Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[spork]

Okay, here's the $100K version. I will wager $100K US against your $1000.
Send me the cart and the $1000, and an engineer that I choose will determine the winner. I will send you $100K if you win. I will return the cart regardless of the winner.

Sadly, humber will fail to recognize that you're offering him a typical humber-style bet here.

 

[Llyricist]

Your "math" has shot itself down. It predicts enormous forces, that change with cart speed, but the constant acceleration of the cart seen in the trial says small and constant force.

1) the acceleration was not constant

2) the net force in the math is small.

 

[CORed]

I can dial in numbers as LLyricist does, but I am waiting on some validated numbers from NALSA. That is the way it is done, and it all takes time to assemble reams of data into a report that will be read. It is well known that most have a limited enthusiasm for reading long reports, and brevity facilitates redistribution.

Also, it allows you to cherry pick data that you think supports your position, assuming you can find any.

The number of posts created by the mere threat, speaks of a house of cards trying to wish away the big bad wolf.

Are you still suffering from delusions of competence?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

1) 2) the net force in the math is small.

Humber doesn't do terms like "net". He hears large torque numbers at the prop shaft an imagines a Corvette spinning it's big fat tires on pavement.

JB

 

[humber]

Sadly, humber will fail to recognize that you're offering him a typical humber-style bet here.

Why don't you take it up? They can test your cart, as published in Make, while they are at it. A free lesson.


Your "math" has shot itself down. Your method predicts enormous net forces, that change with cart speed, but the constant acceleration of the cart seen in the trial says small and constant net force.

And your explanation is?

 

[humber]

Humber doesn't do terms like "net". He hears large torque numbers at the prop shaft an imagines a Corvette spinning it's big fat tires on pavement.

JB

Still wrong. The math shows large changes in net force with velocity.
The cart shows a constant net force of 32N. F=ma, a =1.1ms-2
It will be difficult for you to argue for rising losses against that, unless you are now claiming the cart is so inefficient, it consumes its gains.
The Harrypothesis predicts large changes in force and net force. Double trouble for the parser. It told you there would be trouble when off the leash, and feral.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why don't you take it up? They can test your cart, as published in Make, while they are at it. A free lesson.


Your "math" has shot itself down. Your method predicts enormous net forces, that change with cart speed, but the constant acceleration of the cart seen in the trial says small and constant net force.

And your explanation is?

So, now Hummer is saying the cart works but spork didn't explain it properly?

There were some goalposts around here somewhere . . .

 

[jduffy77]

So, now Hummer is saying the cart works but spork didn't explain it properly?

There were some goalposts around here somewhere . . .

That's what it seems like he's saying to me but of course since he talks in riddles who can say which is just as intended.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Stan Honey, our aformentioned buddy, former boss and 2010 Rolex Yachtsman of the year award winner.

http://www.sailingworld.com/racing/the-navigator

He of course understands DDWFTTW.

JB

 

[Llyricist]

I think humber is confused by the fact that, when using the generic prop formula, you can pick any arbitrarily large amount of torque to get the thrust you need. Although even in this case the efficiency numbers fall like a rock as you increase the torque. So it is still restricted to a particular range of torques. And it is possible to design a prop that will meet whatever spec you come up with using this method, but that prop will only meet that spec at that particular speed combination you were using. Any other speed and it's that prop's characteristics that determines the torque, not some arbitrary choice of the designer.

 

[spork]

So, now Hummer is saying the cart works but spork didn't explain it properly?

humber is pretty careful to never actually say anything - except to hurl childish insults.

 

[spork]

I think humber is confused...

Yup

 

[humber]

That's what it seems like he's saying to me but of course since he talks in riddles who can say which is just as intended.

Do you read tea leaves too? Cast runes?
I wonder why you are so desperate to see the video of the cart, you say does not exist. For the last time, you will see it when I let you see it

 

[humber]

humber is pretty careful to never actually say anything - except to hurl childish insults.

Your theory predicts a change in net force with velocity. The trial says a constant force. How do you explain that?

My TM cart has been made expressly to show all of your errors, so you can think about that too.

 

[Llyricist]

Do you read tea leaves too? Cast runes?
I wonder why you are so desperate to see the video of the cart, you say does not exist. For the last time, you will see it when I let you see it

I don't care if you ever show it, but I would still like to know what it does and how it does it.

 

[humber]

Stan Honey, our aformentioned buddy, former boss and 2010 Rolex Yachtsman of the year award winner.

http://www.sailingworld.com/racing/the-navigator

He of course understands DDWFTTW.

JB

I bet he also knows about abandoning sinking ships.

 

[tobermoryphil]

Do you read tea leaves too? Cast runes?
I wonder why you are so desperate to see the video of the cart, you say does not exist. For the last time, you will see it when I let you see it

We will all have died of boredom long before that!

 

[spork]

I don't care if you ever show it, but I would still like to know what it does and how it does it.

I think I can help you here. There are only a few options:

1) It does nothing - because it doesn't exist
2) It rolls backward on a treadmill like any child's toy
3) It goes forward because it works against two surfaces like Michaels cart under a ruler.
4) It goes forward by using something like a propeller

I'd say #1 is almost certainly the case.

 

[humber]

Yup

Let's see how well Spork will do when challenged and can't use the O.J. defense.

Your theory predicts a change in net force with velocity. The trial says a constant force. How do you explain that?

 

[humber]

I think I can help you here. There are only a few options:

1) It does nothing - because it doesn't exist
2) It rolls backward on a treadmill like any child's toy
3) It goes forward because it works against two surfaces like Michaels cart under a ruler.
4) It goes forward by using something like a propeller

I'd say #1 is almost certainly the case.

Bookmarked to add to the video

Yup

Let's see how well Spork will do when challenged and can't use the O.J. defense.

Your theory predicts a change in net force with velocity. The trial says a constant force. How do you explain that?