Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[A.T.]

So he is either lying to Make,

Dr. Camp made an error and later admitted it. That isn't lying.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's largely over Carteers. The TM is busted flat, the theory has no clothes, the NALSA data says the cart is nothing like a ddw cart, and I Ratant's video shows why.

Who have you convinced so far? Yourself?

 

[zooterkin]

the NALSA data says the cart is nothing like a ddw cart

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Could you post a link to your analysis of the data?

 

[CORed]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Could you post a link to your analysis of the data?

It's coming real soon now. Maybe the third Tuesday of the week after the 32nd of May. Right after he shows us the magical propellerless cart that can move up the treadmill belt.

 

[humber]

It's coming real soon now. Maybe the third Tuesday of the week after the 32nd of May. Right after he shows us the magical propellerless cart that can move up the treadmill belt.

You won't be seeing it.

 

[humber]

Dr. Camp made an error and later admitted it. That isn't lying.

Spork made it for him. I have more emails than you think.

 

[CORed]

Nobody wants to accept the wager they threw about. It's money in the bank for me, because the cart says so.

The wager that will be judged by "chartered engineers" already selected by you? I'd take that wager, but I already spent my money buying a beautiful bridge in New York City.

 

[CORed]

You won't be seeing it.

I know. Nor will anybody else.

 

[CORed]

humber never heard the aphorism about finding yourself in a hole, Or if he has, he either thinks the converse is "really" true, or he completely failed to comprehend it.

Doesn't that pretty much apply to just about everything humber ever hears or reads?

 

[windgrins]

Sorry about the Tornado!

!

Anyway, on wednesday morning my remote farm took a direct hit by a tornado. My partner and I are fine; our house was miraculously spared, yet the hardwood forest that surrounds us was tragically torn up, with thousands of large trees snapped and up-rooted in an event that lasted about 30 seconds. The phone poles also snapped. Fortunately (I guess) our place was the only area in our county that took a direct hit, so we had the full attention of the local road and power crews. With a stunning effort of men and machines, they had us back in action in 2 days, although the wreckage surrounds us in the forest.



end of de-rail.

Sorry about the Tornado. They are truly wind-devastating! Delighted none of your family was hurt!

WindGrins

 

[windgrins]

RP-Due Credit

Originally Posted by windgrins:
Dave,

Wikipedia lists the speed of an average O2 molecule at 27C at about 5000 m/sec.

This is not to be confused with windspeed. They are lively little critters.
Wait a second! Does this mean Humber was right about something? I have read here many times that this never happens!

I like to give credit where credit is due. I don't find many opportunities to do this with Humber's posts.

Humber's point about molecules was roughly correct but had very little to due with the forum. It was so misleading that the poster didn't understand that what he was referring to. It came from copying another website and acting as if it was his contribution. As usual with it he came to the nonsense implication that airplane propellers generate no thrust in a headwind.


Mine was an attempt to clarify Humber's statement for the poster.

WindGrins

 

[windgrins]

Surprised but happy!

Sometimes it works the other way. F1 has produced interesting developments that were the result of engineers trying to work around the rules. KERS became so good, that the rules had to be changed in response.

The Tour de France is about human effort, and opening up the definition of bikes would lead to it being a battle of technology. Drugs are now the problem instead, I suppose.

Humber,

Even though I see both sides of this discussion, you'rs was truly an intelligent comment! Keep it up!

WindGrins

 

[windgrins]

I'd bet they are the same!

A slight nit-pik concerning the equivalence of the treadmill and the wind, especially because the ddw thing is so uber-important:

When wind, or flowing water, for that matter, meet resistance (or a load is attached) the direction of the flow is altered. Flow wants (excuse the anthropomorphizing of flow) to dodge such obstacles, in the easiest way it can. The treadmill's 'flow' is not effected by various attempts to exploit it. It remains rigidly ddw, straight north; to the left; whatever. Otherwise, its all good.

(This reminds me, slightly, of times I've spent on flowing rivers; intrigued by mini-whirlpools and eddies and such. Paddling up to them, in a canoe, for a closer look, inevitably caused them to shift position.)

I would be willing to bet that the flow field around the cart is exactly the same if one could have an equally controlled environment like a giant wind tunnel.

ETA: Now that I've read further, I see Spork weighed in on this in pretty much the same way. I'm always amused that, in general, physics causes people to come to the same answer!

WingGrins

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Humber,

Even though I see both sides of this discussion, you'rs was truly an intelligent comment! Keep it up!

WindGrins

I sure hope you weren't talking about *this* portion of the quote when you refer to "intelligent"

F1 has produced interesting developments that were the result of engineers trying to work around the rules. KERS became so good, that the rules had to be changed in response.

... 'cause it's of course a total crock.

JB

 

[zooterkin]

Sometimes it works the other way. F1 has produced interesting developments that were the result of engineers trying to work around the rules. KERS became so good, that the rules had to be changed in response.

Really? Could you give more details about that? KERS was used in 2009 by some teams. It was not used in 2010, by agreement of the teams, not due to any rule changes. I don't recall any team getting an overwhelming advantage due to its use; Button in a McLaren, which did use it, did win that year, but Vettel was second in a Red Bull (which didn't use it). (ETA) They've changed the rules for this year, to encourage more teams to use it (such as Red Bull).

The Tour de France is about human effort, and opening up the definition of bikes would lead to it being a battle of technology. Drugs are now the problem instead, I suppose.

Drugs have always been a problem with the Tour. The UCI is conservative regarding bike design, I will admit, though there is plenty of technological development going on within the permitted parameters.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Textbook ad hominem argument jbt;

Nope, just the truth -- you've admitted on the record of these threads that one of the symptoms of your conditions is forgetfulness. Even without that admission is obvious to all those who have been here a few months that you simply don't remember stuff. You'll say "X happened on the thread" and someone will take you back and show that what actually happened was "Y".

So with my half brain I assume you’re saying the foam popcorn will go slower than ws, yes?

Popcorn is not neutrally bouyant and thus if used below the top of the propeller of I Ratant's cart, will drag across the ground some of the time This will slow it down and yield a speed slower than the wind.

So if I Ratant’s cart can go up the TM but not outrun the popcorn, what will you say then?

If *I Ratant* made such a test and claimed it as proof, I will say 'that's why you can't rely on people as clueless as I Ratant to perform science". Then I'd demonstrate how freakin' easy (and meaningless) it is to build a wind powered device that can beat popcorn blowing across the ground.

And didn’t you claim earlier that Feynman’s Sprinkler had been decided beyond any doubt?

No I did not - but then I understand that my post on the topic was not in the last few hours so I wouldn't expect you to remember what I *did* say.

I covered about 10 or so jumping around. Looked pretty similar to here to me. A few who raised questions were quickly convinced and only Kent kept arguing against it.

Spin as you wish, but it's but one forum that confirms the truth of Sporks assertion. Deal with it.

JB

 

[spork]

He means the air is affected in the same way. The still air in a room will be disturbed by an object moving up the treadmill in the same way the wind is disturbed by an object on the ground.

Correct. The belt of the treadmill is equivalent to the ground. Outdoors, the ground doesn't change direction, or flow around objects, either. The point is that no instrumentation can tell you whether we move the ground or the air - because there is no such distinction in reality. They are one and the same.

 

[Michael C]

Here more info on it:

http://lukeyoder.com/?page_id=143

http://www3.lehigh.edu/images/userImages/jem406/Page_8893/WEB_Stilson_Yoder.pdf

Their key point is that the L/D ratio of the tires (lateral force/drag force) is equally important as the aerodynamic L/D ratio of the vehicle.

[qimg]http://lukeyoder.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LD_Equation-450x206.jpg[/qimg]

And since you cannot improve much on the aerodynamic side compared to the Greenbird, they concentrate on the tires, which seems like a good idea.

The professor involved was behind another record braking vehicle:
http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/resolve7/land-speed-record.html

And last but least: A certain Luke Yoder is involved, who probably combines the jedi-powers of Luke and Yoda.

Interesting stuff.

Unlike Greenbird, their vehicle apparently has a symmetrical design. There are two sails, both at an angle to the vertical. I imagine that the two sails are angled so that the wheel forces on the ground are more evenly distributed between right and left than on a traditional land yacht: the angle of the sail on the upwind side increases the wheel force on the ground while the angle of the sail on the downwind side decreases the wheel force.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Really? Could you give more details about that? KERS was used in 2009 by some teams. It was not used in 2010, by agreement of the teams, not due to any rule changes. ...

... They've changed the rules for this year, to encourage more teams to use it (such as Red Bull).

Exactly. Very few teams used them in 2009, and the Championship was won by a team that did NOT use KERS* (nor did the second place Championship team use KERS). It was dropped entirely in 2010 and then brought back in 2011.

Obviously with it's lack of success in 2009 the reason the rules were changes isn't because it was too successful. Just another case of humber not knowing his nethers from a hole in the ground.

I don't recall any team getting an overwhelming advantage due to its use; Button in a McLaren, which did use it, did win that year, but Vettel was second in a Red Bull (which didn't use it).

* I believe you'll find that Braun didn't use KERS at all in it's championship season, though I am willing to stand corrected. I do know that they did not use if for *much* of the season and absolutely dominated the early portion of the season without it. If they did run KERS at all, I'd be interested to know if any of Jensons wins were with a KERS equipped Braun. Right now I'm betting not.

JB

 

[zooterkin]

* I believe you'll find that Braun didn't use KERS at all in it's championship season, though I am willing to stand corrected. I do know that they did not use if for *much* of the season and absolutely dominated the early portion of the season without it. If they did run KERS at all, I'd be interested to know if any of Jensons wins were with a KERS equipped Braun. Right now I'm betting not.

D'oh! You're right, of course, I was thinking Button had been at McLaren a year longer than he has. No, I don't think Brawn used KERS at all in 2009, which makes the point even more strongly, as you point out.