Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

Yes, he understands what the topic is, just as he understands that you've not contributed any actual information - or even a well posed question.

I Ratant has done more in basic research than you ever did.

 

[humber]

This thread should become a major motion picture. It has 'the stuff'.

Some strong opinions. I'm somewhat amazed at Humber's staying power.
It must mean a lot to him.

May i ask, humber, what you do in real life?
Clearly, you know some stuff. I'm curious: Why so passionate about this one,fairly obscure experiment, with its claims?

I don't watch TV. Ever.
I can do this, and be doing other things at the same time. I set that up for other reasons.
But, this cart is BS, and it will be a first time a wooer is busted flat. Only the internet has made that possible. That's why it looks new.

 

[humber]

Actually, there have been quite a variety of responses over the last 2 years as to why so many would keep responding to claims "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing." I'll concede the hypnotizing train wreck has oft been mentioned. However, given that this has been going on since 11/08, we're talking about the most extended, slow motion train wreck ever to enter the cloud of physics.

Awesome, isn't it?

Even a "type A cubed" personality like you, who has set a world speed record flying like a bird with a rig you designed, can't resist watching.

I have "done things". There is a good chance that you have bought something containing that.
I don't spend one second defending that. As Platt noted, if TAD have won, why are they still on the defense?

@Humber: I may have asked this before, but how would you account for the speeds NALSA recorded Blackbird attaining at El Mirage? Even assuming a 20% angle for the tailwind 3x it's speed seems pretty substantial.

I ask why is it so slow?
But to address the magic "20 degrees" It's actually more than that, and the way the wind changes adds another factor, but even allowing for a steady 20 degrees, nothing magical occurred.
The error is simply bad logic. It may be true that an ice-cart can't sail closer than, say, 10 degrees, but when it is doing that, is may well be traveling at 70mph. If that very same ice-cart only wants to achieve 28mph, and does not care how long it takes, or needs a push or can try again, it may do that with 5 degrees.

 

[humber]

Find an answer that doesn't reduce to "his **** is so unbelievably stupid that it entertains me to watch it spew."

JB

Is that why you are so jovial?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I ask why is it so slow?

Compared to what?

 

[humber]

You undermine what little credibility you have on this thread when you cut and paste tracts of text and try to pass them off as your own words.

The better bet is to attribute the text to its source, in this case Wiki.
Thus, Sterling engine^WP.

And why would I do that? Patently, it is a reference, or it would be mere repetition of my "own" claim. If it was so inscrutable how did you find the wiki?
It is really quite difficult to be original about a well established fact, but oh-so-easy to be WRONG.

 

[humber]

Fixed that for you.

An internal combustion engine is a heat engine. The transfer of heat of combustion to mechanical work, is done at the piston, rather than externally as with a hot air balloon. My, you don't know much.

As I said. Precious moments like these.

nixed nat nor nou

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is really quite difficult to be original about a well established fact, but oh-so-easy to be WRONG.

Your modesty does you credit.

 

[A.T.]

I didn't ask you for numbers. I asked you to define your "concepts" in terms of known physical concepts (like forces, velocities). You ask people to define their terms, but cannot do so yourself. Saying things like "sail effect is when it acts as a sail" is not a definition, but rather self referencing nonsense.

And yet, you comprehend what is being discussed.

No, I don't understand your vague blather. And I doubt that you yourself have a more precises picture about it.

 

[EHocking]

...If it was so inscrutable how did you find the wiki?...

It was correct and made sense. So obviously not your own work, I googled the quote.

It is really quite difficult to be original about a well established fact, but oh-so-easy to be WRONG.

And yet, you manage both.

 

[GlennB]

It was correct and made sense. So obviously not your own work, I googled the quote.

Worthy of a nomination, but few would understand

 

[I Ratant]

No, I don't understand your vague blather. And I doubt that you yourself have a more precises picture about it.

.
Grow up.
Yes you do.
TAD even uses those phrases.

 

[humber]

Worthy of a nomination, but few would understand

When shown to be absolutely and incandescently wrong, feign an air of superiority, while alluding to recondite knowledge.

All this time, you have been driving a car not knowing it was powered by a heat engine, but presumably by engine-osity.

 

[humber]

Velocity has both a magnitude and a direction. Speed is only the magnitude part of velocity. When you average velocity of all of the air molecules in still air the direction component makes the speeds cancel out. For example if you only measure all of the velocities of all of the molecules moving somewhat East and all of the molecules somewhat west you will find that they are of equal and opposite values. When you add 1 + -1 you get 0. When you add all of the velocities of the various molecules together you get zero due to the fact that they have a direction. When you add up all of the speeds of the various atoms you only add up their magnitudes and then you divide by the number of them to get an average speed.

Einstein, who explained the cause of Brownian motion, would be disappointed to learn that he is wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
Specifically, Einstein predicted that Brownian motion of a particle in a fluid at a thermodynamic temperature T is characterised by a diffusion coefficient

[latex]D = k_B T / b \,,[/latex]

where kB is Boltzmann's constant and b is the linear drag constant of the particle (in the Stokes/low-Reynolds regime applicable for small particles).[2] As a consequence, the root mean square displacement in any direction after a time t is

[latex] \sqrt{2Dt}.[2][/latex]

Of course velocity is still distance/time. RMS/time.
If they were to "cancel out" as you say, that would mean that Brownian motion was inexplicable, and that same cancellation would need to operate in all 3 dimensions at the same time.
That is why NALSA are wrong.

ETA: You can add exemptions to ad-block, so that the stuff you want is not blocked.
This is what I think of Planet Oil Barrel.

 

[GlennB]

Of course velocity is still distance/time.

Nope. That's speed.

 

[humber]

Nope. That's speed.

Funny. Einstein gives the distance in RMS, and you seem fit to contradict him.
Does it get any better than that?

 

[I Ratant]

To get the propellor to rotate as a tractor propellor, opposite to the direction the tailwind would rotate it, a direction change from the driveshaft at the wheels is needed on the driven cart.
Without this upper gear reversal, the propellor rotates CCW as seen from the rear, the same as the freewheeling prop does, and the cart moves downwind, just as the freewheeling cart does with the crown gear on the left side of the drive shaft to the propellor as shown.*

Facing the cart into the wind, the propellor tries to rotate in the normal (CW) direction as seen from the rear, but the driven cart doesn't move upwind.
It may, with a strong enough wind.
.
*Using the drive crown gear on the right side of the drive shaft of the wheels to rotate the propellor drive the opposite direction, the cart when facing downwind will try to move upwind.
And will move downwind facing into the wind.
But still rotating in the "wrong direction", relative to the existing larger carts.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

.
Grow up.
Yes you do.
TAD even uses those phrases.

No.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Without this upper gear reversal, ...

Leave it to the 'rigorous' scientist I Rantant to not realize that by simply turning the drive axle and gearbox over 180 degrees he would have saved the hassle and efficiency loss of adding the "upper gear reversal".

JB

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...If they were to "cancel out" as you say, that would mean that Brownian motion was inexplicable, and that same cancellation would need to operate in all 3 dimensions at the same time.

That is why NALSA are wrong.

This appears to make no sense at all.

There's no contradiction between Brownian motion and a large volume of gas having no net drift velocity. What Brownian motion has to do with NALSA I cannot guess. Whatever your point is cannot be discerned from what you wrote.

This is what I think of Planet Oil Barrel.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21797&stc=1&d=1302731955[/qimg]

Hmm. Your problem appears obvious: you missed out the step of thinking about it.