Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

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.

The rube is you.

 

[Llyricist]

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!

I already did. You did not point out any errors in what I did. All you did was post your own analysis that was chock full of them, rounding things up, adding extra losses that were already accounted for, and now pulling numbers straight out of your butt.

How in the world did you come up with an acceleration 0.54 m/s²?

By my calculations the net force was 11.37 N, which, from F=Ma means an acceleration of 11.37N / 295 kg = .038 m/s².

Using your dishonestly rounded and jacked around with numbers where you claimed 350 W instead of 312 W of thrust power (more on this later), yields a thrust of 175 N instead of 156 N, for 19 N additional thrust.

And adding that "frictional loss" of 100 W that you added, even though the frictional losses were already counted in the rolling resistance, yields an extra retard force of 11.1 N.

My 11.37 + 19 - 11 = 19.37 N of Net force using your numbers.

19.37 N / 295 Kg = .066 m/s², So a final velocity of 9.066 m/s.

That's just the most glaring mathematical error.

Never mind that using thrust power + air KE loss would leave you short even with a propeller driven by an engine. Never mind your dogged failure to comprehend where the shaft power comes from, never mind your adding a loss for a number that was derived using a formula that assumed 100% energy transfer...... etc. etc.

 

[profpangloss]

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..

I'm sorry to tell you, it is not amazing at all. Dig a little deeper and you will find all the connections. NALSA are not rubes, just nice people who thought they were helping out a legitimate cause. They were suckered!

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

Good on them for trying to come clean. We will have to wait and see the final result.

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.

I did not say they work for spork, only that they sponsored him. Please refrain from attributing statements to me that I did not make. In the interest of fair and balanced, and perticularly in the interest of good science, both Google and Joby should grant the same sponsorship to Humber that they gave to Spork. I am calling on them to do so.

 

[humber]

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.

Yes. I am sure that Bob Dill is not implicated, and hopefully the rest of NALSA.
The sheer weight of numbers meant that control was lost, and personal pressure put upon the one NALSA representative. It's the goons that stand to lose by exposure. Spork too.

 

[profpangloss]

I already did. You did not point out any errors in what I did. All you did was post your own analysis that was chock full of them, rounding things up, adding extra losses that were already accounted for, and now pulling numbers straight out of your butt.

How in the world did you come up with an acceleration 0.54 m/s²?

By my calculations the net force was 11.37 N, which, from F=Ma means an acceleration of 11.37N / 295 kg = .038 m/s².

Using your dishonestly rounded and jacked around with numbers where you claimed 350 W instead of 312 W of thrust power (more on this later), yields a thrust of 175 N instead of 156 N, for 19 N additional thrust.

And adding that "frictional loss" of 100 W that you added, even though the frictional losses were already counted in the rolling resistance, yields an extra retard force of 11.1 N.

My 11.37 + 19 - 11 = 19.37 N of Net force using your numbers.

19.37 N / 295 Kg = .066 m/s², So a final velocity of 9.066 m/s.

That's just the most glaring mathematical error.

Never mind that using thrust power + air KE loss would leave you short even with a propeller driven by an engine. Never mind your dogged failure to comprehend where the shaft power comes from, never mind your adding a loss for a number that was derived using a formula that assumed 100% energy transfer...... etc. etc.

My calculation is transparent, and if you can do basic arithmetic you can follow it. I know you are all upset and petulent and all, but your hand wringing protests do not have any effect on my math. As you carteers love to say: try again!

 

[Dr. Keith]

You were saying, Doc?

First time working with GPS data can be hard.

Those Lat/Long numbers are of very low resolution. The Unit collected much higher resolution data, I would assume. Here is a fun way to show the resolution of that data . . .

Find a Lat Long distance calculator (http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html) and type those numbers in as follows:

Distance from:

34.651440N, 117.6280W

to

34.651441N, 117.6281W

and you will get a distance of 9.1 meters.

Of course the actual variance could be much larger, that is the smallest variance in the next significant figure.

For example:

34.651435N, 117.6275W
to
34.651444N, 117.6284W

Would give you 82.33 meters as the maximum variance based on those numbers.

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.

I rather doubt that Donald, but I'd like to see why you think so . . .

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'm sorry to tell you, it is not amazing at all. Dig a little deeper and you will find all the connections.

Drama aside, where is the structure on the BB that harvests energy from wind fluctuations?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes. I am sure that Bob Dill is not implicated, and hopefully the rest of NALSA.
The sheer weight of numbers meant that control was lost, and personal pressure put upon the one NALSA representative.

Good thing you flew out there to witness all of this.

It's the goons that stand to lose by exposure. Spork too.

Yes, of course.

I can already see him in cuffs with his hair all mussed up from the mask being violently pulled from his head sputtering those words you've longed to hear for the whole episode:

And I would have gotten away with it, too, if weren't for that meddling humber.

 

[Llyricist]

My calculation is transparent, and if you can do basic arithmetic you can follow it. I know you are all upset and petulent and all, but your hand wringing protests do not have any effect on my math. As you carteers love to say: try again!

No, that final velocity of 9.54 m/s popped up out of nowhere. There was no supporting math.

And you failed to address any of my points,........... again.

 

[3point14]

<SNIPPED> perticularly in the interest of good science, both Google and Joby should grant the same sponsorship to Humber that they gave to Spork. I am calling on them to do so.

You do know that no-one here with any understanding of the scientific method or the application of physics knows that you have absolutely zero interest in the interest of good science. I believe that you wouldn't know good science if it came up and clobbered you with a wet monkey.

 

[profpangloss]

Drama aside, where is the structure on the BB that harvests energy from wind fluctuations?

Almost any symmetrical structure that is affected by wind force coming at varoius angles will do, as the force is redirected by the wheels to push the cart forwards. No magic there at all. What would be magical is if the wind was coming from directly behind the cart, slower than the cart, and pushed the cart forwards faster than the wind. That did not happen at all, as the field data attests.

 

[profpangloss]

You do know that no-one here with any understanding of the scientific method or the application of physics knows that you have absolutely zero interest in the interest of good science. I believe that you wouldn't know good science if it came up and clobbered you with a wet monkey.

Thank you for you usual worthless contribution to the topic under discussion. Anything else you want to say while your courage is up?

 

[profpangloss]

No, that final velocity of 9.54 m/s popped up out of nowhere. There was no supporting math.

And you failed to address any of my points,........... again.

The supporting math is in the conservation of momentum calculation. For momentum to be conserved, the cart's velocity must be 9.54 m/s. Look at it again.

 

[humber]

First time working with GPS data can be hard.
Those Lat/Long numbers are of very low resolution. The Unit collected much higher resolution data, I would assume. Here is a fun way to show the resolution of that data . . .
Find a Lat Long distance calculator (http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html) and type those numbers in as follows:

Distance from:

34.651440N, 117.6280W

to

34.651441N, 117.6281W

and you will get a distance of 9.1 meters.

Of course the actual variance could be much larger, that is the smallest variance in the next significant figure.

For example:

34.651435N, 117.6275W
to
34.651444N, 117.6284W

Would give you 82.33 meters as the maximum variance based on those numbers.

82.33 In 0.2s?


And here's a fun way.The penny still has not dropped as to what the cause is, has it?

-117.628784 34.65036 0.05 343.6
-117.628784 34.65036 0.04 81.7
-117.628784 34.65036 0.07 277.7
-117.628784 34.65036 0.02 31.2
-117.628784 34.65036 0.02 180.5
-117.628784 34.65036 0.08 233

And so on for 300 samples more.

Willing rubes are the best.

You haven't heard of windstalks or countless other devices that operate upon wind change, but are quite sure the cart can't.

 

[humber]

Good thing you flew out there to witness all of this.

Why bother, when I can see you fall over yourself from here?

 

[Llyricist]

The supporting math is in the conservation of momentum calculation. For momentum to be conserved, the cart's velocity must be 9.54 m/s. Look at it again.

okay, I see now, you simply ignored all the other air the cart system interacts with, (you know all those aerodynamic and drag losses I accounted for but you failed to notice?), and the added angular momentum of the propeller. When you can show a problem with those factors in any way reliably accounted for, come back.

 

[3point14]

Thank you for you usual worthless contribution to the topic under discussion. Anything else you want to say while your courage is up?

No thanks, I'm done for now.

I just think it's important that anyone casually reading the thread realises that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. After my succinct post they can then read all of yours to confirm that this is the case.

Might be back later.

 

[Dr. Keith]

82.33 In 0.2s?

I was showing that the data you provided was not close to the resolution of the device used. In other words, it was truncated to fit the spreadsheet you were using. Geez are you thick.

And here's a fun way.The penny still has not dropped as to what the cause is, has it?

-117.628784 34.65036 0.05 343.6
-117.628784 34.65036 0.04 81.7
-117.628784 34.65036 0.07 277.7
-117.628784 34.65036 0.02 31.2
-117.628784 34.65036 0.02 180.5
-117.628784 34.65036 0.08 233

Willing rubes are the best.

Is this closer to the raw data or are you going to produce something else after I show that even this isn't that great of a resolution? Oh well, here goes:

The following two points are both consistent with your data:

117.6287835, 34.650355
117.6287844, 34.650364

But, they are a meter apart. There are thousands of points within that meter if you just carry another couple of significant digits.

You haven't heard of windstalks or countless other devices that operate upin wind change, but are quite sure the cart can't.

Look, you have obvious data of a standing gps unit that you don't understand but are sure it shows something. If you are willing to rethink your position on the gps data I will rethink my position on the cart gaining energy from directional changes.

I've outlined in detail how the heading may be influenced by the long lat error, how about you give me some details of how the cart harvests useful energy from a change in direction.

 

[humber]

I was showing that the data you provided was not close to the resolution of the device used. In other words, it was truncated to fit the spreadsheet you were using. Geez are you thick.

Is this closer to the raw data or are you going to produce something else after I show that even this isn't that great of a resolution? Oh well, here goes:

The following two points are both consistent with your data:

117.6287835, 34.650355
117.6287844, 34.650364

But, they are a meter apart. There are thousands of points within that meter if you just carry another couple of significant digits.

That will be available from the C/A restricted 10m code will it?
And HDOP? A little knowledge can in some hands be a dangerous thing. In others, noisy, but mostly harmless: like a starting pistol.

So it's just a rounding error .....

588960 -117.628447 34.651444 0.07 2.7
588960.2 -117.628447 34.651444 0.01 204.1

That produces a >200 degree change in the direction calculated from that?

So how useful would that be, do you think?

Look, you have obvious data of a standing gps unit that you don't understand but are sure it shows something. If you are willing to rethink your position on the gps data I will rethink my position on the cart gaining energy from directional changes.

I don't need your white flag.


Another good day to test for ddw....

 

[Christian Klippel]

This is just, flat, wrong.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=22133&stc=1&d=1305182536[/qimg]

Indeed it is. Same thing happens here if i leave the GPS at a fixed position. It will give random bearings all the time. Only once it moves, and even if only very slow, the bearings will come out correctly.

Maybe the deca-gps that humber invented performs better. And if so, only in the humberverse anyways.

Greetings,

Chris