Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[A.T.]

Post from the Future!

Actually he has already posted many times that NALSA understand nothing about physics and that they are now crooks in a conspiracy to keep a falsehood alive.

That is why I recently asked which repetition of the announcement cycle this is already. I know that he announced to contact NALSA "tomorrow", months ago on TR. It took him weeks to realize that nobody is taking him seriously, and back out ("NALSA is not important"). Now he came to another forum to play the same pathetic show again.

 

[A.T.]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2gv0kew.png

(I never really took a close look at that diagram before because the details were too small

When you click on the link most browsers show a scaled down version that fits into the window. Click again on that picture or some button for full size.

A.T.: That is a lot to have in one shot and yet it lays out the realities of the situation so well.

The relevant case for DDWFTTW is CASE C. That is where the wheels reverse rotation between HELD IN AIR and START UP. Pure magic according to humber.

 

[windgrins]

Late!

That is why I recently asked which repetition of the announcement cycle this is already. I know that he announced to contact NALSA "tomorrow", months ago on TR. It took him weeks to realize that nobody is taking him seriously, and back out ("NALSA is not important"). Now he came to another forum to play the same pathetic show again.

Dam'n! I'm always consistently late with my jokes. I must have responded to the 15th repetition of this idea!

WindGrins

 

[humber]

Actually he has already posted many times that NALSA understand nothing about physics and that they are now crooks in a conspiracy to keep a falsehood alive. He does this as you surmise to preempt the possibility of being wrong about a concrete prediction like "NALSA will retract the record by Jul 15th". After they laugh at his objections he will say "I told you they were idiots".

He made so many predictions in the first year or two which turned out to be demonstrably and laughably wrong that he has now stopped. In fact he predicted many many times that the NALSA trials would never take place. When they did he predicted the record would never be ratified, etc, etc.

Only the dullest of wits would offer a wager where a negative outcome gains the money.
But, I will gladly take yours over the TM. You make the same offer as E Hocking, and I will take your money. Escrow of $1000, video within one week of that, payment of your $100K to me within 48hours. How's that?

 

[humber]

Dam'n! I'm always consistently late with my jokes. I must have responded to the 15th repetition of this idea!

WindGrins

All lies as the noose closes. I have never contacted NALSA.
Unlike Spork, I have never contacted any authority, professor or whatever, for support.
I don't need it.

 

[Dave_46]

Air molecules move between 500m/s and 700m/s. Not much chance of a prop avoiding them. I wonder why all text books talk of laminar flow and viscosity, but not of tethered ice-carts?

You are joking, aren't you?

I just checked the Beaufort scale on Wikipedia, and your lower figure is about 15 times the speed of a hurricane (32.7 m/s).

Tell me you are joking.

Dave

 

[humber]

I think I said he's fractally wrong. Can't remember. In any event, that simply seemed like an accurate description. But just like the downwind cart, it seems I've stolen the concept from every possible person before me.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fractally wrong

I also suspect the concept can't work and I'm doing it all wrong. Worse yet, there is no textbook support for the concept of fractally wrong - so it will fall over - cannot stand, etc.

You did. More than a coincidence that your interest in bike steering is also the topic of papers by Prof Ruina. The same Ruina who originated the two-ice cart and relative motion arguments in 1980.
Nothing will save your "record", Spork.

 

[humber]

You are joking, aren't you?

I just checked the Beaufort scale on Wikipedia, and your lower figure is about 15 times the speed of a hurricane (32.7 m/s).

Tell me you are joking.

Dave

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03448.htm

And several hundred more general knowledge references.
How do you think sound travels so fast?

 

[windgrins]

Molecular speed-not wind speed

You are joking, aren't you?

I just checked the Beaufort scale on Wikipedia, and your lower figure is about 15 times the speed of a hurricane (32.7 m/s).

Tell me you are joking.

Dave

Dave,

Wikipedia lists the speed of an average O2 molecule at 27C at about 5000 m/sec.

This is not to be confused with windspeed. They are lively little critters!

WindGrins

 

[humber]

Dave,

Wikipedia lists the speed of an average O2 molecule at 27C at about 5000 m/sec.

This is not to be confused with windspeed. They are lively little critters!

WindGrins

And each carries momentum mv = molecular mass*500m/s. Do not disturb.

 

[Dave_46]

Dave,

Wikipedia lists the speed of an average O2 molecule at 27C at about 5000 m/sec.

This is not to be confused with windspeed. They are lively little critters!

WindGrins

Is he talking about Brownian motion?

What the hell has the random motion of individual molecules got to do with the action of a mass of air?

Dave

ETA Sorry, in retrospect this looks as if I was being snarky to windgrins. Any snark was not directed at him.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I added this edit after jduffy77 had quoted the post)

 

[jduffy77]

Only the dullest of wits would offer a wager where a negative outcome gains the money.
But, I will gladly take yours over the TM. You make the same offer as E Hocking, and I will take your money. Escrow of $1000, video within one week of that, payment of your $100K to me within 48hours. How's that?

It would be the best news I've had since I read your first post if I believed for a second we could get through the contract stage. I will take you at your word for the time being. I hope you are not lying again. We need to agree on terms and the escrow agent.

I was planning to start with tober's list of criteria which you said was no problem but I am willing to look at Ehocking's, could you post a link? I cannot find it. Hopefully we can agree on a terms outline fairly quickly.

As far as the actual bet I posted 4 or 5 possible methods a while ago, which are you thinking about? Longbets would be great for some bets on the cart but nothing less than 2 years and it is for charity. We could try one of the market sites like Intrade but again I am not sure that would fit this particular bet very well. We can try to get a known book to list it for a fee. Probably the easiest for this particular bet is to try and agree on a mutually acceptable escrow agent. I think that this will have to be a law firm as you think everyone is in on the conspiracy against you. Even if it was an individual who was the final arbiter we will need a law firm anyway. We could split fees down the middle up front. Let me know which direction you are leaning towards and if you want to contact law firms or you want me to.

ETA: If we could agree on terms on a long bet about the cart I would put up your side of the bet as well as my own on LongBets.org, although you would have to give up your closely guarded anonymity. I have never been sure on why you wish to remain anonymous though. It seems to me you would want to go down in history as the great debunker of the PM cart conspiracy.

 

[jduffy77]

Is he talking about Brownian motion?

What the hell has the random motion of individual molecules got to do with the action of a mass of air?

Dave

Nothing at all.

 

[windgrins]

That's our Humber!

Nothing at all.

That's right, for the purpose of this-not much!

It's like worrying about the Gnats while a freight train runs you over!

PS, Dave_46, No worry's. I interpreted it as you intended!


Windgrins

 

[A.T.]

Is humber talking about X? What the hell has X got to do with DDWFTTW?

Here the general version for reuse. You will need it. Humber knows a lot of X, understands none of them and will keep throwing them around in desperation.

 

[humber]

Nothing at all.

I will need you answer on the TM.
Do you accept the wager or not?

 

[humber]

If we could agree on terms on a long bet about the cart I would put up your ide of the bet as well as my own on LongBets.org, although you would have to give up your closely guarded anonymity. I have never been sure on why you wish to remain anonymous though. It seems to me you would want to go down in history as the great debunker of the PM cart conspiracy.

The video will be witnessed by chartered engineers who have already agreed to take part. They will guarantee that all rules are met. They will post the video. No longbets.com commercial agents or internet involvement. Your escrow to be paid in accordance with your earlier offer.
Agree?

 

[jduffy77]

The video will be witnessed by chartered engineers who have already agreed to take part. They will guarantee that all rules are met. They will post the video. No longbets.com commercial agents or internet involvement. Your escrow to be paid in accordance with your earlier offer.
Agree?

Humber, I ask this in all earnestness. Please don't think I am mocking you. Are you insane?

 

[humber]

Humber, I ask this in all earnestness. Please don't think I am mocking you. Are you insane?

See my remarks over at TR.

 

[humber]

Is he talking about Brownian motion?

What the hell has the random motion of individual molecules got to do with the action of a mass of air?

Dave

ETA Sorry, in retrospect this looks as if I was being snarky to windgrins. Any snark was not directed at him.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I added this edit after jduffy77 had quoted the post)

The speed of the molecules is simply a fact. The wind speed is a drift in that random motion, and can be referred to the cart speed as normal. Drag and KE loss can be calculated if the molecular speed is known or not.
I used the 500m/s as a surrogate value for 0m/s wind, so that u was not zero.
The plate is in motion relative to the wind or still air, and will lose KE to the air as I have claimed. The cart above WS will do the same. The loss may be less than posted, because I did not include scattering effects, but will be a loss not matter what.
X is simply the distance the plate moves in the finite time, t, necessary for the air to decelerate against the plate or in this case, the prop.
It is the basis of the standard drag formula, first proposed by Newton and later refined by Rayleigh, who used empirical data to determine the drag coefficient Cd. In Newton's time the existence of molecules was not known, but now they are, and so are the masses and density of the gases which comprise the air.