Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[jduffy77]

I actually hope that this is not true. There is precious little to be gained by arguing in this forum, but maybe once he is forced to put all of his analysis into a single work it will be coherent enough to be analyzed.

Unfortunately history does not uphold your reasonable expectation. He has fired of "analysis" to some unsuspecting experts in the past. Long story short it will be the same gibberish we have grown accustomed to.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Of course Humber will not divulge any of his theory's on what a "tacking boat set up to take advantage of crosswinds, rather than one that to physically tack a constant wind" might actually look like.

In reality, it would look, and work, precisely the same.

Well, yes, unless he has invented something new like a miraculous, symmetric, invisible, magic sail.

not to mention rigidly mounted parallel with the direction of travel.

Sorry to slow things down here, but you guys lost me a bit.

My understanding is that humber thinks the pylons, and possibly the body shape, provide a surface that can convert a variable wind into "tacking" such that the vehicle can travel near the average of that variable wind at multiples of the wind speed.

Is the invisible and magical language referring to the fact that there is no known way the symmetrical pylons or streamlined body shape could actually do this?

If so, all good. If something else, fill it in for the slow guys.

Also, must be pretty damn efficient to pull that damn propeller along with it while the prop is producing a braking force at the wheels. Impressive!

 

[3point14]

I'm not sure what this means, but if you are comparing your bet to his previous bets, you are so far off the mark you may as well be on Pluto.

That could be tricky. It's a whole new inertial frame.

 

[Llyricist]

Sorry to slow things down here, but you guys lost me a bit.

My understanding is that humber thinks the pylons, and possibly the body shape, provide a surface that can convert a variable wind into "tacking" such that the vehicle can travel near the average of that variable wind at multiples of the wind speed.

Is the invisible and magical language referring to the fact that there is no known way the symmetrical pylons or streamlined body shape could actually do this?

exactly.

If so, all good.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Unfortunately history does not uphold your reasonable expectation. He has fired of "analysis" to some unsuspecting experts in the past. Long story short it will be the same gibberish we have grown accustomed to.

Prior performance is no guarantee of future performance, but yeah, I see how one might be ready to throw it out rather quickly.

 

[humber]

Fair enough, but add massive conspiracy to your list since at this point there have been a pretty large number of independent eye witnesses, Jenkins being my favorite. He was a doubter and an undisputed expert in what is possible with traditional sail craft.

And Duffy moves on from magic to conspiracy, in manner that would embarrass a creationist. How many witnesses were "independent"?
All from TAD, Joby and Volvo racing and other sundry zealots.

Jenkins' response is odd. He was in the past, totally dismissive, yet, he bothers to fly out ( at his own expense, I am told) to attend the trial. Why would one do that?
What he sees, is an affront to his current understanding of wind vehicles, but is apparently not at all curious to find out what may be at work, so that he may learn from the experience he paid for.
He conducts not specific tests to isolate what may be the root mechanism. In the video, the camera pans to show the vane, and still does not object when the vane shows a true headwind. A very willing and incurious "skeptic".

I'm just sad that the NWO has stooped to such nonsense. I thought they had better things to do. Has anyone called Jesse Ventura? He will be disappoint.

The NWO are offended by the comparison.

Quote:
As well as independent TM videos.

Like I Ratant's and Platt's. I know how you all think. There is not one woo/crank technique which I don't know of, but many that you don't know of.

 

[Llyricist]

The bit I added about being parallel with the direction of travel is important because those symmetrical foils could still produce lift and drag, but would have to be at an angle to the direction of travel to produce any forward component of those forces.

 

[Llyricist]

What he sees, is an affront to his current understanding of wind vehicles, but is apparently not at all curious to find out what may be at work, so that he may learn from the experience he paid for.
He conducts not specific tests to isolate what may be the root mechanism. In the video, the camera pans to show the vane, and still does not object when the vane shows a true headwind. A very willing and incurious "skeptic".

You are assuming he had the same lack of comprehension of how it works as you do. Which is quite insulting actually.

 

[humber]

I'm just sad that the NWO has stooped to such nonsense. I thought they had better things to do. Has anyone called Jesse Ventura? He will be disappoint.



No, the TM has been "destroyed" - I hope you aren't out a deposit. Besides, TMs are so 1980, get yourself a nice elliptical next time.

You are assuming he had the same lack of comprehension of how it works as you do. Which is quite insulting actually.

But your are suggesting that he is willing to ignore evidence that suggests the cart is in no way ddw. As for insult, you openly mock Platt and others, and second-guess Professors Allain, Camp et al, while showing total ignorance of fundamental ideas such as RMS, and speak for NIST on your own cognizance. And you are qualified to do that in what way?
You nor Spork, will be able to defend the cart against the overwhelming evidence against it.

 

[Llyricist]

But your are suggesting that he is willing to ignore evidence that suggests the cart is in no way ddw. As for insult, you openly mock Platt and others, and second-guess Professors Allain, Camp et al, while showing total ignorance of fundamental ideas such as RMS, and speak for NIST on your own cognizance. And you are qualified to do that in what way?

In the way that I understand the principles involved.

 

[Llyricist]

But your are suggesting that he is willing to ignore evidence that suggests the cart is in no way ddw.

You are suggesting that he is willing to ignore evidence that the cart was doing something he knew Greenbird couldn't.

 

[humber]

Of course Humber will not divulge any of his theory's on what a "tacking boat set up to take advantage of crosswinds, rather than one that to physically tack a constant wind" might actually look like.

Surprises are not surprises, if you know of them.

Well, yes, unless he has invented something new like a miraculous, symmetric, invisible, magic sail.

Get out the Tarot cards. Here be witches and goblins.

My understanding is that...

My limited understanding is...

Is the invisible and magical language referring to the fact that there is no known way the symmetrical pylons or streamlined body shape could actually do this

"while accepting that the cart is unconventional, I resort to convention in defense"

He has fired of "analysis" to some unsuspecting experts in the past.

A total fabrication.

Spork see, Duffy do.

Going to need a translation on this one. Anyone speak Humberese?

Spork did not find you, you found Spork.

Prior performance is no guarantee of future performance, but yeah, I see how one might be ready to throw it out rather quickly.

"Prior behavior is the best indicator of future behavior" and you have met that aphorism in manner that exceeds its potential.

 

[jduffy77]

Jenkins' response is odd. He was in the past, totally dismissive, yet, he bothers to fly out ( at his own expense, I am told) to attend the trial. Why would one do that?

To educate himself. I know that the concept is foreign to you, but it is what many of us do when we realize our understanding may in fact be limited by lack of knowledge. Many people are uncomfortable when they realize that due to spouting opinions from a position of ignorance they have become a laughingstock.

 

[69dodge]

The reverse torque means that it will not accelerate as quickly as a simple cart with an equivalent propeller fixed in place, but the pitch of the turning propeller means that it presents a constantly retreating surface to the air in contact with the back of the blades. That means that it continues to accelerate (slowly) past windspeed, since the local condition at the blade surface effectively means that it has not yet reached windspeed.

Don't you mean advancing?

 

[jduffy77]

But your are suggesting that he is willing to ignore evidence that suggests the cart is in no way ddw. As for insult, you openly mock Platt and others,

This might be a good time for someone to post a link to Platt's ridiculous cart. It is truly the silliest, most embarrassing thing I have ever seen passed off as science. That includes a 2nd grade science fair I recently attended. That he claimed ownership of that abortion never ceases to amaze me.

 

[CORed]

I actually hope that this is not true. There is precious little to be gained by arguing in this forum, but maybe once he is forced to put all of his analysis into a single work it will be coherent enough to be analyzed.

I think "piffleing" his report would be the worst case scenario. Posting it for critique would be the best.

Yes, but humber has repeatedly said, "You're not going to see it.", so I suspect he's going to send it to NALSA, or some scientist he sees as an authority, then say <"authority> says I'm right." He will say this even if the authority says, "you're right about D, but A, B, C, E, F, G and H are absurdly wrong, and the NALSA trial is solid evidence that the cart works as advertised."

He will not post his "analysis" publicly, because he knows the "carteers" will trash it.

 

[CORed]

This might be a good time for someone to post a link to Platt's ridiculous cart. It is truly the silliest, most embarrassing thing I have ever seen passed off as science. That includes a 2nd grade science fair I recently attended. That he claimed ownership of that abortion never ceases to amaze me.

How anybody can look at that ridiculous excuse for a propeller, and cite that idiot as an authority is beyond me.

 

[69dodge]

Great question! Is the propeller thrust greater than the reverse torque produced by the tendency of the propeller to be turbined by the wind?

Thanks.

I thought so too.

I don't see how there can be any meaningful thrust below wind speed. If you saw the "popcorn video" that I Ratant posted, you saw that when the popcorn was released it blew past the struggling propeller cart very quickly! The wind was blowing through the propeller from back to front! It is possible some popcorn blew right through the propeller although I don't claim to be able to see that in the video. I have to admit I found that particular video both very funnny and very damaging to the claim of DDWFTTW. How much thrust can the propeller be producing with a tailwind blowing right through it?

I haven't seen I Ratant's video.

But, why can't a propeller produce thrust with a tailwind blowing through it?

Suppose the wind is blowing at 15 mph, but because the propeller is trying to blow air backwards, air moves through it at only 10 mph. I figure that the propeller will produce just as much thrust as if it were in stationary air, blowing air backwards through itself at 5 mph. No?

 

[Llyricist]

Great question! Is the propeller thrust greater than the reverse torque produced by the tendency of the propeller to be turbined by the wind?

Thanks.

I thought so too.

The only time there is an opposing torque due to the propeller wanting to turbine is below windspeed, and it is strongest at the start up. There is no propeller thrust at start up, so the question is ill formed.

What happens at start up, is the air is pushing forward on the cart and the propeller blades, this forward force induces a torque on the propeller wanting to turbine, but it also produces an opposing torque at the wheels. The gearing, pitch of the prop, and size of the wheels is such that the torque from the wheels is higher than the torque from the propeller at the prop shaft. So it moves forward, and turns the propeller, as a propeller.

As it accelerates, the propeller starts producing thrust slightly faster than the bluff drag force of the wind drops off, and while that bluff drag force drops off, so does the opposing torque from the prop wanting to turbine.

By the time it reaches wind speed, the only opposing force to the torque from the wheels is pure drag on the propeller blades, which is considerable, but has nothing to do with the prop wanting to turbine.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yes, but humber has repeatedly said, "You're not going to see it.", so I suspect he's going to send it to NALSA, or some scientist he sees as an authority, then say <"authority> says I'm right." He will say this even if the authority says, "you're right about D, but A, B, C, E, F, G and H are absurdly wrong, and the NALSA trial is solid evidence that the cart works as advertised."

He will not post his "analysis" publicly, because he knows the "carteers" will trash it.

I assumed NALSA would post it either upon receipt or upon analysis. Is there some reason they wouldn't?