Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[ThinAirDesigns]

Originally Posted by humber
More manipulation. NALSA (one official at the trial) Community Centres and now Ames (one engineer). This cart is all about *****. Now, once again JB, had you earlier contact with the author of that email? Has he ever been engaged by you as an aerodynamics consultant?

Originally Posted by JB
No

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Originally Posted by humber
More manipulation. NALSA (one official at the trial) Community Centres and now Ames (one engineer). This cart is all about *****. Now, once again JB, had you earlier contact with the author of that email? Has he ever been engaged by you as an aerodynamics consultant?

Originally Posted by JB
No

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

The electrical cart came from Smith, as did the entire idea. Prior to that, the cart screwed through the air prop tips move a greater distance through the air, and was powered by the ground.

Then:
Prop travels less distance through the air than the cart, wind powers the cart.

And why would NALSA have reason to think that any email address was not "genuine"?

ETA
Popular Science
"The wheels turn the car’s propeller, and the prop thrust pushes the car, which turns the wheels, Cavallaro says. It's not a perpetual motion machine, because the prop is also using wind energy as an external power source."

Comments:
"My "explanation" of how it works in the article is a bit unfortunate. That was intended to be my explanation as to why so many people think it should be impossible."

You forgot your lines.

Originally Posted by JB
No

And so on and so forth.
JB

 

[humber]

And so on and so forth.
JB

That's very good, JB, and typical of your evasion over the videos, the data and do many other matters. In trying to show if you never denied knowing him, you forgot that the central issue is if you did or not.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

That's very good, JB, and typical of your evasion over the videos, the data and do many other matters. In trying to show if you never denied knowing him, you forgot that the central issue is if you did or not.

No

JB

 

[Michael C]

Would someone please be kind enough to post an unbiased summation of whats going on in this thread? I notice that it has been a year since first post and there still seems to be an open discussion as to the veracity of the event in question.

The discussion as to the veracity of the event is akin to the discussion of whether the twin towers of the WTC were really destroyed by being hit by a plane. The available evidence is easily enough to convince any reasonable person that a wind-powered vehicle was able to sustain a speed of around 3X the speed of the wind running directly downwind.

I gather something cool and science-y was filmed, but the science still hasn't checked out? Please correct me if wrong. Thanks.

The science has certainly checked out. It's not revolutionary science: it's easy enough to demonstrate that the principle is valid with Newtonian mechanics and elementary knowledge of aerodynamics.

Many people at first have the gut reaction that it can't be possible, but almost everybody understands after a while that it is indeed possible, and that their intuition has been playing them tricks. You'll find some good explanations right near the beginning of the very first discussion on the subject at Randi forums.

 

[humber]

No

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.

He says he met Spork before the meeting. The Research Director said there could be no questions or report because the talk was just a yacht club meeting. There are probably car and fishing clubs too.
However, the reply to my questions came after that meeting, and he passed my name and email address on to you. Still say you don't "know" him?

But one way or the other, the cart's theory took an about turn, so still leaving you to explain how and why.

The trial was a buddy-fest where you largely set the rules and conditions to taste. The claim has always been for steady-state, and that is critical.

The cotton reel shows that acceleration may yield short term speed gains, but the average speed is that of the hand. Similarly, the wind can do the same, if at first the run is selected to be too short, and the wind conditions known. Filter out the failures, give the bronze medal a coat of gold paint, and call the press.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

He says he met Spork before the meeting. The Research Director said there could be no questions or report because the talk was just a yacht club meeting. There are probably car and fishing clubs too.
However, the reply to my questions came after that meeting, and he passed my name and email address on to you. Still say you don't "know" him?

But one way or the other, the cart's theory took an about turn, so still leaving you to explain how and why.

The trial was a buddy-fest where you largely set the rules and conditions to taste. The claim has always been for steady-state, and that is critical.

The cotton reel shows that acceleration may yield short term speed gains, but the average speed is that of the hand. Similarly, the wind can do the same, if at first the run is selected to be too short, and the wind conditions known. Filter out the failures, give the bronze medal a coat of gold paint, and call the press.

No.

You are worthy of no more effort than that.

JB

 

[spork]

Still say you don't "know" him?

This is classic humber. This is what makes it impossible for us to draw the line between lie and delusion. He clearly is showing himself to be the fool here, and that can hardly be his objective. We NEVER said we didn't know Steve Smith.

But one way or the other, the cart's theory took an about turn, so still leaving you to explain how and why.

Delusion or lie? We'll probably never know.

 

[zooterkin]

You'll find some good explanations right near the beginning of the very first discussion on the subject at Randi forums.

This seems like a reasonable one:

The vehicle is effectively tacking the wind. The propeller's blade is presented at an angle to the prevailing wind.

It's good there are some insightful posters here. What happened to that guy?

 

[humber]

We NEVER said we didn't know Steve Smith.

Now, once again JB, had you earlier contact with the author of that email?
Has he ever been engaged by you as an aerodynamics consultant?

No

I know how you operate, so knew ThinAirDesigns

Edited by Gaspode: 

Corrected spelling of user's name.

would take the last question as being the one posed. I removed that, and there were no more denials.

But, one way or the other, the cart's theory took an about turn, so still leaving you to explain how and why.

Delusion or lie? We'll probably never know.

But we could, by you finding a post where you made the same claims as in the submission prior to Ames and the trials.

A long time ago you posted an "analysis" of the cart at the insistence of Christoph and me. It was bowdlerized Drela. You wrote off the chassis drag as insignificant, and used rolling friction coefficient, (Crr) of .001. Steel on steel.

When the data arrives, you are going to be helpful aren't you?
NALSA wrote

"Kimball and I are confident that measurements associated with the run being submitted are scientifically well within the NALSA requirements. From an ethical standpoint the Thin Air Team has been very open in all aspects of their measurement and analysis process. All the raw data was provided promptly (over 60 MB!). There is no hint of any data subterfuge and little likelihood that such subterfuge could go undetected."

I estimated that each run would only need 18KB from your GPS. You provided 60MB. Humber thinks there may be a lot of "snow".

No matter, I can do a meta-analysis of all the runs, and leave you to tell me what is what.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

What happened to that guy?

Yes, and that quite funny -- he had it right before realizing the being right doesn't make for good trolling.

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I estimated that each run would only need 18KB from your GPS. You provided 60MB. Humber thinks there may be a lot of "snow".

Uh Oh -- we're busted. Too much data.

Me thinks you're conveniently forgetting about the other 18 recording sensors that were present and collecting data.

JB

 

[Christian Klippel]

Uh Oh -- we're busted. Too much data.

Me thinks you're conveniently forgetting about the other 18 recording sensors that were present and collecting data.

JB

Yea, funny that. On one side he complains about not having had enough sensors and stuff on the cart and around it, on the other side he complains about too much data. What a surprise. Not.

 

[humber]

Uh Oh -- we're busted. Too much data.

Me thinks you're conveniently forgetting about the other 18 recording sensors that were present and collecting data.

JB

I haven't. The wind sensors are on the CV. Only GPS is on the cart, so why would you be providing data, other than the GPS?

And the matter of Smith's collusion, and the changed theory. How are they working out for you?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Only GPS is on the cart, ...

Well yes, the ONLY except for the 8 *other* GPS's spread between the BB, the chase vehicle and the wind stations, the "ONLY GPS is on the cart"

Of course you are renowned for taking ignorant positions and sticking to them in spite of the evidence, so please carry on in spite of the fact that you're again wrong. Your freak show is the only reason we are all here after all.

JB

 

[Michael C]

This....

To avoid confusion, when you make a diagram with arrows on it you should be careful to distinguish between arrows representing forces and arrows representing motion. Usual practice is to make one diagram which shows only forces and another to show velocities and accelerations.

If I've interpreted your diagrams correctly, it looks as if you are getting nearer to the correct explanations that have been given on this and previous threads.

 

[I Ratant]

To avoid confusion, when you make a diagram with arrows on it you should be careful to distinguish between arrows representing forces and arrows representing motion. Usual practice is to make one diagram which shows only forces and another to show velocities and accelerations.

If I've interpreted your diagrams correctly, it looks as if you are getting nearer to the correct explanations that have been given on this and previous threads.

.
Noted.
Those are just to show what is happening in the conditions, not the why.
As far as I'm concerned, this thing was discussed and settled in February of 2007 on some other site.. which I don't recall.
And explained.
But the animosity and rancor surfaced there also. From the same source attacking all and sundry who expressed interest/doubts about the thing as here.
The personal attacks really waste everyone's time, and demean any credence one might place on the science if that even gets mentioned.
I expect to get jumped for showing a propellor as a rotating wing.
.
I did spend some time yesterday jazzing up a couple photos of the freewheeling cart.
The driven cart has yet to move without assistance.
The Antelope Valley Wind Festival has taken a few days off.

 

[humber]

Well yes, the ONLY except for the 8 *other* GPS's spread between the BB, the chase vehicle and the wind stations, the "ONLY GPS is on the cart"

Of course you are renowned for taking ignorant positions and sticking to them in spite of the evidence, so please carry on in spite of the fact that you're again wrong. Your freak show is the only reason we are all here after all.

JB

Yes, there are other GPS units, I am aware of the instrument configuration

NALSA
" Blackbird had three GT 31 GPSs."

3 GT31's * 1 sample/sec for 120 seconds. Pointlessly logged at 5/sec.

Not a lot of data ThinAirDesigns.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Corrected spelling of user's name.

Would you like to tell me how that became 60MB?

And where is the post that demonstrates that Spork had the same ideas as Smith prior to the trials and Ames?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I am aware of the instrument configuration

No.

JB