Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Jack by the hedge]

But the ratchet denies that the wind can apply any force to the wheel.
If the wind blows the rotor faster than the cart is traveling, it disengages.

The wind is acting to slow the prop, not speed it up. The wheels drive the prop. The prop does not drive the wheels. The prop does not drive the wheels. The prop does not drive the wheels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That depends on your frame of reference. The power to drive the cart comes from the relative movement of the air and the ground. Choose any FOR you like.

I presume all this padding is an attempt to put as much space as possible between you and the video of the yacht & propeller for which you have no answer.

If the yacht works, then the propoeller works. You know it. We all know it.

Only one frame of reference is allowed in the humberverse, and that one is broken Here let me show you.

Hey humber, remember this question:

Humber, if in one frame an object is moving at 10 m/s, then is there another frame in which it is moving at 0 m/s?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The headwind is no different from than experienced by a roadie's van on the way to a gig. That headwind produces an opposing force called "drag". Spork has that same aero-drag as an opposing force, but now you want to tell me that when it hits the prop rather than the chassis, it drives the cart by pushing it forwards?

Please consider the case of an aeroplane's propeller, moving forward into a headwind of several hundred knots. Now consider whether that prop pushes the aircraft forward or backwards, and then explain to us why the comments above are not stupid.

 

[humber]

The prop does not drive the wheels. The prop does not drive the wheels. The prop does not drive the wheels. The prop does not drive the wheels.

I need a bigger hammer.

I know. So there can be no power taken from the wind.
Again. If you claim that the prop can drive the cart without driving the wheel, then it would be capable of doing so without the chain to the wheel

The cart will fail the test proposed, because the current will fall.

 

[humber]

Please consider the case of an aeroplane's propeller, moving forward into a headwind of several hundred knots. Now consider whether that prop pushes the aircraft forward or backwards, and then explain to us why the comments above are not stupid.

The drag of the headwind on the plane is an opposing force.
Planes have an engine to overcome that opposing force.
They do not rely on the opposing headwind to drive the prop.

There are only so many ways to try and work around a fundamentally flawed idea, JBTH.
The Ames expert of Spork's choosing has largely said what I have said about the wind changes being capable of driving the cart, and it not being simply a matter of ddw. The gradient too. The instruments too. etc.
He says the real reason is "obvious" but then he seems to have a lot of other explanations. The current test says it's not the "obvious" because that does not work. It's a sail cart. So what? OK. There is nothing to see. That's it. Except that it is the basis of a plan to launch more crap. Otherwise, it would be just a crank's folly.

Another expert of Spork's choosing, Dr Camp said this of the TM:

Dr. Paul J. Camp Physics Department Spelman College: I'm happy to be quoted by name on this issue by anyone who wishes to do so. The treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame choice. . . I believe it is not just a different reference frame but in fact a different experiment but that doesn't matter. Personally, I would just bag it.

How much more do you need?

ETA:
NALSA simply take the average of the wind readings. That is just wrong. It is technically wrong.

The cart is symmetrical. If it's traveling North, the tailwind is from the South. It will gain by tacking, if the tailwind comes from 20 degrees South West, or 20 degrees South East. So; +20 degrees and -20 degrees around the ddw path. That averages to zero. It makes no sense to equate that with ddw, which is zero. So what number do you put on it? RMS.

Let's say it is not symmetrical; +20 -15. The difference is 35. That overestimates the value, but it's not 20 and its not 15

RMS = Sqrt ( a^2 + b^2)/n where n is 2 in this case so Sqrt (20^2 + 15^2) /2 = Sqrt (625/2) = 17.67. It's the equivalent of a constant deviation of 17.67.
When that is applied to the remainder of the chart the average deviation will probably double, maybe more. But that chart has been filtered and averaged so it's not possible to say. But it will be more.

 

[D'rok]

Your avatar is false advertising.

Well, I admit that I'm not quite that ripped, but I'm pretty ripped! <flexes in mirror>

Yours, on the other hand, is truth in advertising - blank, empty, nothing, utterly devoid of content, not all there.

 

[humber]

Well, I admit that I'm not quite that ripped, but I'm pretty ripped! <flexes in mirror>

I meant that the avatar suggested you had advanced to the stage of tool use.

 

[D'rok]

I meant that the avatar suggested you had advanced to the stage of tool use.

Tools are for the hoi-polloi. I am of the warrior class. My tools are my fists and my mighty thews.

 

[D'rok]

The drag of the headwind on the plane is an opposing force.
Planes have an engine to overcome that opposing force.
They do not rely on the opposing headwind to drive the prop.

The cart does not rely on the opposing headwind to drive the prop. This is one of your stupider claims, although ranking your claims by their relative stupidity is a difficult exercise.

 

[sol invictus]

Dr. Paul J. Camp Physics Department Spelman College: I'm happy to be quoted by name on this issue by anyone who wishes to do so. The treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame choice. . . I believe it is not just a different reference frame but in fact a different experiment but that doesn't matter. Personally, I would just bag it.

If Dr. Camp really said that, he is badly mistaken. The treadmill provides by far the best illustration of DDWFTTW.

 

[humber]

The cart does not rely on the opposing headwind to drive the prop. This is one of your stupider claims, although ranking your claims by their relative stupidity is a difficult exercise.

Oh yes it does. Read the submission and see the calculations that have been put forward at Talk Rational and recently at Rational Skeptic.

 

[humber]

If Dr. Camp really said that, he is badly mistaken. The treadmill provides by far the best illustration of DDWFTTW.

He definitely said it. Could it be that you are wrong?
Wine glasses going faster than the finger, is perhaps the reasoning of a 12 year old. Why not a whip? A flick of the wrist can result in the tip "cracking", as it breaks the sound barrier.

 

[spork]

That depends on your frame of reference. The power to drive the cart comes from the relative movement of the air and the ground.

You might as well be speaking Russian. humber will never understand either relative motion nor reference frames.

 

[spork]

If Dr. Camp really said that, he is badly mistaken.

He really did say that - and is is badly mistaken.

 

[humber]

He really did say that - and is is badly mistaken.

I can recall you dancing with joy at having Dr Camp as your expert. You were so sure you could convince him that you prematurely congratulated.

Despite several attempts at tugging at his sleeve, he did not agree with you, and said he would bag the TM. He criticises in on the basis that it was not a valid transform, and that the road could not be represented by a motorized belt. All you have for support is intuition, when better understanding of mechanical systems would save you all that trial and error.

 

[humber]

You might as well be speaking Russian. humber will never understand either relative motion nor reference frames.

Support is leaking away Chief, and that makes your bluster all the more luminous.
And you had to dig back to find that quote, didn't you?

 

[D'rok]

Oh yes it does. Read the submission and see the calculations that have been put forward at Talk Rational and recently at Rational Skeptic.

I am humbled before your awesome commitment to making a public spectacle of yourself. The Internet salutes you.

 

[spork]

I can recall you dancing with joy at having Dr Camp as your expert. You were so sure you could convince him that you prematurely congratulated.

I would ask humber to find a single post suggesting that camp was my expert, or that I was dancing for joy about it, but I've long since learned that humber doesn't choose to back up his lies or delusions. I claim there is no such post. humber will simply tell me if there is no such post, it's up to me to provide it to prove it.

Clearly the objective was to convince one of the few remaining skeptics that DDWFTTW does in fact work - and I did that. Oddly, Camp did not come to understand the treadmill as being equivalent. And I chose not to trouble him any further with it. He had already changed his position as I'd predicted after all.

 

[A.T.]

Dr. Paul J. Camp Physics Department Spelman College: I'm happy to be quoted by name on this issue by anyone who wishes to do so. The treadmill/non-treadmill issue is entirely one of reference frames and physical law is not dependent on reference frame choice. . . I believe it is not just a different reference frame but in fact a different experiment but that doesn't matter. Personally, I would just bag it.

If Dr. Camp really said that, he is badly mistaken.

Dr. Camp has demonstrated his "ability" to perform Galilean transformations with the following statement:

From: http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/11/what-ive-learned-about-wind-carts.html

In fact, we can state this in pretty bare terms — for a car moving downwind at wind speed to go a little faster is physically indistinguishable from a car at rest on the ground in stationary air to suddenly leap into motion.

Needless to say that with this kind of "expertise" Camp initial conclusion about DDWFTTW was :

Impossible, would violate conservation of momentum and conservation of energy

This statement, made Camp (a physics teacher at a liberal arts college) the super-authority on aerodynamics, for humber et al. But contrary to what fantasy-boy suggests here, neither spork, nor anybody else (aside from humber) choose Camp as an expert.

Unfortunately for humber Camp recanted recently:

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1271615#post1271615

I don't see how this system obviously violates conservation of energy. As long as there is energy in the motion of the air, it can in principle be extracted and fed to the car in some way.

So Humber's expert doesn't deny DDWFTTW anymore.

The treadmill provides by far the best illustration of DDWFTTW.

Prof. Mark Drela (MIT aero dept.) agrees:
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/11/what-ive-learned-about-wind-carts.html

In my view, the most closely controlled and unambiguous DDWFTTW demo is the cart climbing up the tilted treadmill. The main problem is then convincing some people that this is equivalent to DDWFFTW. But whoever tries to argue against that equivalence is really arguing against Galilean relativity, which is unassailable. So that secondary argument is a complete waste of time

 

[humber]

I would ask humber to find a single post suggesting that camp was my expert, or that I was dancing for joy about it, but I've long since learned that humber doesn't choose to back up his lies or delusions. I claim there is no such post. humber will simply tell me if there is no such post, it's up to me to provide it to prove it.

Clearly the objective was to convince one of the few remaining skeptics that DDWFTTW does in fact work - and I did that. Oddly, Camp did not come to understand the treadmill as being equivalent. And I chose not to trouble him any further with it. He had already changed his position as I'd predicted after all.[/QUOTE]

That was one of your childish games, but you forgot that you had phoned him much earlier.

15/01

... so you must make the initial approach to Camp.

Done. Months ago.

I'll tell you the funny thing. I dialed Camp today - before any of this started. I was just curious if he'd given it any more thought. Unfortunately, I didn't reach him.

Doh.



From Dr Camp to me:
I've talked to him a couple of time, most recently yesterday.
I don't agree that the treadmill is an equivalent experiment but I don't think that is material either.



And that would be the JB who said you did not know Steve Smith.

Originally Posted by JB
As is the norm for you, that is not true. This is a full time NASA aero engineer who has nothing whatsoever to do with our project (or any DDWFTTW project) and was reached with no help from us nor our knowledge.

But he told Yevgheni, not me, that he knew you through flying.
It had to ask him 3 times, if he has passed on my email address to you, before he admitted that he had.

Your not bright enough to be a hoaxer, just a grifter.