Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

[Dr. Keith]

He's obfuscating rather than failing to understand reference frames?

He understands them enough to know that if he lets you use the most intuitive frame he will have to admit that in that frame the ground has energy, which would ruin his argument so he is trying to move you to another frame that is less intuitive.

It is a form of circular argument.

 

[Llyricist]

He's obfuscating rather than failing to understand reference frames?

considering his statement pretty much boils down to "I prefer to use the ground frame because then you can't claim to get energy from the ground"

Yep.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Isn't it easy to make empty statements that don't say anything at all? How about showing where my understanding is at fault, rather than just claiming it is? You see even the carteers are denying ground power and using the cart's own kinetic energy, but they are unable to show how the wind that is moving slower than the cart, and has considerably less kinetic energy than the cart, is able to contribute to the cart's kinetic energy. If you understand things so well, then why don't you explain it to all of us?

While you are at it, explain how the cart on the treadmill, running without the inertia from the tread, is the same as a cart on a road.

It should be a simple matter for you, since you understand it all so well!

It has been explained a hundred times in this thread alone. It is simple. In fact it is elegantly simple. I can only think of one thing simpler.

 

[profpangloss]

Actually, if you're doing the analysis in the "ground's frame", it is force X distance over the ground.

Yes, actually it is 1,440 Watts, as I stated.

What he is doing is mixing up energy required to do the work with energy balance. These are two separate issues.

In the first case I have 920 J/s KE loss of the air, plus 483 J/s of effective power spinning the perfect prop = 156 N X 9 m/s

In the second case I have an energy transfer of 920 J/s from air to cart system, with cart system losing 818 J/s in heat, friction and aerodynamic turbulence, and gaining 102 J/s in KE.

I'm not mixing up anything, but you are imagining things like a perfect propelller and 100% efficient energy transfer from the wind to the cart. But it does not matter, as my calculation has shown even if ALL of the energy was transferred from slowing down 72 kg air mass by 2.2 m/s, the energy will not be enough to prevent the cart from slowing down.

Most importantly, without using the cart's kinetic energy, you cannot show how the wind can provide the energy to the prop to do the work to get the energy from the wind! Because that is a pmm.

 

[A.T.]

Of course, everything happens simultaneously, so the cart's kinetic energy doesn't ever actually decrease,

That is the part that some people cannot understand: the simultaneity. They can only think in discreet sequential steps, that form a linear cause effect chain. Humber and PPG are not the only ones with that problem, but unlike with those two hopeless trolls, other people can understand it better if you make the propulsion sequential, by using intermediate energy storage in the cart:

1) Cart is rolling without propulsion and wheels freewheeling
2) Generator is hooked up, wheels slow the cart, take its kinetic energy and store it.
3) The wheels start freewheeling again
4) Stored energy is used to slowdown the air relative to the ground and take the air's kinetic energy for propulsion, which accelerates the cart again.

 

[3point14]

Isn't it easy to make empty statements that don't say anything at all? How about showing where my understanding is at fault, rather than just claiming it is? You see even the carteers are denying ground power and using the cart's own kinetic energy, but they are unable to show how the wind that is moving slower than the cart, and has considerably less kinetic energy than the cart, is able to contribute to the cart's kinetic energy. If you understand things so well, then why don't you explain it to all of us?

While you are at it, explain how the cart on the treadmill, running without the inertia from the tread, is the same as a cart on a road.

It should be a simple matter for you, since you understand it all so well!

Crikey no, why should I waste my time explaining that which has been explained again and again by those far more eloquent than I and which you have repeatedly refused to attempt to comprehend.

I tell you what, I'll explain it to you if you go through the series of yes/no questions that was offered up to you about six pages ago and which you chose to ignore as you knew it would shatter your argument. How's that?

 

[profpangloss]

It has been explained a hundred times in this thread alone. It is simple. In fact it is elegantly simple. I can only think of one thing simpler.

Then it should be a simple matter to explain it one more time, because it seems now there are some of you saying one thing while some are saying something else. Why not clarify it nice and simple?

 

[humber]

It has been explained a hundred times in this thread alone. It is simple. In fact it is elegantly simple. I can only think of one thing simpler.

I gave the same jumping example for the carrier experiment, and Spork's TM is about as elegant as a hippo in a tutu. Your use of "elegant" is self-polishing hyperbole.. My propless cart can tow a prop cart, and faster than it is on its own. It will be funny to see Spork explain that.

 

[profpangloss]

Crikey no, why should I waste my time explaining that which has been explained again and again by those far more eloquent than I and which you have repeatedly refused to attempt to comprehend.

I tell you what, I'll explain it to you if you go through the series of yes/no questions that was offered up to you about six pages ago and which you chose to ignore as you knew it would shatter your argument. How's that?

So you can't explain it either? That's what I thought! I don't think it was ever explained! Everytime someone asks, the answer is, we already explained that a hundred times! Typical crank answer. And no, I will not go through any series of yes/no but I will be happy to hear your explanation of why you think the treadmill is an instance of ddwfttw, so I can disprove it for you.

 

[profpangloss]

That is the part that some people cannot understand: the simultaneity. They can only think in discreet sequential steps, that form a linear cause effect chain. Humber and PPG are not the only ones with that problem, but unlike with those two hopeless trolls, other people can understand it better if you make the propulsion sequential, by using intermediate energy storage in the cart:

1) Cart is rolling without propulsion and wheels freewheeling
2) Generator is hooked up, wheels slow the cart, take its kinetic energy and store it.
3) The wheels start freewheeling again
4) Stored energy is used to slowdown the air relative to the ground and take the air's kinetic energy for propulsion, which accelerates the cart again.

What a pipedream!

 

[humber]

When humber gets really frustrated, he resorts to posting irrelevant gibberish.

Frustrated? The NALSA data was even easier than I thought. I have no need to fault their data at all, but use it directly.
A meta analysis of all the trials says that walking is considerably faster.

 

[CORed]

It has been explained a hundred times in this thread alone. It is simple. In fact it is elegantly simple. I can only think of one thing simpler.

I can think of two things, or should I say, two people that are simpler.

 

[profpangloss]

I gave the same jumping example for the carrier experiment, and Spork's TM is about as elegant as a hippo in a tutu. Your use of "elegant" is self-polishing hyperbole.. My propless cart can tow a prop cart, and faster than it is on its own. It will be funny to see Spork explain that.

Yes. You cannot escape the inertia and momentum the earth gives to everything on its surface, but you can avoid the inertia and momentum of the treadmill by simply avoiding moving with it! Goodbye forever, claim of equivalency. Dead and buried without ceremony.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I gave the same jumping example for the carrier experiment,

You mean when everyone laughed at you for not understanding the basic physics of momentum? That time, or some other time?

Please elaborate. You haven't been as fun lately.

My propless cart can tow a prop cart, and faster than it is on its own. It will be funny to see Spork explain that.

No it won't because you are lying and you don't have a cart. See above where I pointed this out to you. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Again: you don't have a cart. Never have, never will.

 

[Llyricist]

Yes, actually it is 1,440 Watts, as I stated.

No, it was 1404 Watts, as I stated. My situation, my numbers.

I'm not mixing up anything, but you are imagining things like a perfect propelller and 100% efficient energy transfer from the wind to the cart.

I am not imagining anything, I am acknowledging that the formula being used to calculate the air mass and delta v is based on 100% energy transfer, and accounting for aerodynamic losses elsewhere.

But it does not matter, as my calculation has shown even if ALL of the energy was transferred from slowing down 72 kg air mass by 2.2 m/s, the energy will not be enough to prevent the cart from slowing down.

All your calculations have shown is that you have no clue how to do energy bookkeeping.

Most importantly, without using the cart's kinetic energy, you cannot show how the wind can provide the energy to the prop to do the work to get the energy from the wind! Because that is a pmm.

Nope it's a positive feedback loop with energy input to cover its losses and then some.

 

[profpangloss]

I can think of two things, or should I say, two people that are simpler.

But you can't think of a simple explanation for how the cart is supposed to go ddwfttw can you? Why not give that a try, instead of just throwing around insults?

 

[CORed]

He is worried, and should be. NALSA will not be happy to learn they have been be involved in a scam.

More likely NALSA will not be happy that their time was wasted by an ignorant crank.

 

[profpangloss]

No, it was 1404 Watts, as I stated. My situation, my numbers.

OOH, getting a little testy aren't you?

I am not imagining anything, I am acknowledging that the formula being used to calculate the air mass and delta v is based on 100% energy transfer, and accounting for aerodynamic losses elsewhere..

There can be NO such thing as 100% energy transfer, so you are imagining it. There is also no perfect prop so you are imagining it. In fact, all of ddwfttw is imagined.

All your calculations have shown is that you have no clue how to do energy bookkeeping.

But you can't show me the supposed error can you?

Nope it's a positive feedback loop with energy input to cover its losses and then some.

A positive feedback loop? The cart is moving away from the energy source, that is a negative feedback loop. The treadmill is a positive feedback loop as the cart is moving towards the source of energy, directly into the moving tread. Just one more very importand difference.

 

[humber]

No, it was 1404 Watts, as I stated. My situation, my numbers.


I am not imagining anything, I am acknowledging that the formula being used to calculate the air mass and delta v is based on 100% energy transfer, and accounting for aerodynamic losses elsewhere.


All your calculations have shown is that you have no clue how to do energy bookkeeping.



Nope it's a positive feedback loop with energy input to cover its losses and then some.

The record run shows that pushing from a standstill, exceeds the acceleration of the cart in the wind by a ratio of 4:1. There is no way you can fit the implied 32N into the laughable claim of >800N.m - "the torque of a Corvette", claimed by JB to mask the mechanical failures due to barefoot engineering.

 

[humber]

OOH, getting a little testy aren't you?



There can be NO such thing as 100% energy transfer, so you are imagining it. There is also no perfect prop so you are imagining it. In fact, all of ddwfttw is imagined.



But you can't show me the supposed error can you?



A positive feedback loop? The cart is moving away from the energy source, that is a negative feedback loop. The treadmill is a positive feedback loop as the cart is moving towards the source of energy, directly into the moving tread. Just one more very importand difference.

LLyricist is under Spork's thumb, and has tried to pass of all sorts of nonsense regarding the trial data, but does not have the technical competence he likes to think he has.
He shouted down Yevgheni in the same way he is trying now. Expect to be told that you are "counting twice" etc. That's the next item on his script.