Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

I've got too much blood alcohol content at the moment to do an explanation justice.

And in the morning, you may be sober. Keep drinking.

 

[humber]

spork sent me nothing. everything I have came from Bob Dill, and it is the same data you have.

Then plot it. Just as I did. No cult editing. Why not all 8 runs? Then all can see the treasure trove.

 

[Llyricist]

Then plot it. Just as I did. No cult editing.

I plotted the relevant data to support my claim.

I have the graphs with the relevant data of all the runs in their entirety, and have had them since the night I got the data, but will not post them unless you post anything with non-transparent shenanigans.

So far, except for that push back graph, all the shenanigans you have pulled have been laughably transparent.

 

[humber]

I plotted the relevant data to support my claim.

I have the graphs with the relevant data of all the runs in their entirety, and have had them since the night I got the data, but will not post them unless you post anything with non-transparent shenanigans.

Bluff.

So far, except for that push back graph, all the shenanigans you have pulled have been laughably transparent.

Try again. The same time frame as I posted. Warts and all.
Do you have a problem with that? Are the others not worthy of display?

 

[spork]

See what?

Oh! There it is, it was so tiny I missed it. But yes, no one want to see that. Pull those pants up humber.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

spork sent me nothing. everything I have came from Bob Dill, and it is the same data you have.

Actually, the only place anyone can get the data is directly from Bob Dill of NALSA. JB and I have never given a copy of the data directly to anyone - precisely to avoid the sort of bizarre claims humber likes to make. There's one set of original data. NALSA has it, and if anyone gets a copy, it came from them.

 

[humber]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

Actually, the only place anyone can get the data is directly from Bob Dill of NALSA. JB and I have never given a copy of the data directly to anyone - precisely to avoid the sort of bizarre claims humber likes to make. There's one set of original data. NALSA has it, and if anyone gets a copy, it came from them.

Which is why you refused to make it available, and then had NALSA tell you who was asking, is it?
And two others have it too. You keep badgering NALSA. I already know who.
The evidence is all against you, and in that same data that is available for the asking. Can't close that gate.

 

[humber]

I am more interested in seeing all of llyricist's 8 claimed runs. From the start, where the vehicle is stationary, to where is stops after the run. Posted as is.

 

[profpangloss]

When a car is accelerating or moving against air resistance, the energy to do so comes from the gasoline burning in the engine, not from the Earth.

But how is it that the Earth does no work on the car, though it exerts a force on it as it moves? What happened to 'work equals force times distance'?

I believe the answer has to do with the fact that the Earth exerts a force only on the part of the tire in contact with the ground, and this part of the tire is momentarily motionless. So, while there is a force, there is no distance.

Is this essentially correct?

And can anyone expand on it?

Thanks.

Did you know that the friction between car tires and the road is static friction, even while the car is moving and the wheels are rotating? As you said " has to do with the fact that the Earth exerts a force only on the part of the tire in contact with the ground, and this part of the tire is momentarily motionless."

This is the basis for anti-lock brake systems (ABS) . Since the maximum static friction force is larger than the kinetic friction force, a car can be stopped fastest if we prevent the wheels from locking up. When the wheels lock up, the friction force is changed to kinetic friction (the tires and the ground are moving with respect to each other) thereby reducing the acceleration and increasing the time and length required to bring the car to a halt.

Note that it is only when kinetic friction is present that the tires and ground are moving with respect to one another. So the carters claim that the earth must be accelerated because there is a force on it from the cart is false. Static forces do not do any work. In fact, what I have proposed (using the ground as the stationary reference for an inertial frame where only the cart and the wind are in motion) is such a common practice that I am amazed at the futile arguments being made against it!

As I said before, 69dodge, I appreciate the open-minded approach you have to the subject. It is a breath of fresh air from the closed minded dogma of the carteers.

 

[profpangloss]

I'd like to see profpangloss's work that (he claims) shows the cart can't go ddwftw as claimed.

I'm happy for him to use a frame in which the earth is and remains stationary regardless of the motion of the cart; that will be true in the limit of the earth having infinite mass and there's nothing in the theory of the cart that demands the earth be finite for it to work.

I'll be happy to do that, in detail, but I don't want to go to all the trouble if the basic premise of using the ground as the stationary reference for an inertial frame is going to be rejected out of hand, making all the mathematical work a waste of my time. That is why I need to get this argument settled first.

 

[humber]

Did you know that the friction between car tires and the road is static friction, even while the car is moving and the wheels are rotating? As you said " has to do with the fact that the Earth exerts a force only on the part of the tire in contact with the ground, and this part of the tire is momentarily motionless."

This is the basis for anti-lock brake systems (ABS) . Since the maximum static friction force is larger than the kinetic friction force, a car can be stopped fastest if we prevent the wheels from locking up. When the wheels lock up, the friction force is changed to kinetic friction (the tires and the ground are moving with respect to each other) thereby reducing the acceleration and increasing the time and length required to bring the car to a halt.

Note that it is only when kinetic friction is present that the tires and ground are moving with respect to one another. So the carters claim that the earth must be accelerated because there is a force on it from the cart is false. Static forces do not do any work. In fact, what I have proposed (using the ground as the stationary reference for an inertial frame where only the cart and the wind are in motion) is such a common practice that I am amazed at the futile arguments being made against it!

As I said before, 69dodge, I appreciate the open-minded approach you have to the subject. It is a breath of fresh air from the closed minded dogma of the carteers.

This is a new ruse, profpangloss. Over at TR, the carteers (some who are now doing so), arguing with Yevgheni, did accept the ground as a reference frame and that no energy could be extracted from it.
It is simply absurd to claim that the wheels of a vehicle accelerate the Earth, and I suspect they know that.

I have remade the plot of the Run 5 from the raw file supplied by NALSA, and the +/50 degree winds are still there, and you can bet that one was the best shot.

 

[profpangloss]

This is a new ruse, profpangloss. Over at TR, the carteers (some who are now doing so), arguing with Yevgheni, did accept the ground as a reference frame and that no energy could be extracted from it.
It is simply absurd to claim that the wheels of a vehicle accelerate the Earth, and I suspect they know that.

I have remade the plot of the Run 5 from the raw file supplied by NALSA, and the +/50 degree winds are still there, and you can bet that one was the best shot.

I just now saw your post on the previous page about the car tires. It is much more informative than what I wrote, and quite correct. What is obvious to me is that you know what you are talking about, and your data analysis also seems to be spot on. My first impression, that this is some sort of cult, is getting more and more reinforced as this discussion goes on. No math that supports the claim, but plenty that directly contradicts it. No data that shows that ddwfttw was in fact achieved. Only a cart on a treadmill, that is held so it is free of the belt's inertia and the belt is a source of energy to it, totally unlike a cart on a road that is never free of the inertial influence of the planet earth, so the earth cannot be a source of energy to it. That's it! They have NOTHING!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I have remade the plot of the Run 5 from the raw file supplied by NALSA, and the +/50 degree winds are still there, and you can bet that one was the best shot.

Can you confirm that those +/-50° excursions occur when the CV is passing through windspeed?

 

[humber]

Can you confirm that those +/-50° excursions occur when the CV is passing through windspeed?

It is as you see it. The wind vane responds only to local forces. The wind is changing by 100 degrees over the indicated time, as accepted by rational people.
To claim a record form the short term behavior of an instrument not designed for the task shows how desperate for any result Spork was.
May as well blindly throw darts at a board, and claim to be the World Champ, because you hit the board.

Vanes have an L/D ratio too, and will stall for many reasons including mixed flows, and so many more. Flags can do the same.

The starting condition is 50 degrees away from the vehicle's initial path, and so was quite probably rejected out of hand by NALSA. It is in no way endorsed by them. Only the official run is the record.
It makes a mockery of ddw, and Spork's lament that he can't be expected to control the wind to ".0001 degrees"

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Note that it is only when kinetic friction is present that the tires and ground are moving with respect to one another. So the carters claim that the earth must be accelerated because there is a force on it from the cart is false. Static forces do not do any work.

You are misapplying the term "static forces". Applying a force to an object does no work if the object remains static in an inertial frame - i.e. it does not accelerate. This has nothing to do with movement between the object and whatever is applying the force, but simply to acceleration of the object.

Example: Place a book on the table. Place your hand on the book. Push the book away from you. The hand does not slip on the book, but the hand applies force to the book and the book accelerates. The force you applied is not a static force by definition since the book moved and this is true irrespective of whether your hand also slipped to some degree on the book.

You do not get to rewrite Newtonian mechanics. So you do not get to claim momentum is conserved in a non-inertial frame, you do not get to claim a non-inertial frame is an inertial frame and you do not get to claim a system is closed when an external force acts on it. If you doubt any of these points, please ask a high school physics teacher for confirmation.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is as you see it. <discursion snipped>

Is that a "yes"?

 

[humber]

Is that a "yes"?

You can parse it as you like, but it's a cart in a maelstrom, and not ddw, no matter how you try and gloss-over it.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can parse it as you like, but it's a cart in a maelstrom, and not ddw, no matter how you try and gloss-over it.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

Ah. A reluctant "yes", then.

 

[profpangloss]

You are misapplying the term "static forces". Applying a force to an object does no work if the object remains static in an inertial frame - i.e. it does not accelerate. This has nothing to do with movement between the object and whatever is applying the force, but simply to acceleration of the object.

Example: Place a book on the table. Place your hand on the book. Push the book away from you. The hand does not slip on the book, but the hand applies force to the book and the book accelerates. The force you applied is not a static force by definition since the book moved and this is true irrespective of whether your hand also slipped to some degree on the book.

You do not get to rewrite Newtonian mechanics. So you do not get to claim momentum is conserved in a non-inertial frame, you do not get to claim a non-inertial frame is an inertial frame and you do not get to claim a system is closed when an external force acts on it. If you doubt any of these points, please ask a high school physics teacher for confirmation.

I am doing none of the things you say I am. All I am attempting to establish is that the surface of the earth can be used as the basis for an inertial reference frame for both the cart and the wind, and the momentum and energy of the cart and the wind must be conserved in that frame. Yes, of course I know that in reality it is not a perfect inertial frame, but to claim that has any influence on the COE and the COM of the wind-cart system is laughable. If you insist, I will insert the word "almost" as in "almost an inertial frame", but it does nothing to affect my calculations.

In a grand concession to your inflated ego, I paste from Wiki:

Inertial frames

Newton's laws work - sometimes. At other times, they appear not to work. Frames of reference in which Newton's laws of motion are observed are called Inertial Frames. For instance, the surface of the Earth is almost* an inertial frame. When we analyse the behaviour of objects with respect to the Earth, we nearly* always find that F = ma. Further, in the particular case where F = 0, objects maintain constant velocity.

* The 'almost' and 'nearly' are inserted above because of the Earth's own motion. The daily rotation is quite slow: only one turn per day is 0.004 degree per second: this is why we cannot feel it. However, if we could observe motion over many minutes, we should notice that, for an object subject to negligible external forces, measurements made with respect to the laboratory frame show a very small acceleration. This acceleration is best considered as the acceleration of the laboratory with respect to the object: the result of the rotation of the laboratory, which turns with the Earth. The Earth is approximately, but not quite, an inertial frame.

Does that make you feel better?

 

[humber]

Ah. A reluctant "yes", then.

Now you can say "not remotely ddw" with a clear conscience, and accept the good Earth as an inertial frame for the flying scrapheap.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If you insist, I will insert the word "almost" as in "almost an inertial frame", but it does nothing to affect my calculations.

In a grand concession to your inflated ego, I paste from Wiki:




Does that make you feel better?

It would have been better still if you had bolded the important phrase: "...for an object subject to negligible external forces..."

If the retarding force applied to the cart through its wheels point of contact with the ground "does nothing to affect [your] calculations", then you are doing the wrong calculations.