And not one of them has the time stamp information.
I have posted several charts from that data as well, and all of them have the time stamp info.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind
- Thread starter ynot
- Start date
- Status
And not one of them has the time stamp information.
I have posted several charts from that data as well, and all of them have the time stamp info.
I think I figured this out. It isn't the 156 N force that we split between the air and propeller, but rather the 9 m/s speed it's multiplied by.
The speed of the air relative to the ground is 7 m/s. But, after passing through the propeller, the air is slowed by 2.2 m/s. Half of this slowdown happens in front of the propeller and half happens behind it. So, right at the propeller, the air has slowed down by (2.2 m/s) / 2 = 1.1 m/s, and is moving at 7 - 1.1 = 5.9 m/s relative to the ground.
We split the 9 m/s speed of the propeller relative to the ground into the 5.9 m/s speed of the air relative to the ground and the 9 - 5.9 = 3.1 m/s speed of the propeller relative to the air. Multiplying each of these speeds by the force of 156 N gives, respectively, the 920.4 W lost by the air to the cart and the 483.6 W engine power of the propeller, for a total of 1404 W done on the cart.
The 920.4 W makes perfect sense to me: in the ground's reference frame, the power lost by the air to the propeller is the force of the air on the propeller times the speed of the air relative to the ground.
I need to think more about what the significance of the engine power is in the ground's reference frame. It's somewhat confusing, because it's defined in terms of the speed of the propeller relative to the air, not relative to the ground.
The problem, basically, is that while the force of the air on the propeller is the same as the force on the propeller of the air, the speed of the air differs from the speed of the propeller (both relative to the ground). So, somehow, the work done by the air on the propeller differs from the work done on the propeller by the air. (Probably, I'm not saying that right. Because I don't yet understand it properly.) And the difference is the engine power of the propeller, which we get "for free".
Perhaps, instead of "generating thrust", I should have said "generating relative motion between the propeller and the air".
ThinAirDesigns
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
Timestamp information is not needed. Unless all data collected during all days of testing the BB during its entire life is DDWFTTW, then the record is a sham.
As proof of such concept I will submit data showing top fuel dragsters don't really go 300mph: not only do they sit still at times, but they even back up.
JB
Last edited:
The definition of ddw has been set by NALSA the folks who just about everyone believe are the most qualified people in the world to do so.
As far as I am concerned anyone who thinks they know better is by definition a crank, but I have asked the H's to define ddw numerous times and they have of course refused to answer. They have refused because then their game would become obvious. They do not understand the TM equivalence but they make the real world ddw definition such that it cannot exist. What about you? Do you disagree with NALSA's definition? If so do you also refuse to say what yours is?
ETA: In re-reading it looks like you were asking Humber not Lyricist. I assume that means you agree with NALSA's definition. Correct?
Last edited:
Yeah, because they are "failed backsters". They actually want to go backwards but the incompetent designers made the rear drag much greater than the front drag to make them go forward...
Well I guess the people at NHRA have been duped by con men.
The cart breaks, the record doesn't.
.
OOOOK. Now I get it. This is all about honor. I forgot you're a newbie and weren't around when honor came up a couple years ago, way back in the aughts. I always remember Humbersan's proud, defiant words that day.
I assure you carteers he sees ya'll with similar equilibrium to that you afford him Ll. If he didn't I'd say a lot of folks had been owned, including me. But I do see your point about having to put in the extra time searching since Humber wouldn't show his hand first. He has posted several charts based on that data though, yes? And remember, this is a forum for skeptics. Evidence held in abeyance based on worthiness might not be very convincing to such.
Would you consider ynot or I Ratant worthy of asking? Perhaps a list of all the unworthy would be helpfull?
ETA: I noted the dodge to Myriad's question also, Humber, while acknowledging it was somewhat loaded. But I am also confused about the exact points you hope to make wrt the data. Given the pragmatic limitations involved, what degree of variation would you accept for constituting directly downwind?
The timestamps are not necessary, and amateur music, lamentable as it is, will benefit from the time spent looking.
It was only because llyricist did not have the data he has assured the world supports the cart, that he was forced to check that out.
He will find that the bulk of the data is garbage, failed runs, aborted runs and tow backs.
We can tell from the timestamps how you waited for the right wind.
A better comparison is with a dishonest slug.
recursive prophet
Graduate Poster
I was asking Humber. As to NALSA's definition of directly it is merely their arbitrary definition, isn't it? As informed a one as is available, IMHO, but it's somewhat open to reasonable debate I imagine. (Though not here of course.
) However, I believe Humber's point is that the data shows the El Mirage runs didn't meet NALSA's own standard, right? Not saying this is my assessment, but it appears to be Humber's. Time will tell?? 
Why do you think it is open for reasonable debate? I think that is an absurd position. It is definitely absurd to characterize it as arbitrary as it was anything but. The experts who created it did so to absolutely preclude any possibility of taking advantage of tacking forces. They did so by calling on an immense knowledge base of tacking sail craft. To call it arbitrary is ridiculous.
ETA: BTW, to make your "reasonable debate" even more unreasonable and absurd the reason that NALSA wanted to preclude any possibility of taking advantage of any tacking forces was only for any future, as yet unimagined challenging sail craft, not for the BB. They had already completely satisfied themselves that any crosswind would hinder the BB, not help it.
(Though not here of course.
Time will tell what? If it is Humber's opinion that the runs didn't meet NALSA's own standard? Why aren't you saying if it is your assessment? Do you agree with Humber?
Last edited:
I was asking Humber. As to NALSA's definition of directly it is merely their arbitrary definition, isn't it? As informed a one as is available, IMHO, but it's somewhat open to reasonable debate I imagine. (Though not here of course.
The definition was provided by Spork when he first made the claim, and the basis of TM support: "ddw, steady state, wind tunnel conditions"
As you will know RP, Spork's adolescent response to not meeting even one of those criteria, was along the lines of: "we can't be expected to be within .00001 degrees", whereas 40 degrees is closer to the truth.
It was expected that conditions would approach those of a steady direct wind, and any differences could be accounted for by appropriate instrumentation and calculation. The instruments were never supplied, nor ever intended to be.
The rules and the conditions were all determined by Spork and made away from the gaze of critics. No doubt, like Dr Camp, NALSA were subjected to constant petition, until they lost the will to object.
That record will go. It is utterly dishonest.
Last edited:
How will anyone know the record has gone? Will there be any visible manifestation of its departure or will it only be in your mind?
Oscar Wilde made a remark about us all being born in the gutter, but some are looking at the stars. The cart, and the trials, should not be compared to Olympic sports, the NHRA, Corvettes or Chuck Yeager, but what may be found in the pipes below the gutter.
No kidding? holy moly, imagine them waiting for a wind that they might be able to track without running into any big rocks, the cheaters.
ThinAirDesigns
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
ThinAirDesigns
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,058
Time will tell??
Time has already told. We're right, he's wrong and nothing will change.
JB
I wish Humber would give us an example of a record which was achieved using his warped requirements. It is difficult even to think about what he is saying. I guess no record can exist if any attempt is worse than any prior attempt? Another Humberdox. What is a record then? I guess only your best attempt as long as all attempts get progressively better. Any failed attempt I assume means permanent disqualification? Sports cannot exist in the Humberverse.
He knows everyone is laughing at him but no matter how many analogies like the dragster others post Humber stumbles blindly on saying the same silly things.
- Status