Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Dr. Keith]

For anyone who cares, that "tornado" wind graph is what happened every time the Chase Vehicle was sitting still. It happened because the wind direction was calculated by vector addition of the wind direction and speed relative to the Chase Vehicle and the GPS reported bearing and speed of the chase vehicle.

And while sitting still, the GPS reports basically random bearings and speeds (on the order of .05 MPH), so the speed isn't really effected, but the bearings are all over the place.

It figures otherwise the damn cart would have blown over. And cows.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Err...+/- 100m is not uncommon for cheap units. I doubt the NALSA would like to be put in that group.

Yes, but a stationary gps unit with an error range of 0.1m will still wander within that range. It will read 0.02m north of true, then 0.001m west of true, then 0.004 East of true, etc. as it does this the "heading" will flap all over the place. Now, can you understand how the "heading" calculated by even an accurate gps unit that is stationary will be completely meaningless?

IOW: Please just drop this and move on to where your misunderstanding is actually of interest.

 

[humber]

Is that what your imaginary cart will be made of? When?

Despite my intense interest in your logic, this imaginary cart of yours is dead. Stop talking about it. We have debunked it and it will never recover. It only serves to embarrass you and those who would argue alongside of you.[/QUOTE


Well, you see, Spork has not managed to get this far, attract the attention of NASA and Google, without some help. He is hoping that same help will prevent any report being acted upon by NALSA.

He may be right, but the TM cart is independent of all that. It works, and that can't be changed, and so a ticking time bomb.

 

[humber]

Yes, but a stationary gps unit with an error range of 0.1m will still wander within that range. It will read 0.02m north of true, then 0.001m west of true, then 0.004 East of true, etc. as it does this the "heading" will flap all over the place. Now, can you understand how the "heading" calculated by even an accurate gps unit that is stationary will be completely meaningless?

IOW: Please just drop this and move on to where your misunderstanding is actually of interest.

360 degrees?
It's funny to see you justify that result, but somehow accept that all would become halcyon and valid, when the same GPS was used to determine direction when on the move.

The winds change by 50 degrees as a matter of routine, not exception. There is no ddw record to argue about.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, you see, Spork has not managed to get this far, attract the attention of NASA and Google, without some help. He is hoping that same help will prevent any report being acted upon by NALSA.

He may be right, but the TM cart is independent of all that. It works, and that can't be changed, and so a ticking time bomb.

I honestly can't decipher this. You get so delusional when discussing your fantasy cart that you seem to lose the ability to form coherent thoughts and sentences.

Anyway, care to address the earlier questions?

 

[Dr. Keith]

360 degrees?

Yes.

Imagine the true location is the center of a dart board laid on the ground and the dart board has a diameter of the error rating of the gps unit. Then, each gps location reading will be a dart that hits that dart board, and they will be randomly scattered on that dart board. So, one dart per second hits the board and the heading is calculated from the last dart. As distance isn't factored into the heading raw data, the heading raw data will be a huge mess. Commercial gps units, such as those in your parents' car, will ignore such low magnitude fluctuations in the raw data.

So long as the gps unit doesn't move the heading data will be a function of the random noise of the location error within that dart board.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It's funny to see you justify that result, but somehow accept that all would become halcyon and valid, when the same GPS was used to determine direction when on the move.

Read my last post that was started before this edit. The distinction is trivial to those of us who have worked with raw gps data.

The winds change by 50 degrees as a matter of routine, not exception. There is no ddw record to argue about.

Even if this were true, which you haven't proven, the wind did not change during the trial period.

So, now you have two problems you haven't addressed:

1) how did BB convert directional variation into useable energy?

2) how did BB store that useable energy from the high variation part of the run for use in the low variation portion of the run?

Since you can't answer either of those your objections are sounding even more hollow and desperate than your supposed cart.

 

[humber]

Yes.

Imagine the true location is the center of a dart board laid on the ground and the dart board has a diameter of the error rating of the gps unit. Then, each gps location reading will be a dart that hits that dart board, and they will be randomly scattered on that dart board. So, one dart per second hits the board and the heading is calculated from the last dart. As distance isn't factored into the heading raw data, the heading raw data will be a huge mess. Commercial gps units, such as those in your parents' car, will ignore such low magnitude fluctuations in the raw data.

So long as the gps unit doesn't move the heading data will be a function of the random noise of the location error within that dart board.

 

[CORed]

Is that what your imaginary cart will be made of? When?

Despite my intense interest in your logic, this imaginary cart of yours is dead. Stop talking about it. We have debunked it and it will never recover. It only serves to embarrass you and those who would argue alongside of you.

Well, you see, Spork has not managed to get this far, attract the attention of NASA and Google, without some help. He is hoping that same help will prevent any report being acted upon by NALSA.

He may be right, but the TM cart is independent of all that. It works, and that can't be changed, and so a ticking time bomb.

Funny thing though. It only works when it's "towing" the propeller cart. Humber hasn't figured out why yet.

 

[humber]

Funny thing though. It only works when it's "towing" the propeller cart. Humber hasn't figured out why yet.

And now you are ascribing characteristics to a cart you say does not exist?

You have all been conned. That NALSA data was never to be seen.

 

[profpangloss]

In conclusion, part of the power needed to do the (156 N)(9 m/s) of work per second which is being done on the cart can indeed come from the propeller, just as part of the power needed to run the car's motor can come from the generator. It doesn't all have to come from the wind. So, it is in fact correct to add the energy loss of the wind to the power provided by the propeller, to get the total work done on the cart by the 156 N of force on the propeller.

Yes indeed, and if you followed my calculations you will see where I have done that. I added the 350 Watts at the propeller to the MAX amount of power that can be extracted from the wind (given the parameters of the problem) and the total was about 1,350 Watts , rounded UP, and it was well short of the 1,440 Watts needed.
In fact, the calculation can be made even simpler, and the result for the cart is much worse!

All we need to do in order to prove or disprove this claim, is examine the two fundamental laws of conservation, The Law of conservation of Momentum, and the Law of conservation of Energy.

We can do that quite easily with the example we have been examining, with the 295 Kg cart moving at 9 m/s directly down wind in a wind of 7 m/s. We already calculated the air mass to be 72 kg, and the amount of acceleration given to the air by the propeller to be 2.2 m/s.

Now it is a simple matter to calculate the initial and final velocities, momentum and energies to see if it all agrees with the two great conservation laws:

Initially, the cart is moving at 295 kg cart is moving at 9 m/s and has a momentum of 2,655 kg x m/s

Initially, the 72 kg block of wind is moving at 7 m/s and has a momentum of 504 kg x m/s.

The Total momentum of this system is 3,160 kg x m/s and this must be conserved.

After being worked on by the propeller, the air mass is slowed by 2.2 m/s to a velocity of 4.8 m/s

Finally, the 72 kg block of wind, moving at 4.8 m/s has a momentum of 346 kg x m/s.

To conserve momentum, the cart must have a final momentum of 3,160 – 346 = 2,814 kg x m/s.

The 295 kg cart’s final velocity must be 9.54 m/s having a momentum of 2,814 kg x m/s.

So far, the law of conservation of momentum has been observed, but in order for this to be valid, the law of conservation of energy must also be shown to be conserved:

Initially, the 295 kg cart, moving at 9 m/s has kinetic energy of 11,950 Joules

Initially, the 72 kg block of wind, moving at 7 m/s, has kinetic energy of 1,765 Joules.

The total energy of the system is 13,715 Joules, and this too must be conserved.

After being worked on by the propeller, the air mass is slowed by 2.2 m/s to a velocity of 4.8 m/s.

Finally, the 72 kg block of wind, moving at 4.8 m/s, has a kinetic energy of 830 Joules.

Finally, the 295 kg cart, moving at 9.54 m/s, has a kinetic energy of 13,425 Joules.

The Total kinetic energy of the system is 14,255 Joules, and that is 540 Joules more than the system started out with.

There has been no input of energy from any other source, as all calculations are done in the frame where the ground is at rest and has no energy. The cart has gained more energy than the wind lost, based on the relative velocities and conservation of momentum. Conservation of energy has been violated, and that is not possible.

I invite anyone here to provide a similar method of calculation that shows the cart can go directly down wind, faster than the wind, and not be in violation of the two great laws of conservation. I have shown you the cart, if it did as claimed, is in violation of these fundamental laws of physics. Now the burden of proof is on the carteers, to show me that it isn’t. Use whatever method you like for propeller thrust and whatever efficiencies strike your fancy, but please be good enough to show your calculations!

 

[profpangloss]

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear: can you show me a device that is powered by a fluctuation in wind direction?

Seriously. I don't know why you think the fluctuations add to the performance.

Seriously, do you think such devices do not exist? A flag flapping around in a variable wind has been the inspiration for several piezeolectric devices that operate on changing wind direction, and don't forget that wind changing direction also involves velocity changes as well. If you are really interested in such devices, try researching Windstalks. They are extremely interesting, far more so than this nauseating cart.

 

[Dr. Keith]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22142&stc=1&d=1305216508[/qimg]

Yes, that chart is completely consistent with my explanation. Perfect.

Imagine the error rate for the GPS is 1 meter. The fluctuation in Long and Lat of less than one meter would not show up in the Long and Lat plots on that scale, would they? (ETA: I'd guess the line itself is on the order of at least 2 meter in thickness, close to 5 meters even, at that scale.)

But, as the long and lat moved around within that 1 meter diameter of the true location the heading would be all over the place. The error is random within that 1 meter diameter, so the plot of the heading will look like noise. Exactly what you have shown in the attached chart.

Long and Lat stable + heading all over the place = raw data of a stationary GPS unit

In use, the software would discount the heading data as the magnitude of motion is beyond a pre-set threshold. In other words, heading data associated with a move of less than the accuracy of the gps unit is discarded.

This really is basic stuff if you are going to look at raw GPS data.

Get back to the interesting stuff . . .

 

[Dr. Keith]

Seriously, do you think such devices do not exist? A flag flapping around in a variable wind has been the inspiration for several piezeolectric devices that operate on changing wind direction, and don't forget that wind changing direction also involves velocity changes as well. If you are really interested in such devices, try researching Windstalks. They are extremely interesting, far more so than this nauseating cart.

Thanks I was totally unaware of these Windstalks. Very interesting stuff.

So, where is the corresponding part on the BB?

Really, point to the parts on the BB that can harvest energy from the change in wind direction.

And yes, I realize direction is a component of velocity, but the only fluctuations Humber seems to be focused on is direction, so lets get that one down first.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You have all been conned. That NALSA data was never to be seen.

Is that why they sent it to you when you asked for it?

Pretty incompetent conspiracy, if you ask me . . .

 

[profpangloss]

Is that why they sent it to you when you asked for it?

Pretty incompetent conspiracy, if you ask me . . .

I doubt that NALSA was part of any conspiracy, in fact, I know they weren't. They were conned, taken in by all the BS stories about cylindrical worlds, tacking propellers, ground energy, air levers and whatever else spork and co threw at them. Plus they were pressured by Google sponsoring this nonsense, along with Joby and a whole lot of goons flying out to see the cart do its thing.

But the fact that NALSA is cooperating with the investigation into this claim is a very positive sign that something will be done to correct their mistake. Google and Joby should award an equal sponsorship to Humber, to assist him in his investigation, if they are interested in fairness.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

All we need to do in order to prove or disprove this claim, is examine the two fundamental laws of conservation, The Law of conservation of Momentum, and the Law of conservation of Energy.

< lots of words>

Wikipedia on momentum: "The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects the momentum of the closed system remains constant.

In an isolated system (one where external forces are absent) the total momentum will be constant: this is implied by Newton's first law of motion.

Momentum has the special property that, in a closed system, it is always conserved, even in collisions and separations caused by explosive forces. Kinetic energy, on the other hand, is not conserved in collisions if they are inelastic."
I have hilighted the parts which seem relevant to your claim. The air/cart system is not closed. An opposing reaction force is constantly applied at the cart's wheels, providing the torque to turn the propeller. Also, the kinetic energy of a system is only completely conserved if its collisions are perfectly elastic.

 

[humber]

Yes, that chart is completely consistent with my explanation. Perfect.

Imagine the error rate for the GPS is 1 meter. The fluctuation in Long and Lat of less than one meter would not show up in the Long and Lat plots on that scale, would they? (ETA: I'd guess the line itself is on the order of at least 2 meter in thickness, close to 5 meters even, at that scale.)

But, as the long and lat moved around within that 1 meter diameter of the true location the heading would be all over the place. The error is random within that 1 meter diameter, so the plot of the heading will look like noise. Exactly what you have shown in the attached chart.

Long and Lat stable + heading all over the place = raw data of a stationary GPS unit

In use, the software would discount the heading data as the magnitude of motion is beyond a pre-set threshold. In other words, heading data associated with a move of less than the accuracy of the gps unit is discarded.

This really is basic stuff if you are going to look at raw GPS data.

You were saying, Doc?

Is that why they sent it to you when you asked for it?

Pretty incompetent conspiracy, if you ask me . . .

Yes. There is no upside on this one. There are some prominent people and corporations, that have either been supporting the pipe-dreams of a crank, or have been involved in a direct fraud.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I doubt that NALSA was part of any conspiracy, in fact, I know they weren't. They were conned, taken in by all the BS stories about cylindrical worlds, tacking propellers, ground energy, air levers and whatever else spork and co threw at them. Plus they were pressured by Google sponsoring this nonsense, along with Joby and a whole lot of goons flying out to see the cart do its thing.

So, NALSA are ignorant rubes and Google and Joby are the henchmen at sporks beck and call?

I'm sorry, that is more amazing than a perpetual motion machine any day. Much less an odd sail cart.

But the fact that NALSA is cooperating with the investigation into this claim is a very positive sign that something will be done to correct their mistake.

They really dodged a bullet there. Good on them for coming clean.

Google and Joby should award an equal sponsorship to Humber, to assist him in his investigation, if they are interested in fairness.

No, they work for spork, or else your whole conspiracy theory falls apart. Consistency is key in this sort of stuff. Humber has to go get his own henchmen.

 

[profpangloss]

Wikipedia on momentum: "The law of conservation of linear momentum is a fundamental law of nature, and it states that if no external force acts on a closed system of objects the momentum of the closed system remains constant.

In an isolated system (one where external forces are absent) the total momentum will be constant: this is implied by Newton's first law of motion.

Momentum has the special property that, in a closed system, it is always conserved, even in collisions and separations caused by explosive forces. Kinetic energy, on the other hand, is not conserved in collisions if they are inelastic."
I have hilighted the parts which seem relevant to your claim. The air/cart system is not closed. An opposing reaction force is constantly applied at the cart's wheels, providing the torque to turn the propeller. Also, the kinetic energy of a system is only completely conserved if its collisions are perfectly elastic.

It is a perfectly closed system, consisting of the kinetic energy of the wind that is processed by the propeller (72 kg moving at 7 m/s) and the 295 kg cart moving at 9 m/s. The ground is the reference frame and contributes no energy as it has none. If you say this is not a closed system then you must show another source of energy other than what I have shown. Hop to it!