a faulty way to answer no to any of them.

 

[quarky]

The irrelevance of gravity's role in this.

um, quarky, didn't you mean to say "the relative irrelevance of gravity's role in this"?
Why, yes, I did.

But, hey people. As long as I'm talking to myself, here's a fun tool to use as per frames of reference stuff:

Tidal Power.
Its a reality; even humber wouldn't argue that there are no power plants exploiting this very exotic source of energy.
Yet its frames of reference stuff.

What perhaps has flown over some heads here (very few, thankfully) is whether you see your self as the air, the water, the road, whatever.
Depending on the frame you 'relate to', the other ones are moving, relative to it, which is where the energy is to be exploited advantageously...unless your frame is actually moving with the other one, in which case, no exploitation to be had; i.e.; no wind for the cart; no ddwfftw.

 

[humber]

Yes thanks. Haven't found one yet. Completely understand the concept and how it works. It isn't even counter-intuitive. Actually, I got a little bored because, frankly, there isn't a fault with the cart or it's concept.

Some elements of the discussion are still interesting though.

It never was counter-intuitive, that is deception, but you seem to be proud of accepting nonsense, without any mitigation at all.

 

[humber]

um, quarky, didn't you mean to say "the relative irrelevance of gravity's role in this"?
Why, yes, I did.
But, hey people. As long as I'm talking to myself, here's a fun tool to use as per frames of reference stuff:
Tidal Power.
Its a reality; even humber wouldn't argue that there are no power plants exploiting this very exotic source of energy.
Yet its frames of reference stuff.
What perhaps has flown over some heads here (very few, thankfully) is whether you see your self as the air, the water, the road, whatever.
Depending on the frame you 'relate to', the other ones are moving, relative to it, which is where the energy is to be exploited advantageously...unless your frame is actually moving with the other one, in which case, no exploitation to be had; i.e.; no wind for the cart; no ddwfftw.

Not all tidal power is related to gravity, but generally, it's the Moon's gravity that makes it all work.
There is no need to say anything about various frames Quarky.

The wind speed is measured wrt the ground, so all the needed is to know the speed of the cart wrt the ground. The difference is the speed of the cart relative to the wind. Identical results. When the difference is zero, no power.
It makes no difference if that is calculated from the air, or ground.

TAD's remark about turbines being the equivalent of being driven by the ground, suffers many problems.

Real wind turbines are placed some distance apart, so the exhaust of one, does not flow over the other. As the wind travels in between the turbines, it regains energy from vertical gradients, and all sorts of other sources, which would not be explicable by the motion of the ground.

 

[quarky]

Not all tidal power is related to gravity, but generally, it's the Moon's gravity that makes it all work.
There is no need to say anything about various frames Quarky.

The wind speed is measured wrt the ground, so all the needed is to know the speed of the cart wrt the ground. The difference is the speed of the cart relative to the wind. Identical results. When the difference is zero, no power.
It makes no difference if that is calculated from the air, or ground.

TAD's remark about turbines being the equivalent of being driven by the ground, suffers many problems.

Real wind turbines are placed some distance apart, so the exhaust of one, does not flow over the other. As the wind travels in between the turbines, it regains energy from vertical gradients, and all sorts of other sources, which would not be explicable by the motion of the ground.

We seem to agree on some stuff, especially if I go more off-topic than I should.
One of my worries about big wind power arrays; decades ago, was that their resistance would inevitably alter the normal wind currents; they'd be left high and dry, eventually.In a more sci-fi paranoia angle, total exploitation of tidal power would alter our orbit in respect to the moon. Fun stuff to ponder.

 

[A.T.]

The argument 'the ground can't power anything' changes to something else when it's shown that a simple wind turbine is ALWAYS powered by the ground in the frame of the wind -- the argument must change so he changes it.

Yep, he just makes stuff up as he goes around in circles:

Ground cannot provide power... ground cannot provide power to things moving relative to the ground... ground cannot provide power to things moving relative to the ground faster than some other object... [get new nickname]... Ground cannot provide power...

Of course, no proof of any of those assertions.

 

[recursive prophet]

If one has any desire at all, sock puppeting is trivial.

Hmm. A confession, jbt?

Spork has already agreed the energy to do that is coming from the treadmill and not the wind.

He has claimed nor agreed to any such thing.

JB

In the frame of the cart (at steady speed), the propeller does in fact put energy into the air. It does this by accelerating the air relative to the cart. In this case the cart gets its energy from the treadmill.

What does this say?

It's more important what it *does not say*. It does not say "and not from the wind". You claimed that spork agreed that the power was not coming from the wind and that is not the case.

Show me where he said this? He said spork claimed the energy came from the TM motor, which he clearly did.

Spork claims (and is correct) that the treadmill is providing the power to *produce* the wind and then that wind (relative motion beween air and surface) is powering the device.

What device? The TM? And again, what spork actually said is in the quote above and he said energy, not power.

And didn’t you claim earlier that Feynman’s Sprinkler had been decided beyond any doubt? .

No I did not - but then I understand that my post on the topic was not in the last few hours so I wouldn't expect you to remember what I *did* say.

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 rest my case. But listen for the beeping sound as jbt backs up on this one. Perhaps he’ll say nobody ever tried dropping the sprinkler into a tank?

The statement of mine in question (bolded above) says NOTHING about there not still being people with "doubt". What is says is that the folks who argue for the wrong conclusion (they exist) AFTER the experiment has already been done are just plain silly.

The statement in fact says just the OPPOSITE of what you asserted I had claimed. If it had been "proven beyond any doubt", there wouldn't be any people doubting -- taking the other side of something already done and demonstrated.

Beep, beep, beep. Word salad with parse dressing backing up on the TM serving table. So this means ddwfttw hasn't been proven beyond doubt also, right? Pretty watery dressing on this salad. So has the sprinkler's motion (or lack of) been proven or not? You implied once it was dropped into the tank it was silly to argue with the results, didn't you? You are aware this has been tried many times, yes? And the debate still continues.

So what-wrt Feynman's Sprinkler-is the wrong conclusion you mention? If the physics you espouse are not relative, like motion, but absolute, how can so many still disagree on what really happens in the tank? THAT was my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google is your friend rp. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQrkiH0U1Yg

 

[spork]

This is not a wind powered cart in any sense at all. It has no relation to a cart on the road that is wind powered.

Well - there you have it then. Nothing more to see here.

Let us stick to what we are talking about and that is a cart on a treadmill that is either standing still or advancing on the tread.

Good point. Let's just keep it to exactly that - and whatever bizarre broken analogies you come up with.

I'm relieved to see there is someone here who understands the significance of the gravitational force of the planet on the cart on the road.

Excellent. harold, meet humber. It's actually kind of heartwarming to see that harold manages to find humber and make fast friends no matter what his own login name. It's like one of those movies in which two people were clearly destined to be together - even after reincarnation.

 

[recursive prophet]

Google is your friend rp. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQrkiH0U1Yg

Already seen it sz. And I agree Google is your friend. If you use scholar you will find there are still several different answers to what is happening, and this on a brain teaser that has been around since 1940. Heres just one example: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/906380906.Ph.r.html

The reason I brought this up is because supporters of the different theories all claim to be right, and each group says their conclusions are based on fundamental physics. Sound familiar?

 

[Michael C]

profpangloss, you said this:

I do agree that energy is frame dependent, just as velocity is. I still disagree that vehicles can be powered by energy from the ground.

In reply, I asked you this:

Then you tell me: in the frame of reference in which the air is at rest, where is the kinetic energy of the simple sail cart coming from?

Please could you give a reply to my question?

 

[humber]

Yep, he just makes stuff up as he goes around in circles:

Ground cannot provide power... ground cannot provide power to things moving relative to the ground... ground cannot provide power to things moving relative to the ground faster than some other object... [get new nickname]... Ground cannot provide power...

Of course, no proof of any of those assertions.

Wind farms. The wind regains energy as it passes from one turbine to the other, by means that cannot be explained by motion of the ground.
There is more than one dimension, but the ground is restricted to a plane, while turbines are a fixed distance apart and would be dragged through the same air.
Big problem for barefoot cartoon world.

 

[humber]

It's like one of those movies in which two people were clearly destined to be together - even after reincarnation.

Or perhaps one where the central character finally comes to terms with his actual abilities.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Or perhaps one where the central character finally comes to terms with his actual abilities.

So far, we have noticed no change in two years, but here's hoping!

 

[humber]

So far, we have noticed no change in two years, but here's hoping!

The cart's size has increased in proportion to the self-inflation. Though one would expect the wood to be polished, rather than being matt black.
How does the wind between turbines become recharged, if the wind's motion can be equated with the motion of the ground?
Motion is relative, meaning that there is no dependence of the motion of one object upon another. Each is completely independent of the other, so the basic premise of ground power is wrong. Force changes velocity, but velocity does not change velocity.

 

[humber]

Already seen it sz. And I agree Google is your friend. If you use scholar you will find there are still several different answers to what is happening, and this on a brain teaser that has been around since 1940. Heres just one example: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/906380906.Ph.r.html

The reason I brought this up is because supporters of the different theories all claim to be right, and each group says their conclusions are based on fundamental physics. Sound familiar?

The theoretical approaches are a challenge to analytical skill, but the experiments suffer from both mechanical differences, and the expectations of the experimenters. None anticipate or consider trying to make the sprinkler turn opposite of what is expected when in 'thrust' mode.