Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[tobermoryphil]

Nothing will ever make humber demonstrate his propless cart advancing against a treadmill. Not for you; not for NALSA; not ever.

But I imagine you understand that. I think your offer, while probably legitimate, is made for the entertainment of others so we watch humber decline even a straight up offer of cash with no risk to himself.

Needless to say, humber couldn't demonstrate such a thing even if he wanted to. I'm honestly not sure if he even fully comprehends that; but every one else clearly does.

Not 'probably legitimate', 'certainly legitimate', otherwise agreed word for word!

 

[humber]

Nothing will ever make humber demonstrate his propless cart advancing against a treadmill. Not for you; not for NALSA; not ever.
But I imagine you understand that. I think your offer, while probably legitimate, is made for the entertainment of others so we watch humber decline even a straight up offer of cash with no risk to himself.
Needless to say, humber couldn't demonstrate such a thing even if he wanted to. I'm honestly not sure if he even fully comprehends that; but every one else clearly does.

Trenchant denial of my cart and the posited descriptions of what it may be ( though you also say it does not exist at all) only makes the wide-eyed wonder seen in your cart videos all the more amusing.

Nothing is going to stop that video from being posted where and when I choose. A simple compilation of the NALSA data will show all but the ardent that you have no such ddw record, NALSA support, or not.

 

[humber]

Not 'probably legitimate', 'certainly legitimate', otherwise agreed word for word!

I think so, which is why I have never accepted. You said that you lived on a pension, and I would not be happy to steal that from you.

 

[spork]

Not 'probably legitimate', 'certainly legitimate', otherwise agreed word for word!

Fair enough. I simply didn't want to speak for you in case you were just trying to make a point that was not to be taken literally. The fact that this is a legitimate offer makes it that much more entertaining.

 

[humber]

Fair enough. I simply didn't want to speak for you in case you were just trying to make a point that was not to be taken literally. The fact that this is a legitimate offer makes it that much more entertaining.

And this says your ddw record is a farce.

As with so many other even more obvious examples that nobody was to see, the cart's performance nose-dives as it approaches 0 degrees with respect to the wind, and improves again when that difference increases.

This is from the record trial. Another cherry-picked result. The trial was terminated before the wind moved towards 50 degrees, and that is typical of the conditions. Large changes of around 50 degrees can be seen from the vane in the Jenkins' video, confirming that they are not a data artifact.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You said that you lived on a pension, and I would not be happy to steal that from you.

It would only be stealing if you cheated, and you don't plan to cheat, do you?

Anyway, we'll all be on pensions (or dead) by the time you're ready to show the world your super duper cart.

 

[jduffy77]

Why do you think the cart must be held in place while the tread runs under it, to get it started?

Because treadmills are short, so the cart would run off the end before it got up to speed.

On a long enough treadmill, it would work fine without being held, if it would work that way on the ground in a wind.

Of course, and it is also possible to set up an experiment in which the cart is transferred to the TM already at belt speed.

The motion of a treadmill isn't perfectly smooth like the motion of the ground. I can easily imagine that this would cause the cart to bounce around more on the treadmill than on the ground.

I'm not convinced. You've given qualitative arguments here. Why not calculate some thrusts and torques and forces and such? You agree that the cart works on a treadmill, I think. Ok. Why does it work? The forward thrust of the propeller must be greater than the backward force of the treadmill on the cart's wheels. Calculate them.

I think like so many people have done in a good faith attempt to educate you have not completely wrapped your mind around the stupidity of his argument. If you are just trying to be polite ignore my comment.

He is saying that the propeller is just there for show. He is saying that the cart is jumping up in the air and the TM belt is moving under it like his runner example. As absurd as this is it gets worse. The cart is not jumping in place. It is moving forward. This is because the wheels were spinning as it was held in place. While the cart is jumping on the belt it is contact with the belt some of the time. During this contact time while the inertia of the treadmill is not affecting the cart the spinning wheels are forcing the cart forward.

It is really almost too hilarious.

 

[jduffy77]

And this says your ddw record is a farce.

It says no such thing. What it says to everyone but you is that you don't understand the data you are posting. What makes it so sad is that the real wind trials were held for folks like yourself who were not capable of understanding the TM equivalence. Instead of saying thank you for having real wind trials you point to the trials and say; hey, these trials were held in real wind, they are no good. Everyone but you can see the absurdity of your position.

You refuse to talk about the data from the lunch break. You refuse to talk about the data from the time during which the cart was being towed. You refuse to talk about the data from the time during which the cart was turning back to the starting position. We know that your definition of ddw does not agree with the experts at NALSA but you refuse to say what your definition is. You refuse to answer questions about the relevance of any data other than the measurement period. You say, "Look, fraud, they picked the period with the best wind", forgetting that that is what you wanted them to do. With every post you make yourself into more of a laughingstock.

ETA: BTW, as everyone probably knows already, the reason hyevpranggloss and humber steadfastly refuse to give their definitions of ddw is because then their game would become obvious. They do not understand the TM equivalence (in pranggloss's case probably just pretends not to) but they make the ddw definition such that no such real wind conditions could possibly exist.

 

[jduffy77]

Another excellent post summing up some issues for Hyeveprangloss which was promptly ignored:

You have made two fundamental errors and here is where yours are:

The treadmill: A treadmill in still air with the belt running from right to left and a cart moving from left to right in place wrt the frame of the TM is equivalent of a cart moving on the ground at the speed the treadmill is running. This is obvious. If in the case of a tailwind blowing on the cart over the ground at the speed of the TM, the cart experiences no relative wind because it is at WS. In the case of a cart on the treadmill that is still wrt to the TM frame, the still air is a wind blowing over the moving belt from left to right wrt to the belt. The cart which is at WS in this frame is moving in a tailwind at WS and thus feels no wind. The transformation has all the same force vectors, speeds and all other items the same as a cart running over the earth with a tailwind equal to beltspeed. If one ignores nonsense issues like Coriolis force, relativistic frame dragging, magnetic changes, (which are all minute for this situation) the TM is an exact transform for the situation. You can't illustrate a difference because there aren't any.

If you have difficulty understanding this situation here is an easy way:
Imagine a cart with no prop tied to a string to the frame of the treadmill and the treadmill operating with a belt speed of 10mph. There is a fan at the front of the belt blowing steady air along the belt at 10mph. The cart has a headwind of 10mph and is traveling on the belt at 10mph. (note that the air is moving at the speed of the belt.) This is the same as a cart on the ground in no wind traveling at 10mph in still air. Now reduce the fan so that the air is 1mph slower. This is equivalent to a 1mph tailwind on the cart. The cart is rolling at 10mph on the belt into a 9mph headwind. Repeat the slowing of the fan 1mph. For every 1mph decrease in fan speed, the cart has 1mph less headwind which is equivalent to 1mph faster tailwind for a cart on the ground. When the fan is turned off the cart has no headwind and is equivalent to a tailwind of 10mph. This is our current situation. This isn't a difficult concept.

No it isn't, but even though I know you said you were essentially just trying to be nice, it seems to me you, like 69dodge are still giving him far too much credit. While your example is another great attempt at helping someone visualize the TM equivalence if it is read in the context of his current nonsensical argument (jumping cart with spinning wheels) which I outlined above for 69dodge, it becomes meaningless.

Your second error is a failure to understand:

The cart receives energy from the wind in the form of a push on the blades of the cart in an axial direction. This push is due to the props spinning and producing a net thrust from the relative wind. This is all standard aerodynamic lift/drag theory for wings in airflow. Yes, it takes torque to overcome the drag of the prop in the plane of the prop but there is a net gain here just like a sailboat sail has a net gain. The remainder of the system is just a way to translate this input energy to torque to continue the process. The wheels, reacting against the ground (or TM belt), are simply a method to convert some of this push to the torque that turns the prop. The remainder is used to either accelerate the cart below steady state and to overcome losses. At steady state, the force is all used to overcome losses. The torque is not the source of the axial push from the prop, the relative wind (wrt prop blades) is the source. No over unity, no PM. The feedback loop makes the machine work but is not a source of energy so get over this complaint. Nobody believes it, is so its a red herring to claim it. As stated, the airmass moving wrt to the ground is the energy source and the mechanism of the cart is just a method to harvest it. COE is not violated because the airmass is slowed wrt ground by the mechanism (losing KE of the airmass) and the cart ultimately expends this energy either accelerating or overcoming frictional losses (mechanical or aerodynamic). Specifically, you can't quite seem to visualize the transfer point of energy at the blade.

Can't or won't that is the question. My belief is that Humber can't and Hyevpranggloss won't.

 

[windgrins]

Thanks for Noticing!

Another excellent post summing up some issues for Hyeveprangloss which was promptly ignored:



No it isn't, but even though I know you said you were essentially just trying to be nice, it seems to me you, like 69dodge are still giving him far too much credit. While your example is another great attempt at helping someone visualize the TM equivalence if it is read in the context of his current nonsensical argument (jumping cart with spinning wheels) which I outlined above for 69dodge, it becomes meaningless.



Can't or won't that is the question. My belief is that Humber can't and Hyevpranggloss won't.

Thanks for noticing that PPG never responded to this. He and Humber have a track record of just ignoring a clear explanation that explains anything and prefer to run to some convoluted subterfuge. It is clear that my "word" explanation can easily have a vector diagram put to it (which other posters have done), a forces explanation (which I and other posters have done) and an energy calculation (which other posters have done.), and most telling-multiple real world demonstrations of the concept. Harold/..../PPG just ignores anything that clearly contradicts his position. Since the TM is the "dagger in the heart" of all their stupidity, they have to find some (all insane) ways of refuting it.

I haven't taken these guys seriously for quite some time since they have no (and I can't find any evidence that they ever had any) serious debate points. For anyone following this, they just seem to come off as dumber than bricks. This is all at the point of comic relief now.

Regards,

WindGrins

 

[humber]

It says no such thing. What it says to everyone but you is that you don't understand the data you are posting. What makes it so sad is that the real wind trials were held for folks like yourself who were not capable of understanding the TM equivalence. Instead of saying thank you for having real wind trials you point to the trials and say; hey, these trials were held in real wind, they are no good. Everyone but you can see the absurdity of your position.

The TM is a simple machine that has nothing to do with a cart in the wind.
And that explains the 50 degree shift in the supposedly ddw trial does it?

You refuse to talk about the data from the lunch break. You refuse to talk about the data from the time during which the cart was being towed.

There is some data from when the CV is stationary. One wonders how blinkered all must have been to not notice the vane spinning like a top.

It would seem that the most likely scenario is that a trial would not begin until the wind had at least settled, and the vane was stable enough to even justify a start. A hasty push before the wind changes its mind. In other words, each trial started in a quite period, thus almost guaranteeing a later gusty period. From all those trials, select one that looks the least obvious fraud.

You refuse to talk about the data from the time during which the cart was turning back to the starting position.

This sort of thing?

We know that your definition of ddw does not agree with the experts at NALSA but you refuse to say what your definition is.

And who thinks 50 degrees with respect to the wind is ddw? Any rational person?

You refuse to answer questions about the relevance of any data other than the measurement period. You say, "Look, fraud, they picked the period with the best wind", forgetting that that is what you wanted them to do. With every post you make yourself into more of a laughingstock.

Three hours of data. All recorded. All more damning than that one published chart.
And what were they doing for the remainder of the two days? Waiting, stalling, fiddling.

ETA: BTW, as everyone probably knows already, the reason hyevpranggloss and humber steadfastly refuse to give their definitions of ddw is because then their game would become obvious. They do not understand the TM equivalence (in pranggloss's case probably just pretends not to) but they make the ddw definition such that no such real wind conditions could possibly exist.

I doubt that anyone, save a zealot for the cause, would see 50 degrees as ddw.

 

[humber]

It would only be stealing if you cheated, and you don't plan to cheat, do you?

Anyway, we'll all be on pensions (or dead) by the time you're ready to show the world your super duper cart.

No, but I don't bet one a sure thing, because that is not betting, nor take advantage of those who have been duped.

 

[humber]

Of course, and it is also possible to set up an experiment in which the cart is transferred to the TM already at belt speed.



I think like so many people have done in a good faith attempt to educate you have not completely wrapped your mind around the stupidity of his argument. If you are just trying to be polite ignore my comment.

He is saying that the propeller is just there for show. He is saying that the cart is jumping up in the air and the TM belt is moving under it like his runner example. As absurd as this is it gets worse. The cart is not jumping in place. It is moving forward. This is because the wheels were spinning as it was held in place. While the cart is jumping on the belt it is contact with the belt some of the time. During this contact time while the inertia of the treadmill is not affecting the cart the spinning wheels are forcing the cart forward.

It is really almost too hilarious.

A really desperate diatribe, there.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I don't think any work was done by the force of the chains on the cars. Was some done? The chains were under tension, but they moved with the cars.

Spork explained it so I'll not elaborate other than to say work obviously gets done as the cars get to the dealer and the magnets make it across the room. In the frame of one magnet, the other magnet (the force the pulls it across the room is doing *all* the work on it).

Now, a more explicitly defined scenario could have the work coming not from the other magnet, but from a hand (if the hand it grasping both magnets equally), but you'd have to be more specific to have an answer.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

What did you mean by this?

(Here's the post in question.)

It seems you agreed with me then, but now you don't.

I agree with your above linked post. I don't agree with your magnet 'no work' post - likely because you have not clearly defined your magnet scenario and you and I are answering different assumed questions.

JB

 

[humber]

Spork explained it so I'll not elaborate other than to say work obviously gets done as the cars get to the dealer and the magnets make it across the room. In the frame of one magnet, the other magnet (the force the pulls it across the room is doing *all* the work on it).

Now, a more explicitly defined scenario could have the work coming not from the other magnet, but from a hand (if the hand it grasping both magnets equally), but you'd have to be more specific to have an answer.

JB

If the magnets keep the same distance apart as they move, then there is no change of either in the magnetic field, so no work is done against it.
Analogously, matter is held together by molecular forces, and no work is done that way either.
The claim about the cars and the chains, is another barefoot error.

 

[drewid]

So by exactly the same token, when I carry a briefcase across a room I am doing no work on it.

Right.

 

[jduffy77]

If the magnets keep the same distance apart as they move, then there is no change of either in the magnetic field, so no work is done against it.
Analogously, matter is held together by molecular forces, and no work is done that way either.
The claim about the cars and the chains, is another barefoot error.

Humber we know you don't understand what frame of reference means, you really can take a break from proving it if you want to.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

So by exactly the same token, when I carry a briefcase across a room I am doing no work on it.

Right.

That's how I read his answer -- thus the "pulling leg" comment. It all depends on the FOR.

JB

 

[profpangloss]

Work is force times distance, but the force and the distance have to be at the same place, so to speak. I don't think it's correct to multiply the force of the propeller on the air by the distance that the cart travels over the ground. You could use the 9 m/s speed of the cart over the ground, but then you'd also have to use the force between the cart and the ground, whatever that is.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't believe any work is done at the wheel/ground interface, except that needed to overcome rolling resistance. Each wheel rolls along the ground without slipping; the point of contact with the ground does not move relative to the ground, so although there's force, there's no distance. But I am not especially sure about this. I welcome comments.

You should listen to what everyone is trying to tell you, because in this one instance at least, everyone is right! The thrust force generated by the propeller pushes the air one way, at 2.2 m/s, relative to the cart, and pushes the cart the opposite way, at 9 m/s relative to the ground. The 350 Watts in my calculation is adequate to push the air at 2.2 m/s ( 160 N x 2.2 m/s ~ 350 Watts) . But it is not adequate to push the 295 kg car over the ground at 9 m/s (160 N x 9 m/s = 1,440 Watts)

Maybe now you can see why I base my analysis around energy and power as well as forces, as just looking at forces alone does not tell you the whole story. In this case, if there was no other source of energy, it is clear the cart could not work. For example, if the cart was trying to run in still air, it should be very obvious that it isn’t going anywhere for long because it does not have the energy needed to do so.

In the case we are considering, with a wind blowing at 7 m/s and the cart moving along due to the Good Lord towing it up there and releasing it, there is some energy available from slowing down the wind.

The calculation for propeller thrust showed you the mass of air that gets slowed down is about 72 kg and is slows by 2.2 m/s with respect to the ground. From that you can see that the air mass loses about 935 J/s. Earlier, I rounded that up to a nice 1000 Watts of additional power available to the cart, if that power could be 100% transferred to the cart. The 100% transference is absurd, but even if it were allowed to happen, that makes the total power available to the cart 1,350 Watts and it needs 1,440 Watts to move nine meters in one second. If it can’t move that nine meters in one second, it cannot produce the 350 Watts at the propeller, and that is the end of that.

Notice, in this analysis I didn’t even bother to mention the fact that in order to get that 350 Watts on the propeller, the cart needed to come up with somewhere between 750 and 850 Watts to overcome efficiency losses. Remember, we are in the ground frame, so no ground power allowed. The only source of energy is whatever kinetic energy the cart has been given to it by the Holy Tow Vehicle, which has towed and departed. So the cart has to dig into its own kinetic energy to get the propeller working on the air. Some 500 Watts (500 J/s) is being lost in that process, slowing the cart down. Now to get back up to 9 m/s it needs that 1,440 Watts, plus the 500 Watts it burned off in this rather asinine assault on conservation of energy.

Well, as all assaults on conservation of energy are doomed to fail, so it is with this one. There simply is not enough energy available from the wind to power the cart to move the required 9 m/s over the ground to spin the propeller and do the work to slow down the air and get the energy from the wind to power the cart to move the required 9 m/s over the ground to spin the propeller to do the . . . . . .By now maybe you see what the problem is? No matter how many times our carteers deny it, they are in fact proposing just another in a long long line of perpetual motion machines.
The math says they are wrong. The NALSA data says they are wrong, and the treadmill has not one blessed thing to do with wind power.