Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Jack by the hedge]

The model, and the equation I derived from it, says that there will be a net force that is dependent on the cart speed, which is dependent on the net force. The circularity of the practical is in the math.

That would also be true of any wind-powered craft. Do you have a point?

There is no tailwind above WS

So land yachts can't tack downwind faster than the wind, because there's no tailwind component to propel them that way?

I have changed the means of deriving energy from the wheel, from a generator to a heat engine. The torque on the shaft will be the same.
Braking is braking.
Some cars use regenerative braking, where the normal friction brake is replaced by a generator. They slow the car, not accelerate it.

Once again, all is the same - nothing about the wind changes - but only the way energy is obtained from the wheel.

You can take energy from the wheels and use it to drive the prop by any means you like so long as it's efficient enough (and doesn't store energy or you may find it's disqualified).

The idea has no merit and the trials are junk.

Non sequitur.

 

[humber]

Levers - how do they work?

Wiki, Fulcrum

Work in = Work out
force in = force out
Sum of fulcrum and applied force = force at load.

What happens if you try to operate a lever on soft ground?

But, you own argument about gears, says that the prop could drive the cart upwind. If I build a great big prop, and let you ASSUME it is geared so that the turbine could drive it upwind, then that is what you may think.
But if the gears are played with by nothing more than trial and error, then how do they know? Easy, when it goes backwards when you are not looking, they change the gear so it doesn't.

There is no other option. Upwind carts exist. Do you think there is another set of gear laws for them?

 

[humber]

That would also be true of any wind-powered craft. Do you have a point?

The net force of a sail cart falls with speed, until it is zero and at constant velicity. Spork has a calculations that says net force increases with velocity, so will drive itself faster and faster.

So land yachts can't tack downwind faster than the wind, because there's no tailwind component to propel them that way?

That comes from the horizontal component, and that is zero ddw.
That is why they tack, or do you think they are bit dim, because they could go ddw, but don't know it?

You can take energy from the wheels and use it to drive the prop by any means you like so long as it's efficient enough (and doesn't store energy or you may find it's disqualified).Non sequitur.

Then you must support my brake driven cart. I have worked out that using the methods of the cart, a thermocouple could drive model cart and would continuously accelerate.
The idea is as wrong as the generator.

 

[D'rok]

Alexia still not getting any better?

For real? Because that would explain a lot.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...thankfully, the pilots don't design the planes. Engineers do, and they have the foresight to include an engine.

You keep running away from this point about how the prop interacts with the air by talking instead about how it is powered. You may not believe the energy budget works, and the cart would soon stop, but that is a separate issue. In both cases - an aeroplane and BB - the prop is powered.

 

[humber]

Congratulations Humber, you have misinterpreted Newton's third law such that nothing can accelerate, ever. The humberverse is indeed a strange place.

Doh. That is such a beginner's error. Check the physics forums for beginning students puzzled by the fact that if equal force opposes force, the how can things accelerate?

 

[A.T.]

Levers - how do they work?

force in = force out

They don't work in the humberverse as you see.

 

[jduffy77]

That comes from the horizontal component, and that is zero ddw.
That is why they tack, or do you think they are bit dim, because they could go ddw, but don't know it?

Right. Like the props airfoils.

Then you must support my brake driven cart. I have worked out that using the methods of the cart, a thermocouple could drive model cart and would continuously accelerate.
The idea is as wrong as the generator.

You have already been told your cart would work fine if it could be made efficient enough, although you should change continuously to until equilibrium speed. I think its hilarious that when you try to be wrong you are right, don't you?

 

[humber]

They don't work in the humberverse as you see.

Find a reference that says I am wrong about the lever. No CGI, but a text.

 

[humber]

The matter of the failed upwind cart would have been settled long ago, if Spork had done the simple test I asked him to video. The same for the TM, where making sure there was traction to the belt would see it fail. He refused to do that.
Don't expect to ever see a video that proves him wrong.

 

[D'rok]

Find a reference that says I am wrong about the lever. No CGI, but a text.

How about the very first sentence in the Wikipedia entry?

In physics, a lever (from French lever, "to raise", cf. a levant) is a rigid object that is used with an appropriate fulcrum or pivot point to either multiply the mechanical force (effort) that can be applied to another object or resistance force (load), or multiply the distance and speed at which the opposite end of the rigid object travels.

Force in != force out.

 

[humber]

You have already been told your cart would work fine if it could be made efficient enough

Oh, that is funny. If my over-unity machine is efficient enough it will work.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Work in = Work out
force in = force out
Sum of fulcrum and applied force = force at load.

(You got your F2 arrow backwards.)

The usefulness of a lever is not that the sum of all forces balances (back to pointlessly quoting Newton's 3rd law again) rather it is that F2 is greater than F1. It's another example of the confusion you leave in your wake that in your pithy remark above "work out" and "force out" do not refer to the same "out". "Work out" is at the rock. "Force out" is the reaction force felt by the man (probably - but you might define it any way you like).

 

[humber]

(You got your F2 arrow backwards.)

No

The usefulness of a lever is not that the sum of all forces balances (back to pointlessly quoting Newton's 3rd law again) rather it is that F2 is greater than F1. It's another example of the confusion you leave in your wake that in your pithy remark above "work out" and "force out" do not refer to the same "out". "Work out" is at the rock. "Force out" is the reaction force felt by the man (probably - but you might define it any way you like).

Show me a reference.

 

[jduffy77]

Oh, that is funny. If my over-unity machine is efficient enough it will work.

I think you forgot the wind again.

 

[humber]

How about the very first sentence in the Wikipedia entry?



Force in != force out.

Find one the mentions the fulcrum force. A more advanced text.

 

[jduffy77]

The matter of the failed upwind cart would have been settled long ago, if Spork had done the simple test I asked him to video. The same for the TM, where making sure there was traction to the belt would see it fail. He refused to do that.
Don't expect to ever see a video that proves him wrong.

Of course not. We know he was right.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The net force of a sail cart falls with speed, until it is zero and at constant velicity.

Exactly the same is true of BB too. Its prop blades act as tacking sails.

Then you must support my brake driven cart. I have worked out that using the methods of the cart, a thermocouple could drive model cart and would continuously accelerate.

If you could make it as efficient as a direct mechanical linkage - which you couldn't - then it could work, but it would probably be rejected for storing energy.

 

[humber]

Of course not. We know he was right.

Your struggling to make ends meet.
Agreeing to a PM machine to save the sinking ship.

 

[humber]

Big prop, black paint. And you are lured.