Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[jduffy77]

And how it thrust calculated By Spork in the submission?

Thrust = Shaft Power/Velocity
Shaft power = whatever is left of the generator power after losses
Velocity = Vp, the velocity of the headwind.

Umm Humber, are you losing it?

And the paper by Dr Drela?

What's up with you and Drela anyway, I thought you think he is a moron?

Here Humber, check out Xrotor, a program written by Drela whose sole function is to analyze "tacking forces".

http://www.propdesigner.co.uk/html/comparison.html

There is no tacking force associated with a propeller.

Not only is there a tacking force "associated" with a propeller it is what allows a propeller to function.

 

[humber]

yes, I've found that electricity from nuclear power plants heat up an equipment room faster than electricity from hydro-electric schemes. Must be the water-cooling potential of the hydro.

Engineer reads brochure of nice supply
Forgets about the internal resistance of the source
forgets it's a sub.
Gets fired.

 

[jduffy77]

Here Humber, another graphic for you to not understand.

 

[humber]

Here Humber, another graphic for you to not understand.

View attachment 21620

Attack angle responsible for thrust. Stop.
No tacking force. Stop

The entire claim is bogus. Planet Oil Barrel, a fantasy.

No paper anywhere including Drela's has any claim or calculation of a tacking force.
That claim is but one of a shifting sand of explanations for a failed upwind cart.
Ground power, tacking props, tethered ice-boats, distance through the air, air levers,
"extraction" by slowing the headwind, prop "screwing" through the air, advance ratio to gear ratio, wheels "fighting" the prop. Anything published by Bauer, Drela, Ruina, Guanna, though only Ruina has anything in common and none peer-reviewed.
It's a fire sale. All must go.

 

[jduffy77]

Attack angle responsible for thrust. Stop.
No tacking force. Stop

Definition: The angle of attack is the angle at which relative wind meets an airfoil.

Attack angle is a synonym for "tacking force". Stop. Humber wrong again. Stop.

 

[EHocking]

Engineer reads brochure of nice supply
Forgets about the internal resistance of the source
forgets it's a sub.
Gets fired.

How would the internal resistance of the power plant or substation have any effect on the heat generated from a device plugged into a wall socket?

 

[humber]

Definition: The angle of attack is the angle at which relative wind meets an airfoil.

Attack angle is a synonym for "tacking force". Stop. Humber wrong again. Stop.

You are hoping to claim the same thing twice.
Show in the calculation where that "extra" tacking force is.

Where in the stream tube does it act?Only the input and output count, and that latter is the thrust. There is no support for the idea at all.
It's a sham, that is leading to a sham power generation scheme. No longer an internet curiosity.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There is no tacking force associated with a propeller.

Please define what you mean by "tacking force".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Show in the calculation where that "extra" tacking force is.

Which "extra" force?

 

[EHocking]

...

what a sad little man you are.

Nominating your own post in the Language Award thread:

I nominate humber.
I nominate humber for the following post:

Originally Posted by humber
Then it's up to you to learn how that may be done.
The solution is far from simple.
I am not interested. The point being that Carteers have nothing but hubris to support their claims, and A.T in particular, insists on re-posting things he does not have a clue about, yet posts cartoons as physics.

The topic is the cart in the wind. As far as I am concerned, the TM is irrelevant, and that is also the opinion of Dr Camp.
As an aside, the topic of springs came up because of a remark made by Yevgheni about the TM and the way it supports a load. That was not understood, so that resulted in springs 101.

 

[humber]

what a sad little man you are.

Nominating your own post in the Language Award thread:

Clicked the wrong button...

 

[EHocking]

Clicked the wrong button...

I could see how you'd do that. The nominate button being all the way over on the left side of the screen and the edit/quote buttons being all the way over on the right side of the screen.

You really need to get your misunderstanding of frame of reference sorted out.

 

[humber]

Which "extra" force?

Prop tacking is a complete fabrication. No text book support, nor mention by Drela or anyone else. A cranky and bogus idea.

The TM is a trinket, and explicable using simple mechanics.
Even superposition destroys its claim.
Trials are the result of chance, lax rules and direct manipulation of the data.

 

[A.T.]

Oh, my, thanks for the link.

If you think that this episode was bizarre, you should check out the one where humber demands a definitive answer on whether the wheels on a car turn clockwise or counter-clockwise, when the car drives forward?

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=711976#post711976

Are you saying that
(a) A car's wheels do not turn CW in forward motion
(b) You cart's wheels do not turn CW in forward motion
(c) The wheels on the treadmill don't turn CW
(d) The SAE and ISO don't understand CW?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<words>

Could you address the actual question, though?

The description of the action of a propeller blade passing through the air as being functionally similar to a yacht's sail passing through the air while tacking is a good analogy.

This does not mean that the BB's propeller has some magical new property called "tacking force". That is a term you pulled out of your own fundament.

It is simply an observation that the action of one is analogous to the action of the other.

If you disagree, please start by defining what you mean by "tacking force".

 

[jduffy77]

Definition: The angle of attack is the angle at which relative wind meets an airfoil.

Attack angle is a synonym for "tacking force". Stop. Humber wrong again. Stop.

You are hoping to claim the same thing twice.
Show in the calculation where that "extra" tacking force is.

Where in the stream tube does it act?Only the input and output count, and that latter is the thrust. There is no support for the idea at all.
It's a sham, that is leading to a sham power generation scheme. No longer an internet curiosity.

This is Humber admitting he was wrong. His posts devolve into completely incomprehensible gibberish. First it was "no tacking force", now it is "no extra tacking force". As for stream tube; input and output, come on Humber!

 

[spork]

Clicked the wrong button...

Yes - a few million times over the last couple of years.

 

[humber]

Yes - a few million times over the last couple of years.

Especially yours.
Why won't you make the raw trial data available, Chief?

 

[Llyricist]

Could you address the actual question, though?

The description of the action of a propeller blade passing through the air as being functionally similar to a yacht's sail passing through the air while tacking is a good analogy.

This does not mean that the BB's propeller has some magical new property called "tacking force". That is a term you pulled out of your own fundament.

It is simply an observation that the action of one is analogous to the action of the other.

If you disagree, please start by defining what you mean by "tacking force".

I think analogous is too weak a term here. You have an airfoil, a relative wind, lift, drag and a kinematic constraint. Seems pretty close to the exact same thing to me.

 

[humber]

This is Humber admitting he was wrong. His posts devolve into completely incomprehensible gibberish. First it was "no tacking force", now it is "no extra tacking force". As for stream tube; input and output, come on Humber!

"extra" over and above the usual thrust.
There is no support from anywhere for tacking props, because it is a fabrication. That does lend weight to the claim that the trial may be similarly tainted, as does reluctance to provide the raw data.