Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[windgrins]

Humber demonstrates for the 8,145th time that he has no clue about relative motion or frames of reference.

The funny part is that he has no clue that what he is saying about "motors pulling your foot back." illustrates how poorly he understands the issue.

We have had a three page derail now, where the deniers try to pretend that the vibration, relative to the floor, of a particular treadmill used for experiments related to people running or walking on that treadmill, is in any way relevant to the treadmill tests of the small ddwfttw cart on different treadmills. As usual, much hilarity ensued from humber's and /0's tortured interpretation and bizarre misconceptions of this article.

Absolutely correct, the deniers march out a ludicrous strawman to back their position quoting from "authority". But because they can't seem to understand that the articles have comments which dispute their claims directly (in both PPG's and Humber's) we spend 3 pages pointing out how silly the original assertion is, which is backed by an article of their choosing which says the exact opposite.

The only very amusing news is now Humber's questioning a paper produced by PPG to back his claim and saying the author's don't know what they were doing. I wonder what PPG's take on that is? I wonder how he feels about the idea that Humber has now shot down his best attempt to make the vibration argument?! The primary discussion in PPG's paper effectively states that Humber doesn't know what he's talking about with TMs and reference frames. So, it was a worthwhile diversion!

Humber's back to attempting to "diminish by demeaning" and doing a lousy job of it.

WindGrins

 

[humber]

Another lie of course.

JB

If you want to stick with the ratchet working then that's OK. Funny how it never turns CW, even when the wind changes direction, and always slows to follow the braking cart. Wasn't overspill of the spool said to be a problem when braking?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I know we are busy dissecting profpang/oss's ir-elephant article about a different treadmill, but this stuff is just so full of win . . .

Mender's gauntlet is made of lace.

Is this an attack on mender's masculinity? Nice. Signs of homophobia or sexism, either way Humber's playing the old-school engineer card. Thankfully, few engineers actually play into this good old boy cliche.

Mender never threw down the gauntlet, you took it upon yourself to claim to have a TM cart some three years ago. It likely needs a good dusting, even if you've just kept it in your imagination.

And you would starve if your dinner was reliant upon your skill.

Which skill is that? I'm a hell of a dancer and I can cook a mean breakfast. So far, that has been enough to get me to dinner. The wine has always been what I had to work for . . .

 

[humber]

The funny part is that he has no clue that what he is saying about "motors pulling your foot back." illustrates how poorly he understands the issue.

Absolutely correct, the deniers march out a ludicrous strawman to back their position quoting from "authority". But because they can't seem to understand that the articles have comments which dispute their claims directly (in both PPG's and Humber's) we spend 3 pages pointing out how silly the original assertion is, which is backed by an article of their choosing which says the exact opposite.

And these that say otherwise.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/ea....2006.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7898346
http://www.springerlink.com/content/vk36p660367179n6/

http://www.mendeley.com/research/kin...-older-adults/
http://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S...235-0/abstract
http://books.google.nl/books?id=dF4z...admill&f=false

The only very amusing news is now Humber's questioning a paper produced by PPG to back his claim and saying the author's don't know what they were doing. I wonder what PPG's take on that is?

I really don't know. We are not joined at the hip.
Vibration or not, the TM says nothing about a cart in the wind.
Are you prepared to contradict Drela's calculation that suggest drag force falls with increasing speed, and that 1.8W can drive the cart at any speed?
If he is correct, then Sporks is wrong.

I wonder how he feels about the idea that Humber has now shot down his best attempt to make the vibration argument?! The primary discussion in PPG's paper effectively states that Humber doesn't know what he's talking about with TMs and reference frames. So, it was a worthwhile diversion!
Humber's back to attempting to "diminish by demeaning" and doing a lousy job of it.
WindGrins

You would like to divide us, even though Profpangloss will tell you that we have exchanged emails on how the TM works. We have some ideas in common, but disagree about the precise mechanism, but not that it can never represent a cart in the wind.
On the other hand, you have no idea at all, and confabulate technical knowledge and experience that you clearly do not have.

 

[humber]

Mender's gauntlet is made of lace.

Is this an attack on mender's masculinity? Nice. Signs of homophobia or sexism, either way Humber's playing the old-school engineer card. Thankfully, few engineers actually play into this good old boy cliche.

First a rhetorical question, followed by your homophobic interpretation, rather than it being not a very substantial gauntlet.

Which skill is that? I'm a hell of a dancer and I can cook a mean breakfast. So far, that has been enough to get me to dinner. The wine has always been what I had to work for . . .

I thought that was just an ugly rumour.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humber, listing a group of articles is not the correct way to cite evidence that supports your claim. Especially for you. Over 95% of the time when you have cited articles they say the opposite of what you think they do. You need to cut and past, I know you know how to do that, the relevant passages and cite the main article.

In other words, humber wrong, try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmm.. I just tried to click on several of humber's links and kept getting error messages on several of them. The one I did get through to did not have anything that seemed to support humber's claims in any way.

Why humber bothers to do this nonsense is beyond me. He knows, or should know, that he will be caught, and sooner much more likely than later.

 

[humber]

humber, listing a group of articles is not the correct way to cite evidence that supports your claim. Especially for you. Over 95% of the time when you have cited articles they say the opposite of what you think they do. You need to cut and past, I know you know how to do that, the relevant passages and cite the main article.

In other words, humber wrong, try again.

Even runners agree with me, and not just the literature

Google: treadmill pulls the foot back

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0846/is_6_21/ai_81825794/
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archive/index.php/t-129320111.html
http://5krunforcleanair.org/training1.html
http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=12357
http://www.fitsugar.com/Running-Treadmill-vs-Running-Outdoors-197629
http://www.lifemojo.com/lifestyle/treadmill-running-vs-outdoor-running-301158
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-465792.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/394194-best-shoes-for-treadmill-running/
http://running.about.com/od/treadmillrunning/tp/treadmillrunningtips.htm

I think LLyricist has found that the "special gearing" makes no difference.

 

[Llyricist]

I think LLyricist has found that the "special gearing" makes no difference.

I think you better read the thread more carefully.

 

[humber]

hmm.. I just tried to click on several of humber's links and kept getting error messages on several of them. The one I did get through to did not have anything that seemed to support humber's claims in any way.

Why humber bothers to do this nonsense is beyond me. He knows, or should know, that he will be caught, and sooner much more likely than later.

That's because this board furls links. That's what the dots mean.
You may need to unfurl them.

httx//jap.physiology.org/content/early/2007/11/29/japplphysiol.01380.2006.full.pdf
httx://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7898346
httx://www.springerlink.com/content/vk36p660367179n6/

httx://www.mendeley.com/research/kinematic-kinetic-and-metabolic-parameters-of-treadmill-versus-overground-walking-in-healthy-older-adults/
httx://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S0268-0033%2808%2900235-0/abstract
httx://books.google.nl/books?id=dF4z51oyTsEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=gait+on+a+treadmill&source=bl&ots=HI6_ursWP3&sig=oUKMIaiaIJD_PV52lFUB9sBErx8&hl=nl&ei=MYYATrHbNsHtObCpwIQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=gait%20on%20a%20treadmill&f=false

 

[jduffy77]

And these that say otherwise.

OK Humber I'll check these links. Let's see.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/ea....2006.full.pdf

This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7898346

This one doesn't say otherwise. Nothing even close.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/vk36p660367179n6/

This one doesn't say otherwise. It is most interesting due to the fact that the few parts that are relevant directly contradict your own position.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/kin...-older-adults/

This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.

http://www.clinbiomech.com/article/S...235-0/abstract

This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.

http://books.google.nl/books?id=dF4z...admill&f=false

This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.

OK that's zero for six. Humber is batting 0%. That seems right.

 

[jduffy77]

That's because this board furls links. That's what the dots mean.
You may need to unfurl them.

ROFL someone who has never had the unfortunate experience of dealing with Humber would not get how neatly this post encapsulates his entire being.

He posts some links incorrectly due to his own ignorance.

He then condescendingly points out his own stupidity as if it is attributable to someone else.

He then asks us to correct his mistake, which in this case is impossible.

Good post.

 

[windgrins]

Run like the WindGrins!

Even runners agree with me, and not just the literature

I run. I disagree. You are wrong! At least one doesn't!

WindGrins

 

[humber]

OK Humber I'll check these links. Let's see.



This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.



This one doesn't say otherwise. Nothing even close.



This one doesn't say otherwise. It is most interesting due to the fact that the few parts that are relevant directly contradict your own position.



This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.



This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.



This one doesn't say otherwise. It says you can't even post a link correctly.

OK that's zero for six. Humber is batting 0%. That seems right.

And you don't know how to unfurl links.

1)The differences were substantial. It is not yet understood how the human locomotor system adapts to a particular treadmill running situation. However, it is concluded that individual assessment of running kinematics on a treadmill for shoe or shoe orthotic assessment may possibly lead to inadequate conclusions about overground running.

2)INTERPRETATION: While treadmill and overground walking are biomechanically similar, the metabolic cost of treadmill walking is higher. Clinically this may be important when using a treadmill for gait retraining in patient populations as it may lead to premature fatigue or undesirable physiologic challenge.

3)
Gait analysis on the treadmill and in the overground condition is used both in scientific approaches for investigating the neuronal organisation and ontogenetic development of locomotion and in a variety of clinical applications. We investigated the differences between overground and treadmill locomotion (at identical gait velocity) in 12 adults and 14 children (6-7 years old). During treadmill locomotion the step frequency increased by 7% in adults and 10% in children compared to overground walking, whereas the stride length and the stance phase of the walking cycle decreased. The swing phase, however, increased significantly by 5% in adults and remained unchanged in children

4) Our findings suggest that while temporal gait parameters and kinematic patterns are similar between treadmill and overground walking, the muscle activation patterns and joint moments and powers used to achieve these movement patterns are often different.
...etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, that is the incorrect way to use a citation. It is up to you humber to cut and pate and appropriately use quotation marks and other punctuation. And then you need to link to the original source.

humber wrong, try again.

 

[jduffy77]

And you don't know how to unfurl links.

Could you teach me?

1)The differences were substantial. It is not yet understood how the human locomotor system adapts to a particular treadmill running situation. However, it is concluded that individual assessment of running kinematics on a treadmill for shoe or shoe orthotic assessment may possibly lead to inadequate conclusions about overground running.

2)INTERPRETATION: While treadmill and overground walking are biomechanically similar, the metabolic cost of treadmill walking is higher. Clinically this may be important when using a treadmill for gait retraining in patient populations as it may lead to premature fatigue or undesirable physiologic challenge.

...etc.

I have known for a long time that the real problem with you understanding the TM equivalence is much simpler than most people realize. You don't know what is meant by equivalence. No one rational has said that the TM is the Earth. They say that for the purpose of testing a cart in the wind that it is equivalent.

I understand the fact that the same visual cue differences which cause your inability to understand the TM equivalence exist for runners as well. There are many references on how to ignore them and train correctly and run the same as on a road:

http://www.runningplanet.com/training/treadmill-versus-outside-running.html

It is like riding the bike at a carnival which you steer left to go right. The brain can be fooled quite easily into doing a lot of strange things. The universe not so much.

I know that you think you cannot visualize the belt as the road. I know that you cannot stand next to a TM and visualize physics from the FOR of the belt, but I also know that it is really because you are afraid to try. At some level you know you are wrong. How big would the TM have to be before you could not tell you were living on it?

 

[humber]

Again, that is the incorrect way to use a citation. It is up to you humber to cut and pate and appropriately use quotation marks and other punctuation. And then you need to link to the original source.

humber wrong, try again.

All these are "man in the street" enough to accommodate you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_81825794/
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archiv...129320111.html
http://5krunforcleanair.org/training1.html
http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=12357
http://www.fitsugar.com/Running-Trea...utdoors-197629
http://www.lifemojo.com/lifestyle/tr...running-301158
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-465792.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/39...dmill-running/
http://running.about.com/od/treadmil...unningtips.htm

 

[jduffy77]

All these are "man in the street" enough to accommodate you.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_81825794/
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/archiv...129320111.html
http://5krunforcleanair.org/training1.html
http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=12357
http://www.fitsugar.com/Running-Trea...utdoors-197629
http://www.lifemojo.com/lifestyle/tr...running-301158
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive.../t-465792.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/39...dmill-running/
http://running.about.com/od/treadmil...unningtips.htm

And hilariously Humber screws up the links again, even after his error was just pointed out.

 

[humber]

I have known for a long time that the real problem with you understanding the TM equivalence is much simpler than most people realize. You don't know what is meant by equivalence. No one rational has said that the TM is the Earth. They say that for the purpose of testing a cart in the wind that it is equivalent.

I understand the fact that the same visual cue differences which cause your inability to understand the TM equivalence exist for runners as well. There are many references on how to ignore them and train correctly and run the same as on a road:

http://www.runningplanet.com/training/treadmill-versus-outside-running.html

It is like riding the bike at a carnival which you steer left to go right. The brain can be fooled quite easily into doing a lot of strange things. The universe not so much.

I know that you think you cannot visualize the belt as the road. I know that you cannot stand next to a TM and visualize physics from the FOR of the belt, but I also know that it is really because you are afraid to try. At some level you know you are wrong. How big would the TM have to be before you could not tell you were living on it?

Afraid not. You don't get out of it that way. It has been unequivocally clained the TM is identical. Indistinguishable.
There would be no learning. As I said, runners learn to adapt to the belt.
Poor Carteers, can't face ever being wrong.
All runners agree: it's not the same. The medical literature says its not the same. The odd one out, is you.

 

[jduffy77]

Afraid not. You don't get out of it that way. It has been unequivocally clained the TM is identical. Indistinguishable.

There is no way anyone has ever said something so absurd. Only you would even entertain the notion that it might be identical. My TM is not even wide enough to drive a small car on it, never mind an SUV.

The TM is indistinguishable in all ways relevant to the ddwfttw cart. Rather than a model of a cart in the wind it is certainly an instance of a cart in the wind.

ETA: How are you coming with that lesson on how to unfurl links?