Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Modified]

But, you ask about what Yevgheni thinks. That is curious, considering your opinion of his skills, but would take his denial as support against me. A motive is hanging out.

The reason is simple. Your ordinary crank realizes that claiming that a neutrally buoyant balloon does not travel at wind speed would cause the loss of all credibility.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Hats and humble pie may be more appropriate.

All the same I'd like it to be fresh. When should I order?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

On the contrary. It has been known for several hundred years. Carteers do need to move into this Century, or at least the end of the 19th. For instance, D'Alembert's paradox...

"In fluid dynamics, D'Alembert's paradox is a contradiction reached in 1752 by French mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alembert.[1] D'Alembert proved that — for incompressible and inviscid potential flow — the drag force is zero on a body moving with constant velocity relative to the fluid.[2] Zero drag is in direct contradiction to the observation of substantial drag on bodies moving relative to fluids, such as air and water; especially at high velocities corresponding with high Reynolds numbers."

...has been solved. Yes, you are going to tell me that "it's about things moving relative to a fluid !!" and not the Fairytale land of windspeed.

1) His conclusion would show that the wind cannot drive a balloon.

2) That obviously contradiction, led to further theoretical and practical work, that showed where the problem lay.

3) The result of all the work, is the discovery of things that mean balloons will not get to WS.

Since that time, there has been no to need to express that they may or may not.

Congratulations humber. To defend your magical balloon which slows to less than windspeed you disinter a 19th century paradox where observation did not match theory because their theory took no account of viscosity.

In other words if you use a simplified approximation which was already known to be wrong in the 1800s, balloons would not blow in the wind.

That's your evidence, is it?

 

[windgrins]

Humbers mostly correct here.

Trivial and irrelevant. Not so in some applications, that's for sure.

I actually have to agree with Humber here that degrees are fundamentally irrelevant to this discussion. What counts is the quality of the information and how cogently and coherently it is argued and illustrated. I would not say that having a relevant degree is trivial, however. Anyone who has shown the ability to obtain a degree in an appropriate major and school has at the very least been well exposed to the issues confronted within.

I haven't given any of my credentials because I believe they are irrelevant. We have argued that the PhD physicist that didn't understand a treadmill as an equivalent reference frame shift was simply wrong. The appeal to authority did not help.

So, I do think it behooves us all to simply state our thoughts and argue our points coherently and the forum members will decide what they believe from the evidence and argument presented.

Finally, peer reviewed papers submitted by an author does indeed lend some authority to the author. They may still be wrong, but the reason is probably pretty subtle.

Regards,

WindGrins

 

[CORed]

Can we expect this soon?

Before or after the unveiling of the aforementioned cart of yours?

Just trying to plan my popcorn purchasing . . .

I think humber's revelation of his cart will occur some time between the sun's expansion to a red giant and the heat death of the universe.

OTOH, I'm not sure what the expected end of the humberverse is. Probably it collapses due to logical inconsistency.

 

[humber]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/26614a7473561c161.gif[/qimg]

You must have one of those weather balloons? The absolutely spherical ones the create no lift? Gravity alone ensures they are never that way, and as the article says, change shape with altitude. Spinning creates the Magnus effect too; cricket and baseball players know about that

How many aero classes do you need to miss to not know that balloons have lift?

Hot air balloons too. Some WB's can travel perhaps 98% WS, but keeping them horizontal and setting the buoyancy for the gusty and perhaps humid winds they don't know about, (which why the are sending the balloon) poses a difficulty.

When people report that they don't feel the wind in a balloon at WS, point out the you don't feel it when walking. If they say "oh, but I am sure" ask them if they have a NIST calibration certificate.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I agree that cogent argument and not qualifications are relevant to the discussion we're having here, and I wouldn't expect anyone to parade their degrees to satisfy another's curiosity.

Yet there is an aspect in which it would be instructive to know the level at which some contributers are discussing the topics at hand. When a contributer implies he is considering a problem from a rarified level so advanced that it obviates any attempt to explain to this inexpert audience, yet simultaneously appears to have a grasp of related material which would embarrass a schoolchild, it certainly gives one pause.

As I said, I do not expect anyone to reveal their qualifications, I would merely observe that my experience, people who really understand a technical subject can generally describe its essence to a lay audience and answer their questions in language they can understand.

 

[humber]

I think humber's revelation of his cart will occur some time between the sun's expansion to a red giant and the heat death of the universe.

"I think humber's revelation of his cart will occur some time between the integration of Quantum Electrodynamics and the Higgs Boson via M-theory, or me learning even rudimentary Newtonian mechanics"

 

[Llyricist]

or me learning even rudimentary Newtonian mechanics

OYG, he speaks the truth!

 

[humber]

I agree that cogent argument and not qualifications are relevant to the discussion we're having here, and I wouldn't expect anyone to parade their degrees to satisfy another's curiosity.

Yet there is an aspect in which it would be instructive to know the level at which some contributers are discussing the topics at hand. When a contributer implies he is considering a problem from a rarified level so advanced that it obviates any attempt to explain to this inexpert audience, yet simultaneously appears to have a grasp of related material which would

embarrass a schoolchild, it certainly gives one pause.

Embarrassing schoolchildren is not only fun, but pays well too.

As I said, I do not expect anyone to reveal their qualifications, I would merely observe that my experience, people who really understand a technical subject can generally describe its essence to a lay audience and answer their questions in language they can understand.

Like the simplest possible wiki about fluid dynamics and Rayleigh's drag equation that says no object actually behaves as the formula suggests?

 

[humber]

Congratulations humber. To defend your magical balloon which slows to less than windspeed you disinter a 19th century paradox where observation did not match theory because their theory took no account of viscosity.

In other words if you use a simplified approximation which was already known to be wrong in the 1800s, balloons would not blow in the wind.

That's your evidence, is it?

Err...like Rayleigh's approximation you mean? He did that because that was the best that could be done at the time. The even earlier paradox exists because objects were known toalways have drag, whereas d'Alembert's theory says they didn't.
Time to wake up, really.
Perhaps it's a mistake to accept as fact, information from by someone who missed a lot of "aero classes". There are abundant resources, covering a wide range of expectation of prior knowledge for you to read, and find out that balloons can never travel WS in principle.

 

[humber]

All the same I'd like it to be fresh. When should I order?

Oh, there as some things best served cold.

 

[humber]

The reason is simple. Your ordinary crank realizes that claiming that a neutrally buoyant balloon does not travel at wind speed would cause the loss of all credibility.

Like posting the equivalent of a travel diary as proof of a technical matter at the detailed level?

 

[spork]

I actually have to agree with Humber here that degrees are fundamentally irrelevant to this discussion.

I agree. And at the same time I believe humber is lying about having any meaningful education.

Anyone who has shown the ability to obtain a degree in an appropriate major and school has at the very least been well exposed to the issues confronted within.

I would say that there's a slight correlation between degrees and knowing what you're talking about. Clearly there are plenty of educated people that are completely clueless in their own field, and plenty of uneducated people with an excellent understanding.

Finally, peer reviewed papers submitted by an author does indeed lend some authority to the author. They may still be wrong, but the reason is probably pretty subtle.

Peer review is an important and imperfect mechanism used in science. Real world evidence, and simple analysis obviate the need for peer review in many cases. For example, I don't need a textbook or peer reviewed paper to tell me a neutrally buoyant balloon travels at wind speed.

 

[Modified]

When people report that they don't feel the wind in a balloon at WS, point out the you don't feel it when walking.

Eh, how slow do you walk?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Err...like Rayleigh's approximation you mean? He did that because that was the best that could be done at the time. The even earlier paradox exists because objects were known toalways have drag, whereas d'Alembert's theory says they didn't.
Time to wake up, really.
Perhaps it's a mistake to accept as fact, information from by someone who missed a lot of "aero classes". There are abundant resources, covering a wide range of expectation of prior knowledge for you to read, and find out that balloons can never travel WS in principle.

You're still quoting wikipedia on why 19th century fluid mechanics was wrong instead of getting to the point and defending your daft notion that a balloon released at above windspeed would slow to less than windspeed.

Will that happen before or after your cart makes its first run?

 

[humber]

I agree. And at the same time I believe humber is lying about having any meaningful education.

Let's just say you have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I would say that there's a slight correlation between degrees and knowing what you're talking about. Clearly there are plenty of educated people that are completely clueless in their own field, and plenty of uneducated people with an excellent understanding.

That's why, worldwide, humanity spends a lot of time and money educating people to degree or PhD level for the LOL?

What you mean, is that many think they don't need a degree, or to have good one, if it just so happens that you don't.

Peer review is an important and imperfect mechanism used in science. Real world evidence, and simple analysis obviate the need for peer review in many cases. For example, I don't need a textbook or peer reviewed paper to tell me a neutrally buoyant balloon travels at wind speed.

That one is scarcely cool from the heat of the homespun philosopher's armchair.

Every text will tell you that they don't, and have lift too.

Now I can write the equations for that and you can comment...agreed?

 

[humber]

You're still quoting wikipedia on why 19th century fluid mechanics was wrong instead of getting to the point and defending your daft notion that a balloon released at above windspeed would slow to less than windspeed.

Will that happen before or after your cart makes its first run?

Already posted a simple proof.

Spork says he don't need no text book. He will, if he wants to embarrass me by refuting the simple proof that balloons do not travel at WS, let alone the more advanced version.

You would like and approve of that wouldn't you JBTH?
To gain confidence in your reference as he substantiates his claims against mine? Two for the price of one?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Already posted a simple proof.

A simple proof that a balloon, released at above windspeed, will slow to below windspeed? I appear to have missed that. Perhaps you can direct me to where you posted it.

Did anyone else spot it?

 

[mender]

Beware.

Now I can write the equations for that and you can comment...agreed?

Crouching Humber, Hidden Woo.