Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Llyricist]

In other words, you don't know what balanced means.

it means there is the same mass on both sides of the pivot. So both sides of the pivot will experience the same acceleration. The only reason the vane responds to transients is because of the higher drag of the vane side will, appropriately, "weather vane" away from the induced relative wind caused by the transient.

And you won't present any math because I will always pick it apart piece by piece instead of just ignoring it like most do.

 

[humber]

In other words, you don't know what balanced means.

it means there is the same mass on both sides of the pivot. So both sides of the pivot will experience the same acceleration. The only reason the vane responds to transients is because of the higher drag of the vane side will, appropriately, "weather vane" away from the induced relative wind caused by the transient.

And you won't present any math because I will always pick it apart piece by piece instead of just ignoring it like most do.

Really? The vane has very low bearing losses. If you spin it, what stops it turning? Only the air drag. When a transient is applied, the mass at the other end gains momentum, and won't stop moving until all of that KE is gone.

You have no mathematical skill at all. The next post will be a math bomb, then, just for you. You see, the same governing equations can be found in general system behaviour, including electronics.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

 

[Llyricist]

Really? The vane has very low bearing losses. If you spin it, what stops it turning? Only the air drag. When a transient is applied, the mass at the other end gains momentum, and won't stop moving until all of that KE is gone.

What mass at what other end? What about the air drag? Does it disappear in the case of a transient? Where does the KE go if not to the air?

In other words, you just posted gobbledegook.

You have no mathematical skill at all. The next post will be a math bomb, then, just for you. You see, the same governing equations can be found in general system behaviour, including electronics.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of inappropriate content

Oh no, now you are going to apply electronics analogies inappropriately to mechanical systems again aren't you?

 

[Llyricist]

And where's your L/D information on fat biconvex symmetrical airfoils set parallel with the direction of travel that show any net forward force at any angle of attack?

 

[humber]

And where's your L/D information on fat biconvex symmetrical airfoils set parallel with the direction of travel that show any net forward force at any angle of attack?

The topic is the cart in the wind, and the measurement of. Throwing in a few new buzzwords will not save you. The trial is a farce, and worthless.
In that wind, a bucket could exceed 10mph, and claim to be faster than the wind.
And you forgot that those planes, spend not time parallel to the wind. Not one second.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

 

[Llyricist]

The topic is the cart in the wind, and the measurement of. Throwing in a few new buzzwords will not save you. The trial is a farce, and worthless.

Actually, it would be crucial for you claim that the cart is tacking. And everyone here knows that except, apparently, you.

In that wind, a bucket could exceed 10mph, and claim to be faster than the wind.

You keep making that claim, but never, ever back it up.

And you forgot that those planes, spend not time parallel to the wind. Not one second.

Actually they spend at least 3 seconds within 2 degrees during the test period DDW, but that isn't what I said. I said they were set parallel to the direction of travel.

 

[RossFW]

Humber has claimed to have a propless cart for almost two years, and promised to post video from time to time.

Note this has never happened.

And trust that it never will.....

 

[RossFW]

Humber- Assuming it is the sails producing the force that makes the cart accelerate through being at an angle to the wind, what would be the direction of that force? How is that force then channeled in the direction of travel, and what must be the magnitude of that force in order for the vector in the direction of travel to be sufficient to obtain the performance demonstrated?

 

[humber]

Actually they spend at least 3 seconds within 2 degrees during the test period DDW, but that isn't what I said. I said they were set parallel to the direction of travel.

The cart is never ddw, and never within 2 degrees.
When will you accept that you can't average wind vane deviation?
The RMS deviation is 11 degrees. The cart is -4 degrees, so the difference is 15 degrees.
But, that data is of no use whatsoever. The vane's reading is relative to the CV, so the entire outcome depends on how closely the cart and CV track, and that is but one source of error, which is likely to be small compared to the errors caused by putting a vane, designed to meet NIST standard for fixed vanes. with an averageing timde of 10 minuts on to a moving vehicle. One requirement is that they withstand hurricane forces. That does rather impact on the design, and makes them useless for instantaneous measurement of wind vectors.
The GT31 uses Doppler to read to 0.1m/s, but position is not better than the usual 10m. Hopeless, and totally amateurish. A bunch of sailors on a bender, misled by an innumerate and dishonest crank.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed inappropriate content.

 

[humber]

Humber- Assuming it is the sails producing the force that makes the cart accelerate through being at an angle to the wind, what would be the direction of that force? How is that force then channeled in the direction of travel, and what must be the magnitude of that force in order for the vector in the direction of travel to be sufficient to obtain the performance demonstrated?

32N maximum.
300J/s maximum. At 4m/s there are at least 1000J passing through the disk area. The prop sees winds several times that, because of gusts that are above the hub. There is no mystery to be solved.
The reason that the instrumentation is poor Captain, is that the "sophisticated instrument package" from Spork (and SJSU) was never delivered. NASLA were ambushed by a total lie, that when the Met One set
was fitted to the cart, it gave a 1mph reading if favour of the cart. Being so honest, TAD could not bring themselves to use it. However, they are not beyond forcing all those errors and more, on to the CV, or manipulating the chart.

 

[spork]

The next post will be a math bomb, then, just for you.

Hey look - that turned out exactly the same as every promise and every prediction humber's ever made.

 

[Llyricist]

The cart is never ddw, and never within 2 degrees.

The data says otherwise.

When will you accept that you can't average wind vane deviation?

When will you accept that the wind vane was oscillating due to a transient as you keep describing? It is entirely appropriate to use the average of a spurious mechanical oscillation. The wind is not an electronic circuit.

The RMS deviation is 11 degrees. The cart is -4 degrees, so the difference is 15 degrees.

Even if I were to accept that RMS nonsense, you don't add the cart's direction to a measurement that already takes it into account.

Or do you not know what deviation means either?

Oh yeah. You recently made the amazing comment that even the wind wasn't DDW!

So of course you don't.

But, that data is of no use whatsoever. The vane's reading is relative to the CV, so the entire outcome depends on how closely the cart and CV track,

Wrong, the wind direction was calculated by vector addition of the CV's direction and speed with the wind vane and anemometer's measurements. And the cart's direction was determined by at least 3 GPS's on board. And the deviation was the difference.

and that is but one source of error, which is likely to be small compared to the errors caused by putting a vane, designed to meet NIST standard for fixed vanes. One requirement is that they withstand hurricane forces. That does rather impact on the design.

None of this is relevant in any way

The GT31 uses Doppler to read to 0.1m/s, but position is not better than the usual 10m. Hopeless, and totally amateurish. A bunch of sailors on a bender.

That 10m is the absolute position margin, not the relative position margin, which is all that matters here.

 

[RossFW]

So, Humber, at 2.8* windspeed you contend that the prop still acts as a sail?

What would be the angle of the relative wind to the prop, even at the maximum deviation of the wind from direction of travel, while the craft id DDW?

Can you describe ANY other craft that can travel as fast as the BB, while maintaining a constant heading on average DDW?

 

[GlennB]

I will link a post of his that claims this. It is at the bottom of the post if you want to skip ahead. I don't want to copy and paste his rant for everybody to see here, there may be innocent women and children reading this

http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=1312317&postcount=746

Wow. This means that if I can roll to 10mph before starting my car I'll get 10mph worth of improved fuel consumption! Cheers Humber for saving me a lot of money. I wish I'd known this years ago

 

[humber]

Hey look - that turned out exactly the same as every promise and every prediction humber's ever made.

Oh good. I will address it directly to you. Failure to respond will make you look weak.

 

[humber]

The data says otherwise.

When will you accept that the wind vane was oscillating due to a transient as you keep describing? It is entirely appropriate to use the average of a spurious mechanical oscillation. The wind is not an electronic circuit.

Even if I were to accept that RMS nonsense, you don't add the cart's direction to a measurement that already takes it into account.

Or do you not know what deviation means either?

Oh yeah. You recently made the amazing comment that even the wind wasn't DDW!

So of course you don't.


Wrong, the wind direction was calculated by vector addition of the CV's direction and speed with the wind vane and anemometer's measurements. And the cart's direction was determined by at least 3 GPS's on board. And the deviation was the difference.


None of this is relevant in any way


That 10m is the absolute position margin, not the relative position margin, which is all that matters here.

Removed breach.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Llyricist]

I love the amazing wind gradient that has air moving several times the speed of air ~6-8 feet below.

 

[Llyricist]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed response to moderated content.

 

[humber]

So, Humber, at 2.8* windspeed you contend that the prop still acts as a sail?

What would be the angle of the relative wind to the prop, even at the maximum deviation of the wind from direction of travel, while the craft id DDW?

Can you describe ANY other craft that can travel as fast as the BB, while maintaining a constant heading on average DDW?

A heading of about 40 degrees. Minimum is 15 degrees. The vane in the Jenkins' video moves 90 degrees in less than a second.
1000 - 4000J/s input. The question is why is it so slow?

 

[humber]

Wow. This means that if I can roll to 10mph before starting my car I'll get 10mph worth of improved fuel consumption! Cheers Humber for saving me a lot of money. I wish I'd known this years ago

You will, if you don't get to constant speed. If you think that makes no difference, then you will have to ask why sprinters worry about every millisecond, but long distance runners don't.