Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[phunk]

And what would the strobe show?

It could be used to show that the belt isn't accelerating. I don't think that's what he had in mind though.

 

[mender]

That still would not convince me of the treadmill equivalency because a power analysis says the cart cannot power itself up the belt, powered by the belt in any normal fashion.

Yet the cart obviously is powered by the belt and moves up the belt, as tested and proven many times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I made my last post while too tired. I was pointing out that profpangloss likes to do energy analyses since power is frame of reference dependent. It is easy to fool yourself that you are doing a correct analysis when switching frames of reference. ppg has shown that he does not understand what an IFOR is and measures power inputs and outputs in the frame of reference that is most convenient for his "proof". Unfortunately for him it makes his proof pure nonsense. At any rate, I said "...it is much harder to hide your errors in a force analysis than in a force analysis. " When I meant it is much harder to hide your errors in a force analysis than in a power analysis.

ppg, why don't you attempt a force analysis of the cart? Once again, force is frame independent so you don't have worry about those pesky frames.

 

[profpangloss]

I was serious,

So was I.

you're making pretty simple mistakes that could be cleared up by re-reading your high school physics book, assuming you ever took the class.

You should not assume anything. In fact the mistakes are yours.

Wrong. They employ powerful motors and flywheels to eliminate the deceleration caused by a hundreds of lbs of runner bouncing on them. An unloaded treadmill doesn't need all that to run at constant speed, and a tiny cart in constant contact isn't creating any sort of pulsating load on the treadmill.

Here you are Wrong, and I will show you and provide references to support my position.

Your assumption that I am talking about an ordinary medical treadmill is incorrect. The treadmill I am thinking of is custom made for laboratory usage and the variations in belt speed, although much reduced from that on standard treadmills, still exist.

Some details of the construction:

The rollers were custom-made on a lathe from a single piece of steel to achieve excellent balance and thus to minimize induced
vibrations (F.&G.Williams Machine and Tool, Hatboro, PA). The rollers had a diameter of 3 in. (8 cm) and a face width of 14 in. (35cm). The rollers had a slight taper crown for better belt tracking. A custom-made lead screw device allowed for tensioning of the belt by moving the nondrive roller along the horizontal long axis of the chassis.A2-hp (1,500-W) variable-speed alternating-current electric motor (Leeson Electric, Grafton, WI) was mounted on the main chassis. A timing pulley on the motor shaft was connected to a larger pulley on the drive roller by means of a standard rubber timing belt.With the use of two different timing-pulley combinations,treadmill speeds of 0.5–7.0 m/s were easily achieved. In addition, a flywheel mounted on the drive roller shaft helped to maintain a nearly constant belt speed during operation.

But, even with all of that:

When the motor was turned on (with no subject on the treadmill), we recorded noise amplitudes of 80 N on the Fz (vertical) and 60 N on the Fy (horizontal) and Fx (lateral) signals. The mediolateral forces applied by walking or running humans typically have peak magnitudes of only 5–10% of body weight (BWt; e.g., 70 N).

As you can see, even on this special lab treadmill, the noise amplitude with just the motor running (no person walking on it) are almost of the same magnitude as that produced by a person walking or running on the treadmill.

Reference: http://jap.physiology.org/content/85/2/764.full.pdf

I have $1000 that says the cart doesn't behave any differently on an ordinary treadmill vs a medical one (running at the same speed and incline of course).

You know what they say about a fool and his money, don't you?

In light of the above information about the special force treadmill, what noise levels would you expect to find on any ordinary consumer-grade home treadmill? Might they be enough to have an influence on a 200 gram cart that is just gliding on the belt?

Nonsense. The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is moving at a constant speed and a single direction at all times. It's a perfectly valid frame of reference, and the rotation at the ends of the belt has nothing to do with anything.

And you KNOW this, HOW? Have you ever even looked into the matter? I think I would trust the research papers on this rather than your unfounded and unsupported assumptions.

 

[profpangloss]

Yet the cart obviously is powered by the belt and moves up the belt, as tested and proven many times.

There is no question it moves up the belt; but by what means? Do you know?

 

[spork]

If these questions make you uncomfortable, please ignore them completely. It's probably best to simply pretend this post does not exist. Delusion is its own reward.

Yup - ignored as always. It's pretty obvious just how comfortable ppg is with his position since he refuses to even discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup - ignored as always. It's pretty obvious just how comfortable ppg is with his position since he refuses to even discuss it.

And he also continues to ignore the request for a force analysis. I guess that he is stuck in his comfort zone

 

[phunk]

Don't have time to respond to all this nonsense now, but one quick point for now:

As you can see, even on this special lab treadmill, the noise amplitude with just the motor running (no person walking on it) are almost of the same magnitude as that produced by a person walking or running on the treadmill.

That is wrong, it is an order of magnitude lower (assuming those numbers are right, I'll read the pdf when I have more time). To think that a runner exerts only 5-10% of his weight on the treadmill is ridiculous. It says it right there in your quote, it's similar magnitude to the lateral component of the force generated by a person running on it. That is the smallest component of the forces your feet exert while running. The vertical component is several times your body weight.

 

[mender]

There is no question it moves up the belt; but by what means? Do you know?

Yes.

Here's an important clue: it doesn't go up the belt without the propeller.

 

[humber]

The number is right, the "impossible" is wrong (this is not a turbine), and the cart only extracts 2189 J/s from the wind in this circumstance. By slowing it down by less than half.

Even the 2189J claim is impossible 2189/3209 = 68.2% efficiency.
"Better than Betz"

The total input cannot exceed what is available from a turbine. That is a theoretical 59%, but not achieved in practice.

Losses, as calculated by you
86 J/s to aerodynamic drag;
437 J/s to rolling resistance;
365 J/s to losses in the drive train, and;
724 J/s to aerodynamic losses at the propeller. For a total of

Total = 1612 J/s

KE to acclerate at 0.15ms-2 for 1sec. = 587J

Total
1612 + 587 = 2199J

2199/3209 = 68.5% of the wind's energy.

This is not the submission, there is no generator in this case.

Are you saying the submission is wrong? That the information supplied to NALSA is not the way the cart works?
Electrical and mechanical power generators are directly analogous.

F_torque = torque / wheel radius = 117.6 / .343 = 343 N
P_torque = F_torque * V_Cart = 343 N * 11.62 = 3986 W

Wheel power = wheel_drag*Vcart = 3986W
That is a real time power demand, and greater than the capacity of the wind at, 3209W, assuming 100% extraction at 100% efficiency.

You are claiming more energy from the generator than can be input, and then trying to put that energy back in, so the consumption is reduced to 2189J. That is not possible. No machine can be constructed to extract more energy than input, even if it "puts it back"

This from somebody who claims to understand electronics.

That's right. Not without storage, and not continuously. Not possible.

Feedback loops are commonplace, and only need to be fed enough energy to cover their losses.

A total misunderstanding of the capabilities and meaning of feedback, and of the type of pseudo-scientific sloganism commonplace amongst the over-unity gang.

The only energy that is used, is that which is either lost to heat or useless work, and that which is gained in KE.

And even that exceeds what may be gained from the wind as I have shown above. Those losses are incurred because of the proposed means of power extraction.
A wind turbine may extract 59%, when fixed in place, so allowing the maximum rate of airflow through the disk area. If set in motion downwind, that rate of flow would fall until becoming zero at WS, and so zero power.
Via the means of the wheel and propeller arrangement, it is claimed that limitation may be breached. The result of that widely-made and specific claim, is a demand that is greater than the wind energy.

Like it or not, the 3209W demand is part of the claim.

nothing produces 5093 J/s by itself.

A wind turbine may extract 51%. One thing it may not do as part of that process, is to extract more than is present in the wind and then claim to feed it back.

A propeller is not a turbine, there is no Betz limit on propellers.

That's because you have no answer, and must make up stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
A propeller is a type of fan that transmits power by converting rotational motion into thrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine
A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow and converts it into useful work.

If the rotor is not a turbine, that leaves the 3209W wheel as the power source or extractor. However, there is no choice, because the ratchet prevents the rotor from driving the wheel, so it must be the wheel and its
3209W demand.

Spork's claim is a literal one. The ground powers the cart, and that is why the ratchet remains, long after the "theory" of "slowing down the air" was added to avoid the stigma of "ground power" .

There are now three obvious failures
1) Theory
2) TM
3) Small cart
The trials are also more of the same barefoot science, peddled by two amateurs who exhumed the idea after seeing Jack Goodman's attempt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One more time, the rotor is not a turbine and your attempt to limit the power extraction by treating it as such are pointless. But keep trying humber, I am sure you are almost there in proving that the cart can't work

 

[Llyricist]

Even the 2189J claim is impossible 2189/3209 = 68.2% efficiency.
"Better than Betz"

The total input cannot exceed what is available from a turbine. That is a theoretical 59%, but not achieved in practice.

Losses, as calculated by you
86 J/s to aerodynamic drag;
437 J/s to rolling resistance;
365 J/s to losses in the drive train, and;
724 J/s to aerodynamic losses at the propeller. For a total of

Total = 1612 J/s

KE to acclerate at 0.15ms-2 for 1sec. = 587J

Total
1612 + 587 = 2199J

2199/3209 = 68.5% of the wind's energy.


Are you saying the submission is wrong? That the information supplied to NALSA is not the way the cart works?
Electrical and mechanical power generators are directly analogous.




Wheel power = wheel_drag*Vcart = 3986W
That is a real time power demand, and greater than the capacity of the wind at, 3209W, assuming 100% extraction at 100% efficiency.



That's right. Not without storage, and not continuously. Not possible.


A total misunderstanding of the capabilities and meaning of feedback, and of the type of pseudo-scientific sloganism commonplace amongst the over-unity gang.


And even that exceeds what may be gained from the wind as I have shown above. Those losses are incurred because of the proposed means of power extraction.
A wind turbine may extract 59%, when fixed in place, so allowing the maximum rate of airflow through the disk area. If set in motion downwind, that rate of flow would fall until becoming zero at WS, and so zero power.
Via the means of the wheel and propeller arrangement, it is claimed that limitation may be breached. The result of that widely-made and specific claim, is a demand that is greater than the wind energy.

Like it or not, the 3209W demand is part of the claim.


A wind turbine may extract 51%. One thing it may not do as part of that process, is to extract more than is present in the wind and then claim to feed it back.



That's because you have no answer, and must make up stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
A propeller is a type of fan that transmits power by converting rotational motion into thrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine
A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow and converts it into useful work.

If the rotor is not a turbine, that leaves the 3209W wheel as the power source or extractor. However, there is no choice, because the ratchet prevents the rotor from driving the wheel, so it must be the wheel and its
3209W demand.

Spork's claim is a literal one. The ground powers the cart, and that is why the ratchet remains, long after the "theory" of "slowing down the air" was added to avoid the stigma of "ground power" .

There are now three obvious failures
1) Theory
2) TM
3) Small cart
The trials are also more of the same barefoot science, peddled by two amateurs who exhumed the idea after seeing Jack Goodman's attempt.

There is no Betz Limit on propellers. A desk fan could not work if there was. Propellers can not only take energy from the air, they can add energy to the air as well, but not in this case. In this case the air has to have a minimum level of energy for the cart to even work.

5089 W of power is the combination of the 2900 W of effective power to slow the air, and the 2189 W of kinetic energy transferred from the air to cart.

The force calculation is definitive, and was another reason I used torque before, power didn't even enter into it.

btw, All that is only true in an FOR where the ground is stationary. In other FOR's, different energies, powers and flows exist.

You can do your semi imitation of hyev all you want, but he was wrong too.

 

[humber]

There is no Betz Limit on propellers. A desk fan could not work if there was. Propellers can not only take energy from the air, they can add energy to the air as well, but not in this case. In this case the air has to have a minimum level of energy for the cart to even work.

But a desk fan has a motor, and is a propeller. It takes in electrical energy and the motor converts it and adds it to the air. It does not take energy from the air.
More power is supplied to the motor than to the air.

Turbines take energy from the air, not propellers.

READ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
A propeller is a type of fan that transmits power by converting rotational motion into thrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine
A turbine is a rotary engine that extracts energy from a fluid flow and converts it into useful work.

That leaves you with the wheel to replace the motor.

5089 W of power is the combination of the 2900 W of effective power to slow the air, and the 2189 W of kinetic energy transferred from the air to cart.

The 5089W is a fictitious number. The power input is from the wheel

As calculated by you
P_torque = F_torque * V_Cart = 343 N * 11.62 = 3986 W
That is more energy than is present in the wind.

 

[humber]

One more time, the rotor is not a turbine and your attempt to limit the power extraction by treating it as such are pointless. But keep trying humber, I am sure you are almost there in proving that the cart can't work

No, you have been had. The wheel is the energy source from the days of ground power, and is right here in the submission report.

Submission Report
The following case study will demonstrate the principle in simple terms:
Consider a cart with an electric generator driven by the rear axle and a propellerdriven by an electric motor. We’ll assume the following reasonable set of parameters:

Electric generator efficiency: 85%

We’ll adjust the generator output such that it produces 20 lbs of retarding force at the wheels.
This tells us the wheels will be putting power into the generator at a rate of 20 mph x 20 lbs (400 mph-lbs).

Steve Smith
A quick thought on what additional measurements might be made to help persuade naysayers: Is there sufficient skepticism in the assertion that the propeller is pulling and the wheels are dragging, that some well-placed force measurements might be convincing? Probably the simpler thing would be to build one with electric generator at the wheels and motor at the prop, and show what direction the current is flowing. Even simpler is to just examine the drive chain while it is running, and see which side of the drive gears the chain is tight on. When you pedal a bike, the top leg of the chain is tight -- if the wheel of a bike is forcing the pedals to turn, the bottom leg of the chain is tight. On the DWFTTW cart, this simple test makes it easy to see that the wheels are indeed driving the prop.


Crank talk.

 

[Llyricist]

But a desk fan has a motor, and is a propeller. It takes in electrical energy and the motor converts it and adds it to the air. It does not take energy from the air.
More power is supplied to the motor than to the air.

Turbines take energy from the air, not propellers.


That leaves you with the wheel to replace the motor.



The 5089W is a fictitious number. The power input is from the wheel

As calculated by you
P_torque = F_torque * V_Cart = 343 N * 11.62 = 3986 W
That is more energy than is present in the wind.

That would be 3986 J of negative work done on the cart by the propeller, through the shaft and drive train, and 2900W of that is applied to slow the air, and the air transfers another 2189 J/s to the cart.

A propeller does not care where the torque comes from that rotates it. It produces the same thrust with the same omega airspeed density and pitch regardless.

And a propeller driven powered aircraft takes energy from a tailwind the exact same way.

Simple addition a problem for you?

 

[Llyricist]

No, you have been had. The wheel is the energy source from the days of ground power, and is right here in the submission report.

Submission Report
The following case study will demonstrate the principle in simple terms:
Consider a cart with an electric generator driven by the rear axle and a propellerdriven by an electric motor. We’ll assume the following reasonable set of parameters:

Electric generator efficiency: 85%

We’ll adjust the generator output such that it produces 20 lbs of retarding force at the wheels.
This tells us the wheels will be putting power into the generator at a rate of 20 mph x 20 lbs (400 mph-lbs).

Steve Smith
A quick thought on what additional measurements might be made to help persuade naysayers: Is there sufficient skepticism in the assertion that the propeller is pulling and the wheels are dragging, that some well-placed force measurements might be convincing? Probably the simpler thing would be to build one with electric generator at the wheels and motor at the prop, and show what direction the current is flowing. Even simpler is to just examine the drive chain while it is running, and see which side of the drive gears the chain is tight on. When you pedal a bike, the top leg of the chain is tight -- if the wheel of a bike is forcing the pedals to turn, the bottom leg of the chain is tight. On the DWFTTW cart, this simple test makes it easy to see that the wheels are indeed driving the prop.


Crank talk.

nope, normal talk for non haristotleans.

In an FOR where the air is stationary, the ground does indeed power the wheels, and hence the propeller, in fact, all the energy comes from the ground (ETA: When the cart is moving forward in that frame). And the propeller adds energy to the air.

H's heads explode.

 

[CORed]

One more time, the rotor is not a turbine and your attempt to limit the power extraction by treating it as such are pointless. But keep trying humber, I am sure you are almost there in proving that the cart can't work

Two and a half years and thousands of pages, and humber still hasn't figured out that the cart has a propeller rather than a turbine. Truly amazing.

ETA: I see that, having utterly failed to find any real flaws in the experimental evidence for ddwfttw, the deniers are back to trying to prove that reality is wrong.

 

[humber]

That would be 3986 J of negative work done on the cart by the propeller, through the shaft and drive train, and 2900W of that is applied to slow the air, and the air transfers another 2189 J/s to the cart. A propeller does not care where the torque comes from that rotates it. It produces the same thrust with the same omega airspeed density and pitch regardless.

But the prop does need that power to be applied to the shaft. Engines usually do that, but the cart has no engine.

And a propeller driven powered aircraft takes energy from a tailwind the exact same way.

Too bad you don't have a tailwind, and the claim is quite wrong. When driven by the engine, the air passes through the stream tube from from to rear.
A tailwind, would pass from rear to front, so turn the prop the other way.
Planes do not take energy from the wind via the propeller.

Simple addition a problem for you?

The wheel is driven to produce 3936W. If that is not produced, then the prop can't be driven.

Javaprop shows that torque to be 302 N m. at the prop shaft.

Prop Shaft Power (load)
114.5rpm = 12rad/sec
P = torque*w
302N.m*12rads-1
3624W

F_torque = torque / wheel radius = 117.6 / .343 = 343 N

Power Produced at Wheel(source)
P_torque = F_torque * V_Cart = 343 N * 11.62 = 3986 W


Unless that 3986W is available, the prop can't produce the thrust to drive the wheel...to produce the thrust...which is in any event, a recipe for over-unity.

That's how it is said to work. The wheel drives the prop: as the submission clearly states.

Simple addition a problem for you?

Is the claim you unquestioningly accepted a problem for you?


On the other hand, the rolling losses without the blindingly stupid power schemes are:

86 J/s to aerodynamic drag;
437 J/s to rolling resistance;

Total 523J/s.

Not a lot.

The 6.39m/s wind can provide 3209J/s

To run the cart at 11.6m/s in a 6.39m/s wind, extract 523J/3209J = 16% of the available energy.

That is easily done by tacking the wind, and the energy of the constantly changing ( so accelerating) wind, and running the rotor in higher speed winds than recorded at the hub, but dishonestly claiming the slower wind below it. (additional 1m/s, raises the avialable energy to 4964J/s)

That is a much more likely explanation than a system that takes in 5KW to produce a small output, while breaking conservation laws in the process.
It's a rather poor sail cart.

 

[CORed]

Humber do you even notice when you do an "analysis" and the results contradict hundreds of your own prior "analyses"? You should work on at least trying to keep your own Humbermath straight. Does it ever bother you that you never get the same result twice?

I don't think it bothers him at all. The only thing that matters to humber is that his humbermath "proves" the cart doesn't work. This attitude probably explains why he attaches so much importance to who did the calculations for the record. In humber's world, math is just stuff you make up to try to prove a point. He figures spork did the same thing he's been doing.

 

[humber]

I don't think it bothers him at all. The only thing that matters to humber is that his humbermath "proves" the cart doesn't work. This attitude probably explains why he attaches so much importance to who did the calculations for the record. In humber's world, math is just stuff you make up to try to prove a point. He figures spork did the same thing he's been doing.

The numbers change because Carteers move the goal posts. I find errors in that, so they are moved again.
In this latest attempt the energy has risen from 2.4KW to 5KW, but the wind can provide only 3096J.

Rolling losses are 523J, but the system unnecessarily introduces losses that are even greater.

The wheel produces 3963J/s
Transmission loss = 9% = 356J
Prop loss = 20% = 721J.
= 1077J.

When the higher wind speed above the hub is accounted for, and the energy of the changing winds included, a the demand will be less than 10% of the available energy. Spork's claim demands energy that is more than is available.

It's a failed idea from the last Century, brought into life using 1970's technology.