Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Christian Klippel]

You already made an idiot of yourself with this 'retained push speed' concept when we were discussing my car's fuel consumption. The point is that the initial push speed would be rapidly lost if the cart were pushed up to that speed in still air. The cart cannot 'retain' that speed in a real world that experiences friction. You simply cannot just deduct it from the max speed the way you do. Asinine isn't strong enough a word. Imbecilic might be more appropriate

Yea, in the humberlogic you replied to, if you have a car parked for 99 hours, and then drive it at 100 km/h for one hour, the speed that you can ever drive with that car could not exceed 1 km/h, because that's the average.

Man, i'm really happy to live in the real universe, instead of the humberverse.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Llyricist]

I am questioning NALSA's authority.

We Know.

But, you should see that averaging makes no sense. Take a simple example where the wind blows +20 degrees for 5 seconds, and then -20 degrees for 5 seconds. Average = 0.
The wind relative to the cart, is no different from the cart relative to the wind, so is the same as jibing. So how would that be ddw?

When a situation like that actually happens, you may have a point. SInce it doesn't, and didn't, not so much.

The fact is, that is not what happened, the oscillation in the first half of the test period was spurious, therefore, the mean is justified.

Why do you complain about this form of measurement error in one post, and then insist that the error must be included in the direction average in another?

It is not an excuse to say the wind is not suitable. It was already known from records that it would not be, so its not bad luck, but deception.

What wind records? You linked to f'ing forecasts before, composed of 60 minute averages, that give no indication about the kind of variability about which you are complaining.

Same with the length of the run. Too short to gain steady-state.

Steady State != Equilibrium
They met all the requirements necessary to prove the cart could maintain a speed in excess of wind speed indefinitely as long as there is wind.

But you want that reference. RMS is the simplest method that can be justified by the limited data.
But should be based on the stadard deviation.
1- sd^2/2. And there is more to it than that.

Still no reference that rms should be applied to spurious measurement errors I see.

 

[humber]

We Know.


When a situation like that actually happens, you may have a point. SInce it doesn't, and didn't, not so much.

A bit slow to take the point? It applies to all values. The deviation in one direction does not influence the other. They occur at different times.
If the wind blows West, and blows your hat off, the fact that is will next blow East does not change that. See?

The fact is, that is not what happened, the oscillation in the first half of the test period was spurious, therefore, the mean is justified.

Oh, the faux expert. What is the natural frequency of the vane, and how does that influence your claim? What should the minimum sampling period be?
wiki..wiki...

Why do you complain about this form of measurement error in one post, and then insist that the error must be included in the direction average in another?

Not me.

What wind records? You linked to f'ing forecasts before, composed of 60 minute averages, that give no indication about the kind of variability about which you are complaining.

10 minute averages. Who said the data came from there?
And there is more than enough even at that site to say the conditions are not suitable. What do you say they should be?

Steady State != Equilibrium
They met all the requirements necessary to prove the cart could maintain a speed in excess of wind speed indefinitely as long as there is wind.

Wrong. An accelerating vehicle is not steady-state. You sound like an apologist for Charles Manson. It is not up to you to redefine the claim.
It was made and discussed. The trial proposed by JB was part of that.
All test details were kept private. Direct refusal to disclose them.
Underhanded and deceptive. You need to inform yourself before shooting off.

Still no reference that rms should be applied to spurious measurement errors I see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

"It is especially useful when variates are positive and negative,"

Your ignorance is why you believe in the cart,
If you say they are spurious then you have no data. Gleaning from the Excel sheet will not help you.
More top quality Carteerian support. LOL

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It is not an excuse to say the wind is not suitable. It was already known from records that it would not be, so its not bad luck, but deception.

"Known" from records of a different place, as I recall.

Now that's deception.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I did not watch it.

Really? I rather suspected you had, but had no answer to it.

 

[A.T.]

While I understand this is not in the area of the paranormal, I'd love to get Randi's opinion on this thing.

You would have to attach a magic wind feather on each of the carts and claim that it's needed to achieve DDWFTTW. Randi would have to debunk this by explaining that DDWFTTW constitutes ordinary physics and works without the magic wind feather.

 

[humber]

"Known" from records of a different place, as I recall.

Now that's deception.

A dry lake bed is a dry lake bed. I have the data for El Mirage for the days concerned. Happy now?

 

[Llyricist]

A bit slow to take the point? It applies to all values. The deviation in one direction does not influence the other. They occur at different times.
If the wind blows West, and blows your hat off, the fact that is will next blow East does not change that. See?

Nope, nothing there to see. The situation you described did not happen.

Oh, the faux expert. What is the natural frequency of the vane, and how does that influence your claim? What should the minimum sampling period be?
wiki..wiki...

It would appear to be ~ 1Hz in an ~18 MPH relative wind. Care to show any evidence that natural wind can can oscillate in direction at a regular rate, Ever? Much less by 20 degrees?

Unless you are suggesting that the cv passed through several tiny little dust devils of exactly the same size during the test period, you are SOL

Not me.

Yes you.

10 minute averages.

60 minute averages, the data is hourly.

Who said the data came from there?

Well you certainly implied it when you claimed there were wind records and immediately linked to the site as an example, you have a different source that's actually relevant? cite it.

And there is more than enough even at that site to say the conditions are not suitable.

Nope none at all, even the gust information is only significant at night.

What do you say they should be?

Something that would support your claims about local variations in both time and space.

Wrong. An accelerating vehicle is not steady-state. You sound like an apologist for Charles Manson. It is not up to you to redefine the claim.
It was made and discussed. The trial proposed by JB was part of that.
All test details were kept private. Direct refusal to disclose them.
Underhanded and deceptive. You need to inform yourself before shooting off.

I am informed, you make stuff up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

"It is especially useful when variates are positive and negative,"

Your ignorance is why you believe in the cart,
If you say they are spurious then you have no data. Gleaning from the Excel sheet will not help you.
More top quality Carteerian support. LOL

Still no reference supporting the use of RMS for wind direction data, not to mention spurious wind direction data.

 

[humber]

Really? I rather suspected you had, but had no answer to it.

Faeries don't drive the cart. The wind does.
Do you have an explanation for the fiddled data?

 

[humber]

Nope, nothing there to see. The situation you described did not happen.



It would appear to be ~ 1Hz in an ~18 MPH relative wind. Care to show any evidence that natural wind can can oscillate in direction at a regular rate, Ever? Much less by 20 degrees?

Unless you are suggesting that the cv passed through several tiny little dust devils of exactly the same size during the test period, you are SOL


Yes you.

60 minute averages, the data is hourly.

Well you certainly implied it when you claimed there were wind records and immediately linked to the site as an example, you have a different source that's actually relevant? cite it.


Nope none at all, even the gust information is only significant at night.


Something that would support your claims about local variations in both time and space.


I am informed, you make stuff up.



Still no reference supporting the use of RMS for wind direction data, not to mention spurious wind direction data.

Bye.

 

[humber]

It would appear to be ~ 1Hz in an ~18 MPH relative wind. Care to show any evidence that natural wind can can oscillate in direction at a regular rate, Ever? Much less by 20 degrees?
DOH.

See that black wavy line, that moves up and down in a regular pattern.
That is oscillation. You don't have even the most basic of knowledge.
You can call it a day now.
I have no interest in you, or the opinions of the Carteers. The purpose lies elsewhere, but you
burn about me. This record will be removed, but not this way.

 

[Llyricist]

Bravely showing his confidence in his arguments yet again.

That doesn't show a regular rate of oscillation, sorry.

 

[Llyricist]

Okay that actually does show a fairly regular rate, got me. Now show how it can do it at 1 hz as opposed to .05 hz.

 

[humber]

Blah Blah Blah...Blah....bluff denial...ill-informed assertions.

That should cover it.

Now, here you can see the obvious manipulation of the data. There is a change in the true wind data of 25 degrees in 0.8 seconds, but all is halcyon in Spork's chart which he presented for public consumption. The same will apply or perhaps even more so, to the remainder of the run, but Spork refuses to release the data. I would like to know why. He hides when asked to explain.

To say that is 4 degrees "average" deviation over the test period is meaningless. There is also a delay of several seconds between the wind moving South at 8.8 seconds. A sham.

 

[A.T.]

...

My takeaway from this post:
1. You don't know the difference between a prop and a turbine.
2. You don't know the difference between an upwind cart and a downwind cart.

Here the humberverse laws:
1) It's only a propeller, if turned against the air by a motor. Otherwise it is a "failed turbine".
2) It's only a downwind cart, if propelled downwind by a turbine. Otherwise it is a "failed upwind cart".

 

[Llyricist]

@ Humber

Everyone else understands that the orange chart is showing 10 second averages (with the exception of the WS multiple line), it is not even made a secret, it is pointed out and explained in several places. Why you keep calling it deception is beyond comprehension.

Also, any deception caused by the fact that it is averaged data actually makes it look worse than the un averaged data.

 

[humber]

Here the humberverse laws:
1) It's only a propeller, if turned against the air by a motor. Otherwise it is a "failed turbine".

A propeller adds momentum to the air, a turbine extracts it. That is why there are no "propeller farms"
If you want to take energy from the wind, then it's a turbine, if ou agree or not.

The small video of the cart moving successfully towards the fan, shows which prop is failure. Which one? The one that produces 3W at 15rpm but is 16 feet in diameter.
That obvious data manipulation is embarrassing isn't it? That does not bode well for the upwind cart. There are plans to use that idea for power generation, so parasite
the current demand for wind energy.

 

[D'rok]

A propeller adds momentum to the air, a turbine extracts it. That is why there are no "propeller farms"
If you want to take energy from the wind, then it's a turbine, if ou agree or not.

Gosh. If only someone had posted a video showing how a propeller can also be a sail.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Faeries don't drive the cart. The wind does.
Do you have an explanation for the fiddled data?

Evasion noted.

So do you refuse to watch (or to admit watching) a sub-1-minute video which explains the mechanical similarity between a tacking yacht and a propeller?

Shall we explain to you what it shows so that you can tell us what's wrong with it? Or would you refuse to read that?

 

[A.T.]

A propeller adds momentum to the air, a turbine extracts it.

Frame dependent -> physically meaningless -> useless criterion

That is why there are no "propeller farms"

Farms are stationary to the ground. The cart isn't.

If you want to take energy from the wind, then it's a turbine,

Not if it moves DDWFTTW. Then it must be a propeller, because a turbine moving DDWFTTW would accelerate the true wind.