Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[humber]

One more time: It's not a "tacking propeller", it's a "propeller". It's as if the last few pages of this thread never happened.

You're just being deliberately obtuse now. You are pretending not to understand just to avoid admitting you are wrong, just like your earlier "it's complicated" evasion when attempting to squirm out of admitting you made a mistake about stacking pairs of weighing scales. It's painful to read.

I have already told you some primary differences between a sail and a prop.
A tacking boat takes energy from the wind, uses the lift force derived from crossing the ddw wind path, and taking a longer path because of that. More work is done that way. The center of mass does not move ddw.

Props transmit energy to the air, do not cross the ddw path, the centre of mass moves along the axis, so ddw. The ddw path is the shortest possible, and work is f*d where d is the displacement of the hub and not the tips.

You make analogies between props and tacking boats, so one would expect to find them in a text book on aerodynamics, or in a sailing book describing tacking, by making references to a propeller.
Find such references...JBTH.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I have already told you some primary differences between a sail and a prop.

Rebutted, point by point, as you apparently failed to notice

A tacking boat takes energy from the wind, uses the lift force derived from crossing the ddw wind path, and taking a longer path because of that. More work is done that way. The center of mass does not move ddw.

And it's already been explained to you that the movement of the propeller's centre of mass is a stupid way to consider its interaction with the air because it utterly fails to consider the way it actually moves through the air. You are basing your analysis of the propeller on a model which does not consider whether it is turning or not, which is so plainly asinine that I can't believe you are still attempting to pass it off as rational thought.

Props transmit energy to the air, do not cross the ddw path, the centre of mass moves along the axis, so ddw. The ddw path is the shortest possible, and work is f*d where d is the displacement of the hub and not the tips.

See what I mean? Your description takes no account of which way the prop is turning, if at all. Can you grasp that there might be some significance to the actual path that the propeller blades take as they move through the air?

You make analogies between props and tacking boats, so one would expect to find them in a text book on aerodynamics, or in a sailing book describing tacking, by making references to a propeller.
Find such references...JBTH.

That ain't my problem...H

 

[spork]

RCP did in fact request the data from NALSA. And as I suspected, he did so under a false name. NALSA asked me yesterday if I was cool with them giving out that data. I responded that they are more than welcome to share the data. At the time it occurred to me that I should have warned them that the request was coming from a couple of internet trolls that are determined to misinterpret the data and create a general nuisance of themselves. But I'm pretty sure they're aware of that already.

When harold/christoph/yev/prang... contacted them, he was extremely rude and insulting. They told him as much, and even eventually got him to admit he was wrong. To this day he won't admit to us that he might be wrong.

We can now all look forward to RCP passing the raw files on to humber - who will tell us it's been edited, redacted, and altered in all other manner of ways. I can also guarantee you there's no way he'll ever make heads or tails of it. It requires actual analytical skills. It's FAR harder to make use of than the summary graphs we included in the report to NALSA.

But NALSA has every bit of data we ever did from those runs. We don't know, and never did have any way of altering the data in their possession.

We can look forward to lots of lies and delusion on these points. If you have any doubt, contact NALSA for yourselves. Don't take humber's or RCP's word for anything.

 

[spork]

Much to my dismay, it turns out I was wrong about who requested the data recently. Someone else just told me they requested it using their real name (which matched the name NALSA gave me).

The rest stands. RCP should get the data he requested, if he knows how to do that. He will pass it on to humber, and humber will unleash the full power of delusion and lies.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Report says. "If any NALSA Board Member has questions or would like to see additional data or information on any of the above please contact either of us."

Rather than continue to tell lies and make excuses, an honest fellow would merely email the President of NALSA (email address publicly posted on web site) and ask for the data.

Not you -- no. You don't do the sorts of things that an honest fellow would do.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Could you please just post a link where I could get it and verify your above claim jb?

http://www.nalsa.org/about.htm

All I recall you saying about the raw data was to write NALSA, which I did at the eddress for queries posted on their website.

Excellent job. I'm confident you will get the data you requested in a reasonable time.

JB

 

[spork]

Excellent job. I'm confident you will get the data you requested in a reasonable time.

And aside from giving it to humber to keep the drama going, can you even begin to imagine what he could possibly do with it?

 

[humber]

RCP did in fact request the data from NALSA. And as I suspected, he did so under a false name. NALSA asked me yesterday if I was cool with them giving out that data. I responded that they are more than welcome to share the data. At the time it occurred to me that I should have warned them that the request was coming from a couple of internet trolls that are determined to misinterpret the data and create a general nuisance of themselves. But I'm pretty sure they're aware of that already.

QED. Since when do sporting bodies ask the contestant if it's OK to post the results? Chummy.

When harold/christoph/yev/prang... contacted them, he was extremely rude and insulting. They told him as much, and even eventually got him to admit he was wrong. To this day he won't admit to us that he might be wrong.

Harold is not Yevgheni, both hold their original opinions, and are very unlikely to be persuaded by chat. Whoever wrote those emails, should they exist, was not me, Harold/Christoph or Yevgheni/Prang..

We can now all look forward to RCP passing the raw files on to humber - who will tell us it's been edited, redacted, and altered in all other manner of ways. I can also guarantee you there's no way he'll ever make heads or tails of it. It requires actual analytical skills. It's FAR harder to make use of than the summary graphs we included in the report to NALSA.

60MB of coffin nails.

But NALSA has every bit of data we ever did from those runs. We don't know, and never did have any way of altering the data in their possession.
We can look forward to lots of lies and delusion on these points. If you have any doubt, contact NALSA for yourselves. Don't take humber's or RCP's word for anything.

No matter who did it, there is a discrepancy between the 10 seconds of NALSA data and your chart. The problem is not NALSA's, so why should they worry?

 

[humber]

Much to my dismay, it turns out I was wrong about who requested the data recently. Someone else just told me they requested it using their real name (which matched the name NALSA gave me).

The rest stands. RCP should get the data he requested, if he knows how to do that. He will pass it on to humber, and humber will unleash the full power of delusion and lies.

Well, now you are safe. If I get it wrong or corrupt the data, there is an independent reference.

I can understand that you object to being called a liar, though I merely pointed out things you had or had not done. But, to make a general objection is not sufficient.
Please indicate which of my remarks are false.

 

[humber]

And if the allegations are serious enough to hurt your reputation, it's not a mod you need: you need a lawyer.

I think that most would see posting a PM containing personal information, and out of spite, to be a craven act, regardless of any specific rules.

ETA:
When the data arrives, that will open up the trial for inspection, and the topic can return to that.
I think you may well understand who's interests would best be served if the thread were to be locked before that happens.
I Ratant has done more in a week than any Carteer has ever done. Analyzing the data will take some work, and that will apply to Carteers too.

 

[spork]

I look forward to the games humber will play with the data that I made available to him through NALSA - the data that he claims I will not let anyone see. Data that I have never once protected.

He'll have an absolute blast making up lies with data that he could never begin to understand.

 

[spork]

I Ratant has done more in a week than any Carteer has ever done.

humber's lies and insults are so clever the mods could never begin to untangle them. Indeed Ratant's 10 minute effort at making a 10 oz model out of poster board dwarfs the 1000+ hours we put into designing and building a 450 lb, 23' tall, manned cart that set a world record in front of NALSA observers to establish a world record going 2.8X wind speed.

 

[A.T.]

I Ratant has done more in a week than any Carteer has ever done.

You mean his spool that climbed the incline, faster than the string pulling it?

 

[humber]

You mean his spool that climbed the incline, faster than the string pulling it?

My math says exactly the conditions in which that reel will work. The example I gave of the thread pulled at an angle cover all else. Yet, you insisted that there is something magical about climbing the incline. Why do you say that is?

Your mistakes are manifold. Not noticing that greater friction has changed the problem is one.
The reel will always accelerate faster than the hand, look at the math. Impossible, so something else is happening, and that is you mistaking string being wound onto a reel as "faster". ROFL.

 

[3point14]

Gentlemen (and ladies)

We're dealing with a man who believes that a cube of metal and a propeller (provided they weigh the same and that their COGs are in the same place) have exactly the same aerodynamic effect.

Let’s not get too riled

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...you insisted that there is something magical about climbing the incline. Why do you say that is?

Your memory fails you. Nobody said there was anything magical about it. It was perfectly mundane. You, however, declared it was impossible.

Your mistakes are manifold. Not noticing that greater friction has changed the problem is one.

Disregarding an effect which does not render impossible something which you declared impossible is not a mistake.

The reel will always accelerate faster than the hand, look at the math.

OMG - this is like a flashback to 15 months ago when you couldn't figure out a problem with 2 carts, a pulley and a rope. The reel does not accelerate unless the hand does. The reel moves at a constant multiple of the hand's speed. Show us your calculation which shows otherwise.

Impossible, so something else is happening, and that is you mistaking string being wound onto a reel as "faster". ROFL.

A preposterous fudge of a conclusion, but you're only clutching at it because you're trying to explain away your mistaken conclusion as noted above.

 

[humber]

humber's lies and insults are so clever the mods could never begin to untangle them. Indeed Ratant's 10 minute effort at making a 10 oz model out of poster board dwarfs the 1000+ hours we put into designing and building a 450 lb, 23' tall, manned cart that set a world record in front of NALSA observers to establish a world record going 2.8X wind speed.

I have done much the same, and extended that to include a fan. I Ratant's results are not in your favour. You refused do those simple test when asked.

EDIT:
QED. Now the cart is 450lbs, not 650lbs. If the former, the trial net force falls to 22N
The force of gravity on two bags of sugar.

 

[A.T.]

I look forward to the games humber will play with the data that I made available to him through NALSA - the data that he claims I will not let anyone see. Data that I have never once protected.

He'll have an absolute blast making up lies with data that he could never begin to understand.

Why so pessimistic? According to humber's interpretation of the NALSA-graphs you have achieved things far more extraordinary that DDWFTTW. Like going closer to directly downwind than the wind itself.

I'm sure his interpretation of the raw data will reveal even more superhuman abilities of yours.

 

[humber]

Your memory fails you. Nobody said there was anything magical about it. It was perfectly mundane. You, however, declared it was impossible.

I said you would need CGI. In other words, an illusion, one way or the other.

A preposterous fudge of a conclusion, but you're only clutching at it because you're trying to explain away your mistaken conclusion as noted above.

The math says I am right. Despite what you think, the reel accelerates faster than the hand, but friction dampens that as it wind up the thread.
The apparent speed gain is the difference of the reel and the winding of the string. Take the under reel, which moves 6" with each turn, and keep tension in the thread. Keep the hand where it is and move, but do not roll the reel 6" towards the hand. Now you have 6'' of slack thread, 3 of which go on the reel, and three taken up by the hand. Hey presto the reel is "faster" than the hand. A nice trick that works only with thread.
Cotton reels, right or not, will not allow the trial data to be silenced.

 

[humber]

Why so pessimistic? According to humber's interpretation of the NALSA-graphs you have achieved things far more extraordinary that DDWFTTW. Like going closer to directly downwind than the wind itself.

I'm sure his interpretation of the raw data will reveal even more superhuman abilities of yours.

Firstly, it will show the contrary, and ddw is a specific claim. There is no violation of any laws when tacking. The best outcome for you on that basis, given that you deny to role of the pylons, is that props make good sails.
Already known, but of limited practical use. Sail carts need to meet all sorts of demands made by the market place.