Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

And then dismisses it in order to try and preempt discussion of it by nitwits.

No, he says the the "real" reason is "obvious". If so, then there would be no need of the hand-waving or even their justification by the real-world example of an albatross, and the current test would prove he were right. Not be a test to see what was happening.

And the char does sat he is wrong and there are more instrument errors than there are good.

 

[jduffy77]

No, he says the the "real" reason is "obvious". If so, then there would be no need of the hand-waving or even their justification by the real-world example of an albatross, and the current test would prove he were right. Not be a test to see what was happening.

Not sure what you are talking about here. There is no current test. The test is over, and a world record was ratified by the worlds leading authority. The same authority whose opinion you said you would accept without question.

And the char does sat he is wrong and there are more instrument errors than there are good.

This is an unequivocal lie.

 

[A.T.]

No, he says the the "real" reason is "obvious"

Yes, and by "obvious" he means:

The propeller thrust is greater than the wheel drag, because the apparent (relative) wind speed is slower than the ground speed.

And not the nonsense you were attributing to him.

If so, then there would be no need of the hand-waving ...

Then put them down already.

 

[humber]

Not sure what you are talking about here. There is no current test.

1) An electrical model can be constructed that proves the current will show a loss of energy for the cart. That is theoretically sound
2) The BB is NOT electrical but mechanical, and force gauges were to be installed to perform the equivalent of that electrical test. They were never completed, so that proof is missing. Too bad.
Science does nor allow assertion that it would prove the point, nor to "take it over" after the fact.

The test is over, and a world record was ratified by the worlds leading authority.

A boat club, that has tested two land speed carts and no windspeed carts, and does not have the technical knowledge that you claim.

The same authority whose opinion you said you would accept without question.

No, I did not, and the rules were hidden, as TAD giggled and played word games when asked about them.

 

[humber]

Yes, and by "obvious" he means:

And not the nonsense you were attributing to him.

Then put them down already.

And I have 3 emails where I challenged his claim, and he hand-waved and changed the topic, ultimately giving me the usual spiel about not understanding etc.

One of the points which generated the response you have seen was this;

"The argument is that the ratio of the “apparent wind”, to the cart’s speed, acts like a lever,so relating the forces. To overcome the obvious problems, the prop is said to travel less distance through the air, than the cart travels over the ground,
But of course, work =force*distance, and must be the same at the wheel as at the propeller.
Alternatively, force*time, yields the relative momentum. It is a machine that claims to be driven by the headwind of its own motion. "

Now, you tell my why that momentum problem does not blow the claim out of the water, and why it was not addressed.

Smith passed on my name and e-mail address to Spork. Not my real name of course, but one created for the purpose. It was not long before TAD hinted that they know my name, but said it was in reference to something else.
But, eventually, Spork posted that name and address, as he did the "alexia" PM.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

There is no current test. The test is over, and a world record was ratified by the worlds leading authority. The same authority whose opinion you said you would accept without question.

No, I did not, and the rules were hidden, as TAD giggled and played word games when asked about them.

This is an unequivocal lie.

JB

 

[A.T.]

And I have 3 emails where I challenged his claim, and he hand-waved and changed the topic, ultimately giving me the usual spiel about not understanding etc.

In other words: You wrote him 3 emails full of your usual incomprehensible gibberish, and the NASA engineer said WTF are you talking about? (in friendly terms). "The usual spiel"? Yeah, I guess this always happens when you try to convince an expert of humberphysics.

Why don't you post those emails in full, so we can have a laugh?

 

[jduffy77]

Alternatively, force*time, yields the relative momentum. It is a machine that claims to be driven by the headwind of its own motion.

Only you have ever claimed something so utterly foolish. Everyone else knows the cart is powered by the wind.

Smith passed on my name and e-mail address to Spork. Not my real name of course, but one created for the purpose.

Created for what purpose, to hide your embarrassment? Why are you not proud of your great campaign to debunk the NALSA fraud? Wouldn't you like to be remembered as the one who stood fast against the hordes of unbelievers and was right in the end?

 

[humber]

This is an unequivocal lie.

JB

Prove it, and then explain how you could possibly have kept anyone updated on the rules when the last revision was July 3rd.

 

[humber]

In other words: You wrote him 3 emails full of your usual incomprehensible gibberish,

So you say. So you say. Can you even get on the mounting block with such an experienced engineer?
So what is wrong with the momentum argument? Got your pen ready?

and the NASA engineer said WTF are you talking about? (in friendly terms). "The usual spiel"? Yeah, I guess this always happens when you try to convince an expert of humberphysics.

He evaded, and he did that to Yevgheni too.

Why don't you post those emails in full, so we can have a laugh?

Because he asked me not to. I will give you his e-mail address, so that you may ask his permission.

ETA: Here it is. It is public domain and on his website
[email protected]

 

[CORed]

No, he says the the "real" reason is "obvious". If so, then there would be no need of the hand-waving or even their justification by the real-world example of an albatross, and the current test would prove he were right. Not be a test to see what was happening.

And the char does sat he is wrong and there are more instrument errors than there are good.

So, humber, the mere poster, is questioning the word of a NASA engineer? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Prove it, and then explain how you could possibly have kept anyone updated on the rules when the last revision was July 3rd.

I could not have possibly kept any rule neither hidden or updated -- I didn't write them and am not even a member of NALSA, let alone on the Board of Directors (who wrote and approved the rules).

JB

 

[CORed]

Desperate. I am more articulate than you by a large margin, but you think that a supposed word disorder prevents me from taking your trinkets apart?
That I have transmitted Alexia to Drs Camp, Allain, Whiteman and Kammen?


But, on the matter of lying, can ask Modified. He was here from the start.

Modified, did we ever discuss the idea of the distance the prop moved through the air and the distance the cart moved over the ground? The "air lever"?

Force? work? power? Or were they issues introduced by Christoph and me?

I was involved pretty early, and my recollection is that early in the thread, spork was silent work, force and power, and therefore thought by some to be a fool, whereas humber and Christoph spoke at length about work, force and power and removed all doubt that they were fools.

 

[humber]

So, humber, the mere poster, is questioning the word of a NASA engineer? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Yes. And when in Germany, I twice demonstrated to a PhD and former NASA employee, that his electrical over-unity machine did not work, and pointed to the errors in his theory that accounted for that. He accepted that with good grace, but came back for a third try.

 

[humber]

I was involved pretty early, and my recollection is that early in the thread, spork was silent work, force and power, and therefore thought by some to be a fool, whereas humber and Christoph spoke at length about work, force and power and removed all doubt that they were fools.

A reworking of a cliche, that says you agree that Spork did not have the lever argument at the time. It is not possible to even make the claim without reference to force, and that removes any doubt about you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ah. So yet another of your strawman arguments.

Invent some data. Debunk based on invented data.

I think what he's saying is more of a circular argument than a strawman. It looks like what he's saying is - the faster than the wind cart appears to be going faster than the wind, which he believes is impossible, therefore it cannot be going faster than the wind. But, as described, it is.

 

[humber]

I could not have possibly kept any rule neither hidden or updated -- I didn't write them and am not even a member of NALSA, let alone on the Board of Directors (who wrote and approved the rules).

JB

You went to the trial without knowing the rules?
They were never posted, and updated on the day of the trial.
Hiding behind NALSA's skirt does not let you off the hook.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Humber, can you please confirm or correct my interpretation? Is your objection to the cart on a treadmill video the fact that the cart advances on the treadmill instead of gradually moving in the same direction as the treadmill?

If so, do you appreciate that this behaviour is exactly what a DDWFTTW is supposed to do?

 

[humber]

There is a risk that the thread will be put under moderation or closed because of "bickering" and that serves TAD's purposes more than mine.

The facts are a pattern. Deception, a wandering and incoherent theory, appeals to selected and collusive authority, and rules and trials that always lead to Rome for the cart.

The dyno, which was constructed to test the cart's performance via force measurement of the cart wrt to the dyno, became visual motion of the dyno, as it was tethered to a truck.Until it broke, that is.

The ddw steady-state in a wind tunnel claim, became a transient result in changing winds, with the cart nowhere near ddw. All failures went unrecorded, and the best cherry picked for publication. The chart data has been manipulated to advantage, and access to the raw data denied.

The "sophisticated instrument package" of load cells and pitot tubes, became a donated wind vane for fixed application, and some consumer hand-held GPS units.

The TM is the serendipitous outcome of trial and error, with no mathematical support or measurements.

 

[EHocking]

I think what he's saying is more of a circular argument than a strawman. It looks like what he's saying is - the faster than the wind cart appears to be going faster than the wind, which he believes is impossible, therefore it cannot be going faster than the wind. But, as described, it is.

Oh, that too