Humber trying hard to convince himself that his ramblings here are of any significance.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
- Status
Oh - they definitely are. NALSA has long since made their decision about humber based on them. Their only interest now is to not get dragged into the absolute silliness that we voluntarily participate in.
It will be interesting to watch humber continue to draw lots of absolute conclusions from a non-answer... particularly when that's all he's ever offered himself for thousands of pages of trolling.
If I understand profpangloss's analysis, he'll argue that 33N is not enough force to accelerate the cart to whatever speed it is currently moving. He's assuming the cart must be accelerated to the current speed within the analyzed time period (one second) rather than over the entire duration of the trial.
Or maybe that's not what he's saying.
If he'd lay out his argument in clear, discrete steps, it would make it easier to understand what he's trying to say.
-- Roger
Bob Dill said he would take a look at the report once published on this forum. It has begun.
You have no viable theory, and have repeatedly failed to support any claims, either personally or via academic references.
You misled NALSA when you claimed you had support from Mark Drela's papers, but your claim has no connection with his ideas in any way.
That is another claim that you have been unable to support.
Many academics disagree with you: Drs Allain, Kammen, Whiteman and Camp for example, where there is not one who agrees with you.
The model proposed in the submission is a recipe for perpetual motion, and is currently being questioned here. It fails on many quantifiable levels and electrically, it fails in principle.
Once again you have been unable to mathematically support that claim, beyond the obvious arithmetic of the claim itself.
Moreover, you manipulated the raw data by the use of rolling average, in order to hide the large wind deviations present in the original data.
That account for the delay between your chart, and NALSA's published record data, and the anomaly with the wind speed and acceleration noted by a reviewer.
The filtering also shifts the relationship of wind change and cart acceleration, so masking the fact that the cart's acceleration falls as it approaches ddw.
The effect of the filer is obvious, because it is not possible for the cart to change velocity after the wind the produced it has passed, as suggested by your chart.
The software used to process the chart and data, Anagraph, was written by you and Jim McGuffin, a Sportvision employee.
You had access to the data, using unproven and unverified software of your origin. There are many anomalies in the data, that speak of deception, with only you to gain from that.
Further replies have been sent to all NASA officials who have a published e-mail address. When the report is fully collated, it will be posted at NALSA's website for scrutiny by its members.
To avoid the problems of your aggression and evasion. I will not address any posts from you. You may prepare a rebuttal supported by mathematics, and I will address that directly.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 27,769
Would it save profpangloss time if he just modified post #5631 to provide fttw with his updated analysis?
All it should need is editing out the stuff which says the air and cart are a closed system which cannot transfer momentum to the ground.
<edit> On second thoughts, that is most of it.
All it should need is editing out the stuff which says the air and cart are a closed system which cannot transfer momentum to the ground.
<edit> On second thoughts, that is most of it.
Last edited:
Anagraph.
http://www.rubiato.com/educacion/software/soft/anagraph_1.htm
And I challenge you to connect either Dr Drela's or Bauer's published ideas, and Spork's.
Bob Dill
"I will take a look at the report on the forum after it is published."
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
It shouldn't take them more than 15 minutes to figure out that the claims of the ddwfttw deniers are without merit.
I'm not sure this objection is quite correct. It would seem to exclude from consideration the 125 W lost to friction in the chain (etc.) because that power also appears as a force at the bottom of the wheels, even though we do need to get this power from the wind. But, it appears elsewhere too, as we'll see.
When accounting for energy, as we are here, we should forget entirely about forces between the ground and the cart, because those forces do no work, and thus transfer no power. Let's analyze the 174.1-N force retarding the cart's motion into a number of parts, and see exactly where those parts do show up, and why it makes sense to multiply them by the 9-m/s speed of the cart when calculating how much power they extract from the cart.
(As always, forces come in pairs, due to Newton's third law of motion (action/reaction). We can view the 174.1-N force as a backward force exerted by other objects on the cart. Or we can view it as a forward force exerted on other objects by the cart. In what follows, I will take the latter point of view.)
The easiest force to think about is probably the air resistance. This is a force of 10 N, exerted by the cart directly on the air. The cart is moving at 9 m/s, so the power transferred is (10 N)(9 m/s) = 90 W. This power is dissipated as heat, and so needs to be gotten from the wind.
There is also the 53-N force of rolling resistance. This force originates in the flexing of the bottom portion of the tires and/or the deformation of the surface on which they're rolling, which are certainly not moving at 9 m/s. But as far as the body of the cart is concerned, it is a force which the cart body exerts on the axle of the wheels in order to cause it to move forward, at 9 m/s, thereby rolling the wheels along the ground. This force therefore converts another (53 N)(9 m/s) = 477 W of power into heat, and must also be gotten from the wind.
On to the 125 W lost to friction in the chain. Like rolling resistance, this friction makes the wheels harder to turn, because they are geared to the chain, and thus it also shows up as a force exerted by the cart on the axle. Again, the cart is moving at 9 m/s, so the force exerted is 125 W / (9 m/s) = 13.9 N. And, again, this power needs to be gotten from the wind.
The remaining 875 W, of the 1000 W that we supposed were required at the wheels to turn the propeller, corresponds in a similar manner to a force of 875 W / (9 m/s) = 97.2 N exerted by the cart on the axle.
We've accounted for the entire 174.1-N force, as 10 N + 53 N + 13.9 N + 97.2 N = 174.1 N. It would appear, however, that we've also accounted for 90 W + 477 W + 125 W + 875 W = 1567 W of power consumed, which is more than the 1380 W supplied by the wind.
However, and this is the important point, the power of 875 W, required to turn the propeller, is not dissipated as heat, but is transferred from the cart to the axle to the chain to the propeller and then back to the cart: the propeller exerts a forward thrust of 250 N directly on the cart, at a speed of 2 + 3/2 = 3.5 m/s, for a power of (250 N)(3.5 m/s) = 875W transferred to the cart. So this 875 W doesn't need to come from the wind, or anywhere else, because it never gets used up. It just travels around and around in a circle, from the cart back to itself.
Now, where did that speed of 3.5 m/s come from? It is the speed of the cart relative to the air in the immediate vicinity of the propeller. The cart moves at 9 m/s. The air moves 2 m/s slower, at 7 m/s. But the air near the propeller is slowed by it, by 3 m/s. This slowing happens partly in front of the propeller and partly behind it. Right at the propeller, half of the slowdown has occurred, and so the speed of the air there is 5.5 m/s, and the difference between this and the 9 m/s speed of the cart is 3.5 m/s.
Why is this speed the right one to use?
The propeller exerts a forward force of 250 N directly on the cart, and they're both travelling at 9 m/s. So the total power transferred from the propeller to the cart, via this forward force, is (250 N)(9 m/s) = 2250 W. Where does the propeller get this power from, to transfer it to the cart?
Part of it comes from the air. At the propeller, the air is moving at 5.5 m/s, and it exerts a force of 250 N on the propeller, so the power transferred is (250 N)(5.5 m/s) = 1375 W.
And the remainder of the power transferred to the cart by the propeller, namely (250 N)(9 m/s - 5.5 m/s) = (250 N)(3.5 m/s) = 875 W comes from the cart itself, via the chain from the axle, on which the cart pushes, as mentioned before.
I think my favorite part of all this is that NALSA told humber they'll look at his "report" when it appears on this forum!
How sad that he can't keep to his word that we'll get to see it when the time is right for him.
I gave NALSA the opportunity to respond to a the report I said I intended to submit, Bob Dill said he would take a look at JREF when I posted it.
Where is your support that either Drela's or Bauer's papers support you?
On the boatingforumm, where Drela posted his ddw ideas, he did not once respond or or address you or JB.
Attachments
Last edited:
Okay, all but maybe two statements were wrong.
So he's concerned that the program used to produce the graphs was written by a friend and myself!? I have an idea for solving that - use the raw data and plot with any of 1000 commercially available programs.
He's concerned that my analysis doesn't match Drela's!? Actually - Drela's matches mine.
Okay, all but maybe two statements were wrong.
There is another above.
And the remainder is also correct, unless you think you can refute my claim about the electrical model?
There is no evidence that you did not manipulate that data, and much that says you did.
Mc Guffin is named on Sportvision patents.
Not even close. Show where it does. Mathematically. You claim to hold two degrees, so that should be easy for you.
No response will be noted, and NALSA advised of the falsehood in your submission.
You realize of course that humber didn't contact NALSA as he likes to imply. Due to his extreme paranoia he had RCP do it for him - as he's done before.
I eagerly await humber's "report" to be published on this forum. I'm sure NALSA can hardly wait either.
I eagerly await humber's "report" to be published on this forum. I'm sure NALSA can hardly wait either.
Last edited:
Nope, still wrong. And still a just a failure on your part to understand the chart.
I already have, the relative wind never reduces the torque required to turn the propeller.
ETA:Unless of course the true wind drops off suddenly below the point where it gives enough mechanical advantage to keep maintaining speed or accelerating. In which case, all versions fail.
Last edited:
Yes, I already knew that, and even Bob underscored that when I asked for the additional data.
Really, should be interesting to see all the self immolation.
Denial is inadequate.
Not adequate. Mathematically relate the Javaprop calculation and that of the submission.
- Status