Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Dr. Keith]

Yes there is, but you are unaware of what that is,

so am I. Please provide it as I think it would make your point stronger, assuming you had one.

and no matter what offset you would hope to assign to save face,the cart gets worse when the difference falls and improves when it increases.

If that is so obviously true why don't you just show us.

It really should be quite simple, we can all help by pointing out when you are doing it wrong. That has been pretty easy, so far.

Also, let's see your cart, or at least a representation of of it in green crayola. That would be awesome!

 

[Dr. Keith]

In your dreams, and it quite obviously fails no matter what.

In fact it is so obvious that those standing right next to it missed the failure. Is part of your theory that spork is actually Banachek? That would really help, actually. Contact Connie Sonne, she can help you.

There are at least 10 other charts, so far found, that show the cart is poor when ddw.

But let me guess you can't be bothered to use those to support your argument.

Mostly, the runs are total failures below and above WS. A rise in speed with the change in wind direction, that passes, so the cart bombs.

It's a scam. Learn from that.

Ah yes, the taking propeller. Why just last week I heard that the new Cessna is going to have props that were aligned 60 degrees from the center line of the plane to take advantage of this phenomena. Brilliant work.

 

[humber]

That gets back to what we've said about energy being frame dependent. In the frame of the truck the chains do no work. In the frame of the road the chains do lots of work.

Think about it like this. You have a tree that's being held from blowing over with a chain that's anchored to the ground. No matter how hard that wind blows, the chain doesn't do work on the tree - because neither the chain nor tree moves - right? In the fame of the ground that's the case.

Here is a case of internal contradiction. Spork has repeatedly claimed that both the tree and planet are moving, but now says there is no work done on the chain, which by happenstance, is correct.

That's just like the Toyotas on the car carrier if you are also on the car carrier. Nothing is moving, but the wind is blowing on the car - and the chain is keeping the car from blowing off the back of the car carrier.
But to someone standing on the side of the road, the cars on the carrier are being pulled through the air at 75 mph - by a chain. That chain is clearly doing work on the car.
Different frames - different energy accounting.

But again. Illogical. The cars are not moving relative to the truck, and sustain only a static force, so no work is done by the chain from any frame.
A book on a table is supported by static force from the table, and that force does no work. The seat does no work on the driver of a car.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I suspect profpangloss is making those posts for Dodge69's benefit, because he shows willingness to accept ideas, and asks relevant questions.

Ah yes, ppg is really helping out. It is truly the best of all possible worlds.

However, he need not do so for any reason other than that, because the trial data clearly shows the cart is a failure and deliberate deception.

I know, I keep telling you:your cart is just a deliberate deception. It doesn't exist and if it did it would not perform.

Oh, your talking about the BB . . . gee, you've had that data for some time now but all you seem to be able to do is snipe on the internet and post charts that don't support your position. Maybe it is time that you really applied yourself instead of dicking around.

 

[Llyricist]

Well I suppose that if PPG decided that his hand was indeed applying 51 joules per second pushing the object across the tabletop in a train, but then calculated the frictional loss as if it were travelling at 51ms-1, his calculations would balance too. It wouldn't make him right.

Hmm. That comes across a bit more combative than intended. What I mean is - which bit's wrong?

None of it really, in the case of the train, doing a ground frame analysis is just stupid, but not quite impossible. Though it would be excessively hard to measure the increased work of the train's engine to compensate for the 1N of equal and opposite force you apply to the train... etc.

In the case of the cart, it is relatively simple to measure the loss of KE of the air in the ground frame to make up the difference in power.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Here is a case of internal contradiction. Spork has repeatedly claimed that both the tree and planet are moving, but now says there is no work done on the chain, which by happenstance, is correct.

Wow, he really got lucky!

 

[Llyricist]

None of it really, in the case of the train, doing a ground frame analysis is just stupid, but not quite impossible. Though it would be excessively hard to measure the increased work of the train's engine to compensate for the 1N of equal and opposite force you apply to the train... etc.

In the case of the cart, it is relatively simple to measure the loss of KE of the air in the ground frame to make up the difference in power.

Did I say measure? oops it's relatively easy to calculate.. not measure. And the number doesn't have to be presented in 10 to the negative power form.

 

[windgrins]

I'm sure the Aero guys just haven't thought of this yet!

In fact it is so obvious that those standing right next to it missed the failure. Is part of your theory that spork is actually Banachek? That would really help, actually. Contact Connie Sonne, she can help you.



But let me guess you can't be bothered to use those to support your argument.



Ah yes, the taking propeller. Why just last week I heard that the new Cessna is going to have props that were aligned 60 degrees from the center line of the plane to take advantage of this phenomena. Brilliant work.

That "Banachek" thing dates you, Dr. K!

Yes, Humber is oblivious to how his convoluted nonsense machinations fly in the face of all common sense and is completely self contradictory. He is looking for an issue to have-no matter how silly, to hang his hat on, since he can't find real ones.

Regards,

WindGrins

 

[windgrins]

This is too easy!

Here is a case of internal contradiction. Spork has repeatedly claimed that both the tree and planet are moving, but now says there is no work done on the chain, which by happenstance, is correct.

Did you miss this little tidbit?

Spork:

No matter how hard that wind blows, the chain doesn't do work on the tree - because neither the chain nor tree moves - right? In the frame of the ground that's the case.

But again. Illogical. The cars are not moving relative to the truck, and sustain only a static force, so no work is done by the chain from any frame.
A book on a table is supported by static force from the table, and that force does no work. The seat does no work on the driver of a car.

So the car arrives at the destination without the driver? What does do work on the driver to get him to the destination if not the seat? The kids in the back seat?

WindGrins

 

[humber]

In fact it is so obvious that those standing right next to it missed the failure. Is part of your theory that spork is actually Banachek? That would really help, actually. Contact Connie Sonne, she can help you.
But let me guess you can't be bothered to use those to support your argument.

You mean a crank and fraud?

This one is of the record trial itself. The published chart shows the wind moving South at the end of that chart, so lending the impression that was something that simply happened after the record was made.
But in fact, the record point was chosen from the data of the entire run. That point is about 1/2 in. The measurement point was selected after the run, not before the run, and the remaining incriminating data was not published. The chart was truncated to avoid showing that large change, or an even higher speed record could have been claimed for that same run.

The trial was conducted where 50 degree changes were a constant presence.

Ah yes, the taking propeller. Why just last week I heard that the new Cessna is going to have props that were aligned 60 degrees from the center line of the plane to take advantage of this phenomena. Brilliant work.

That's really quite funny in considering that Spork has made the unequivocal claim that the prop does tack: but Cessna nor any text don't seem to agree.
The prop does not tack, the wind changes around the cart, which quite purposefully makes not attempt to follow the wind but to maintain a fixed GPS heading.

 

[humber]

Did you miss this little tidbit?

Spork:

No matter how hard that wind blows, the chain doesn't do work on the tree - because neither the chain nor tree moves - right? In the frame of the ground that's the case.

So the frame makes no difference, does it, yet here, is quite clearly states the wind is blowing. So why is there no work?
Static force does no work in any frame.

So the car arrives at the destination without the driver? What does do work on the driver to get him to the destination if not the seat? The kids in the back seat?
WindGrins

The engine. Perhaps you have noticed that cars have engines.

 

[windgrins]

Some of us actually paid attention!

You mean a crank and fraud?

This one is of the record trial itself. The published chart shows the wind moving South at the end of that chart, so lending the impression that was something that simply happened after the record was made.
But in fact, the record point was chosen from the data of the entire run. That point is about 1/2 in. The measurement point was selected after the run, not before the run, and the remaining incriminating data was not published. The chart was truncated to avoid showing that large change, or an even higher speed record could have been claimed for that same run.

The trial was conducted where 50 degree changes were a constant presence.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22118&stc=1&d=1305107360[/qimg]




That's really quite funny in considering that Spork has made the unequivocal claim that the prop does tack: but Cessna nor any text don't seem to agree.
The prop does not tack, the wind changes around the cart, which quite purposefully makes not attempt to follow the wind but to maintain a fixed GPS heading.

Humber,

Dude, learn what the words mean!

Spork has discussed the blades of the prop as being like a sail on a tack. Not that the prop is tacking!

I guess we write this one up as one of the 40.:

35. Butcher common terms and attempt to pass it off as science.

WindGrins

 

[humber]

That "Banachek" thing dates you, Dr. K!

Yes, Humber is oblivious to how his convoluted nonsense machinations fly in the face of all common sense and is completely self contradictory. He is looking for an issue to have-no matter how silly, to hang his hat on, since he can't find real ones.

Regards,

WindGrins

And you hang on to belief in the face of 50 degree wind, selective bias and publication. The trials are as clear a case of fraud as is possible to be made.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You mean a crank and fraud?

I'll call you a fraud when you start taking money, for now your just a crank and liar.

This one is of the record trial itself. The published chart shows the wind moving South at the end of that chart, so lending the impression that was something that simply happened after the record was made.
But in fact, the record point was chosen from the data of the entire run. That point is about 1/2 in. The measurement point was selected after the run, not before the run, and the remaining incriminating data was not published. The chart was truncated to avoid showing that large change, or an even higher speed record could have been claimed for that same run.

Yeah, that is only suspicious to you. To us it looks like they measured acceleration during the time when the wind was most aligned with the direction of the cart and they actually accelerated over a pre-set period of time with the wind within pre-set parameters.

That sounds like the way such a record should have been made. What happens before that is largely irrelevant and what happens after is completely irrelevant.

The trial was conducted where 50 degree changes were a constant presence.

Except during the actual run, right? So not really constant, more like occasional.

That's really quite funny in considering that Spork has made the unequivocal claim that the prop does tack: but Cessna nor any text don't seem to agree.

No, he said a prop blade is similar to a tacking sail. I got that. They are both airfoils creating lift. It makes sense but has limited application, so I understand why it isn't in any text book.

The prop does not tack, the wind changes around the cart, which quite purposefully makes not attempt to follow the wind but to maintain a fixed GPS heading.

So, if the prop does not tack how does the cart gain advantage from this changing wind direction?

Really, all snarkiness about your previous failures and lies aside, this is the most interesting thing about your stance to me. You deny that a craft could gain power from a substantial steady state differential between air speed and ground speed, but find it obvious that a massively fluctuating wind is the source of power. I have never seen a device that gains power from massively fluctuating wind directions, but I would love to.

 

[windgrins]

You don't catch on to this stuff fast do you?

So the frame makes no difference, does it, yet here, is quite clearly states the wind is blowing. So why is there no work?
Static force does no work in any frame.

That's correct for any frame that its static in. Not for any frame. This is why you missed the next one also.

The engine. Perhaps you have noticed that cars have engines.

Perhaps you noticed that the drivers not connected to anything that the engine moves except by the seat!

Have you ever noticed that when you press the accelerator, the seat is what is pushing on you!

If you want to use this stupid argument, what turns BB's prop even below windspeed? Is it the propshaft or the engine?

WindGrins

 

[humber]

Here is a case of internal contradiction. Spork has repeatedly claimed that both the tree and planet are moving, but now says there is no work done on the chain, which by happenstance, is correct.



But again. Illogical. The cars are not moving relative to the truck, and sustain only a static force, so no work is done by the chain from any frame.
A book on a table is supported by static force from the table, and that force does no work. The seat does no work on the driver of a car.

Humber,

Dude, learn what the words mean!

Spork has discussed the blades of the prop as being like a sail on a tack. Not that the prop is tacking!

I guess we write this one up as one of the 40.:

35. Butcher common terms and attempt to pass it off as science.

WindGrins

All BS. All of it.

 

[windgrins]

Multiple carts on multiple treadmills was good enough for me!

And you hang on to belief in the face of 50 degree wind, selective bias and publication. The trials are as clear a case of fraud as is possible to be made.

Nope, I'm comfortable with physics and the treadmill test in ideal conditions was good enough for me. Watching the BB go over 3X WS in winds even close to DDW is good enough for me since we don't have a giant TM.

The rest of your data is simply noise since it managed it multiple times!

The record is actually inconsequential in proving the point except to you!

That little icing on the cake for Rick and JB sure seems annoying for you, though!

Windgrins

 

[CORed]

So the frame makes no difference, does it, yet here, is quite clearly states the wind is blowing. So why is there no work?
Static force does no work in any frame.




The engine. Perhaps you have noticed that cars have engines.

So in your car the engine directly pushes the driver?

That's interesting, in my car, the engine turns the wheels, the wheels move the body of the car, and the seat pushes on the driver. Could you post some drawings of the humbercar? I'd love to see how it works.

 

[humber]

That's correct for any frame that its static in. Not for any frame. This is why you missed the next one also.

Static force does no work in any frame.

Perhaps you noticed that the drivers not connected to anything that the engine moves except by the seat!

And you can stand in a train. Perhaps you can market a car with seats, but no engine.

Have you ever noticed that when you press the accelerator, the seat is what is pushing on you!

Then that is the force of acceleration, and so not static.

 

[windgrins]

I'm glad I created this timesaving system!

All BS. All of it.

37. "Arrogant and sarcastic single word dismissals of things I think I understand but don't really."

WindGrins