Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

.
It's not the lifting, it's the buffeting.
The cup would need to be protected from that.
Sketched up a balance for use in wind..
But how to see the numbers on the scale?
The thing would be flipped around to get the reading for the wind on the other side of the prop.

I was referring to a race in the wind. There lifting is a problem.

If you have a scale or strain gauge handy, then so much the better, and that allows the angle board to be level. All good.

.
But how to see the numbers on the scale?

USB camera? Mirrors?

 

[humber]

In the beginning it disagreed with humber's intuition. Humber seems incapable of ever admitting to an error about anything, even very simple things he's been clearly wrong about. Since he first objected to it, he can never admit it works.

Name one.

 

[humber]

For those interested in how this works, here an explanation in simple terms:



The current record is 468mph:



Here is a slower one where you can see the glider better:

And how, A.T., does that help prove the cart, other than to say it is capable of accumulating momentum in a changing wind?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Name one.

First that comes to mind: You declared it impossible to roll a cotton reel up a slope by pulling on a thread wound under the reel.

 

[humber]

First that comes to mind: You declared it impossible to roll a cotton reel up a slope by pulling on a thread wound under the reel.

Wrong. I said you would need CGI. The hidden force of gravity, that is no longer normal to the axis. The illusion remains.
Pass the thread through a hole in the centre, and you can drag it up.
If the reel is full, you have no chance. It will roll away.
Somewhere between, there are values of reel ratio, and friction that will allow the reel to climb, but all the "benefits" will go with it

And to preempt the scales. A thick piece of foam rubber can act as a sort of scale.
Put 20gr on it, and it may sink 5mm. 40gr, 10mm... But, do you think that putting another identical foam pad under that one, will change that? The strain is distributed in 3 dimensions.
There are simple scales, often pressure mats, which use foam rubber, made conductive with carbon, and the change in resistance is measured.
You can play all sorts of games with them.
Even "normal" springs can take up various behaviors. Not so long ago, springs were used in many ways, and artful 18th Century engineers, bent the rules to make them do what they wanted.

 

[CORed]

The same prop surface accelerates and decelerates the same air.
You lose. TM sucker bait. Trials a farce.

Did I say confused? I should have said delusional.

 

[CORed]

Name one.

In the original ddwfttw thread, about two years ago, you claimed that a free balloon would never reach windspeed, and would be prevented from doing so by drag.

 

[humber]

In the original ddwfttw thread, about two years ago, you claimed that a free balloon would never reach windspeed, and would be prevented from doing so by drag.

That chestnut? More sucker-bait, Cored? A bit passé; Planet Oil Barrel is the new black.

Firstly, "horizontal" weather balloons don't exist, they all rise by intent, and the actual wind speed is calculated from that. But, even in some idealized case of a perfect flow, the balloon will not reach the speed of the medium.

If that were possible, the balloon would never move in the first place.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210611
http://www.fkm.utm.my/~ummi/SME1313/Chapter 1.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr2004/pdf/Apr2004p50-60.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-slip_condition

Another way to see it, is that the boundary layer adds mass. That can never be zero, so the force to accelerate it can never be zero, and that means the balloon will always be below WS.
Yet another is to see that the boundary layer means the path the air must take to get from one side to the other, is longer that the diameter of the balloon, meaning that the speed of that air would at need to be faster than the free-stream as the balloon approaches the speed of the free stream. It must stop short of that speed.
Vortex shedding, energy lost to angular momentum ( rotation of the air), will absolutely guarantee that the balloon will not get to WS.
Arguments from momentum transfer, work of friction etc etc....
I posted an equation to SZ, when he asked about the speed of dust. That too. It's based on added mass.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

That chestnut? More sucker-bait, Cored? A bit passé; Planet Oil Barrel is the new black.

Firstly, "horizontal" weather balloons don't exist, they all rise by intent, and the actual wind speed is calculated from that. But, even in some idealized case of a perfect flow, the balloon will not reach the speed of the medium.

If that were possible, the balloon would never move in the first place.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210611
http://www.fkm.utm.my/~ummi/SME1313/Chapter 1.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr2004/pdf/Apr2004p50-60.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-slip_condition

Another way to see it, is that the boundary layer adds mass. That can never be zero, so the force to accelerate it can never be zero, and that means the balloon will always be below WS.
Yet another is to see that the boundary layer means the path the air must take to get from one side to the other, is longer that the diameter of the balloon, meaning that the speed of that air would at need to be faster than the free-stream as the balloon approaches the speed of the free stream. It must stop short of that speed.
Vortex shedding, energy lost to angular momentum ( rotation of the air), will absolutely guarantee that the balloon will not get to WS.
Arguments from momentum transfer, work of friction etc etc....
I posted an equation to SZ, when he asked about the speed of dust. That too. It's based on added mass.

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I posted an equation to SZ, when he asked about the speed of dust. That too. It's based on added mass.

No, that was a lame attempt to dodge the question.

 

[CORed]

That chestnut? More sucker-bait, Cored? A bit passé; Planet Oil Barrel is the new black.

Firstly, "horizontal" weather balloons don't exist, they all rise by intent, and the actual wind speed is calculated from that. But, even in some idealized case of a perfect flow, the balloon will not reach the speed of the medium.

If that were possible, the balloon would never move in the first place.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=210611
http://www.fkm.utm.my/~ummi/SME1313/Chapter 1.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/resonance/Apr2004/pdf/Apr2004p50-60.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-slip_condition

Another way to see it, is that the boundary layer adds mass. That can never be zero, so the force to accelerate it can never be zero, and that means the balloon will always be below WS.
Yet another is to see that the boundary layer means the path the air must take to get from one side to the other, is longer that the diameter of the balloon, meaning that the speed of that air would at need to be faster than the free-stream as the balloon approaches the speed of the free stream. It must stop short of that speed.
Vortex shedding, energy lost to angular momentum ( rotation of the air), will absolutely guarantee that the balloon will not get to WS.
Arguments from momentum transfer, work of friction etc etc....
I posted an equation to SZ, when he asked about the speed of dust. That too. It's based on added mass.

When humber starts spouting gibberish, he knows he's wrong, but he'll never admit it.

 

[spork]

The freewheeling prop cart makes .65 oz of thrust...

No it doesn't.

And you keep talking about the cart self-starting because it uses the "sail effect" of the prop. If you understood how a sail works, you'd realize it uses the "sail effect" of the prop to maintain 3X wind speed.

But I have yet to get a geared prop cart to move any distance, much less at any speed.

Hmmm... ours managed to get up to 3X wind speed - but you've already explained that the experiment was pointless, as is talking about it. This talk about free-wheeling props is clearly far more relevant in today's troubled world.

Perhaps someone here could bring me up to speed:

Humber's objections mention fraudulent, scammish activity.

Yes, he goes back and forth on that. For quite some time he insisted that the trials (i.e. "trails" to humber), we're not fraudulent, but simply misinterpreted. Now we're back to being frauds.

Much like an engineer rejects PM because it violates the laws? And needn't look further? Which is understandable. Whether correct or not?

It may be understandable for an engineer to dismiss claims of PM out of hand, but deciding something is PM when no such claim is made, and it's clearly not, is the mark of an engineer that really should be in finance (or footwear).

 

[humber]

When humber starts spouting gibberish, he knows he's wrong, but he'll never admit it.

Oh, I want to show you that I am capable of rising to the imagineering necessary to becoming a cart follower.

A balloon at windspeed.

 

[humber]

No it doesn't.

Rather verbose. JB went with an economical, "no"

 

[A.T.]

And you keep talking about the cart self-starting because it uses the "sail effect" of the prop. If you understood how a sail works, you'd realize it uses the "sail effect" of the prop to maintain 3X wind speed.

It's funny how I Ratant demands that people define their terms, but at the same time throws around with some self-invented terms like "sail effect", "prop drag effect". Has he ever defined those terms formally, using physical quantities like forces, torques, velocities etc.?

 

[humber]

It's funny how I Ratant demands that people define their terms, but at the same time throws around with some self-invented terms like "sail effect", "prop drag effect". Has he ever defined those terms formally, using physical quantities like forces, torques, velocities etc.?

And "air lever"?

 

[humber]

Yes, he goes back and forth on that. For quite some time he insisted that the trials (i.e. "trails" to humber), we're not fraudulent, but simply misinterpreted. Now we're back to being frauds.

I said you were too obvious to be a hoaxer, but did say that you forced the trial conditions, and then manipulated the data. And you do have plans for a wind power scheme, which will be a genuine scam.

 

[CORed]

Oh, really? Do show me where Drela's paper is anything like Spork's claim.
Blackford's too. I need to see that you have the necessary tools to get into the ring.
Drela did not address Spork of JB, nor did he refer to anything they posted.
Snubbed, in fact.

You need to see that I have the tools? You couldn't even come up with a broken screwdriver. Nobody buys your pose of being some kind of expert any more humber.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

It's funny how I Ratant demands that people define their terms, but at the same time throws around with some self-invented terms like "sail effect", "prop drag effect". Has he ever defined those terms formally, using physical quantities like forces, torques, velocities etc.?

Shut up and give the man the arrows he demands.

JB

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You declared it impossible ...

Wrong. I said you would need CGI.

I don't want to make this all about you, but... can you hear yourself?