DDWFTTW - Tests.

[Dan O.]

The “block” thing is of no further interest to me. There are other things I may test and may start constructing a cart for outside wind testing. Or I may do something completely different with my time.

That's unfortunate because designing of flying blocks is something that may be marketable unlike the curiosity of the downwind cart.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Ynot:

At least what I’ve done has been fairly original.

-
Spork:

Really!? By reproducing the tests the Bauer did many years ago? He put his cart on a turntable long before you copied him.

-
Yeah, in the context of his post that one killed me it was so ironic. And in Ynot's case he hasn't even given credit but rather claims it as "fairly original" work.

ROFLAO

JB

 

[ynot]

Ynot:

-
Spork:

-
Yeah, in the context of his post that one killed me it was so ironic. And in Ynot's case he hasn't even given credit but rather claims it as "fairly original" work.

ROFLAO

JB

I knew nothing about the Bauer turntable tests before making my turntable. Of course you will claim that this is just another lie, but you are happy to accept Spork’s “I did come up with the idea. I then learned I was not the first to have come up with it” claim without question or criticism. Other than what has been mentioned about Bauer on this forum I know nothing about Bauer and what he did. Did he design a single wheel cart with a ridged tether that was powered by cable drive? Or did I copy all those things from someone else as well? Before you say all those things have existed in the past give an example of any invention that is totally original.

Still waiting for your answer to question A. Let me give you a hint - The answer is - “You can’t conduct a spot the flaw test by revealing the flaw up front”. That’s the obvious fact of the matter that you have been so reluctant to answer. Your accusations that I was lying are therefore based purely on your own opinion and are made without a single fact to support them.

In other words, just petty unsubstantiated personal attacks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just introduced this subject to my brother. He is a real life honest to goodness rocket scientist. He had an almost visceral reaction against it and refused to debate an "internet hoax" with me. Of course there were the usual claims of "perpetual motion" etc. I know how he feels since I was there once too.

 

[ynot]

I just introduced this subject to my brother. He is a real life honest to goodness rocket scientist. He had an almost visceral reaction against it and refused to debate an "internet hoax" with me. Of course there were the usual claims of "perpetual motion" etc. I know how he feels since I was there once too.

Can you at least get him to look at the video evidence and comment on that?

I think the only way to put this thing to bed once and for all is to build a cart and conduct conclusives outdoor tests in "real" wind. The only thing I lack to do this for my ten speed bike design is a large enough prop (and time).

 

[CNY_Dave]

I just introduced this subject to my brother. He is a real life honest to goodness rocket scientist. He had an almost visceral reaction against it and refused to debate an "internet hoax" with me. Of course there were the usual claims of "perpetual motion" etc. I know how he feels since I was there once too.

Until you can mentally model it (with the cart at windspeed) with the prop as a sail that's moving backwards rel. to the cart, it's tough to see how energy could be added into the system.

That is, that there is indeed part of the cart that moves 'below windspeed'.

As soon as you see how energy can be added to the system, it becomes a matter of feasibility (which at this point has been well demonstrated).

Relative to ynot's comment on showing him the videos, I've found they do little to help convince someone who doesn't believe its possible.


Dave

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to let him stew in his own juices for a couple of days over this. I started to argue frame of reference equivalences between the treadmill and a wind on the road and he did not even want to argue that, he realized instinctively that if he conceded that then he would have to concede DWFTTW. At least he wasn't as bad as humber. His college age sons were there also and one seems to be a bit taken by it.

 

[John Freestone]

Can you at least get him to look at the video evidence and comment on that?

I think the only way to put this thing to bed once and for all is to build a cart and conduct conclusives outdoor tests in "real" wind. The only thing I lack to do this for my ten speed bike design is a large enough prop (and time).

I don't see it like that. What 'puts it to bed' for one person won't for another. For some the most clear proof comes as a maths formula, if they have sufficient knowledge of mechanics and aero. I guess when you say that, and talk about doing 'conclusive tests' you mean for the general public or something. You don't have doubts concerning the validity of inertial frames of reference, do you? You don't think your cart that can on a TT can't on the road outside in a 'real wind', surely?

 

[ynot]

I don't see it like that. What 'puts it to bed' for one person won't for another. For some the most clear proof comes as a maths formula, if they have sufficient knowledge of mechanics and aero. I guess when you say that, and talk about doing 'conclusive tests' you mean for the general public or something. You don't have doubts concerning the validity of inertial frames of reference, do you? You don't think your cart that can on a TT can't on the road outside in a 'real wind', surely?

Before my turntable tests I thought the odds were that it would be proven wrong. Before conducting outside tests I would now think that the odds are that it would be proven correct. (I‘m only talking about me). The trouble with equivalence tests is even although they might represent the real thing with 100% accuracy, they just aren’t the real thing. If a cart was travelling downwind and obviously beating bubbles floating in the wind then to most people it would be conclusive proof that the cart was travelling downwind faster than the wind as long as it could be shown that no cheating was taking place. You will never be able to convince some people with any amount of credible proof but those people aren’t of any importance to me. In fact proving or disproving it to other people isn’t that important to me.

 

[spork]

I knew nothing about the Bauer turntable tests before making my turntable.

Two problems with that theory. First of all, we discussed Bauer's turntable in the very thread you were participating in BEFORE you did your tests. It doesn't exactly take much research to be aware of it when you read it right here.

Secondly - whether you were aware of it or not doesn't seem to mean anything to you. You try to denigrate me for "copying" someone elses work when I (A) never claimed is as original, and (B) did arrive at it independently. You then claim that what you did WAS original. How very pathetic!

Of course you will claim that this is just another lie

Easy enough to do when we can show that you were discussing this in the very thread where we describe his turntable experiments!

... but you are happy to accept Spork’s “I did come up with the idea. I then learned I was not the first to have come up with it” claim without question or criticism.

JB was there to see it unfold. He also knows me plenty well that he would never question such a silly thing. And frankly I don't care if YOU question it.

Before you say all those things have existed in the past give an example of any invention that is totally original.

I can list 25 that I hold patents for.

Still waiting for your answer to question A. Let me give you a hint - The answer is - “You can’t conduct a spot the flaw test by revealing the flaw up front”.

This is maybe the most pathetic thing you keep spewing. Quite the contrary. You can't conduct a "spot the flaw" test if you don't tell people to "spot the flaw". What we call that is simply lying. If in fact you were conducting a "spot the flaw" test of course you wouldn't tell people what the flaw was, but you'd tell them to find it. Instead you continued to evade the question after several people had in fact spotted the flaw. You hoped it would go away. When the truth about your misrepresentation just wouldn't die, you decided to re-brand your lie as a "spot the flaw" test!

Pathetic.

 

[spork]

I just introduced this subject to my brother. He is a real life honest to goodness rocket scientist. He had an almost visceral reaction against it and refused to debate an "internet hoax" with me.

Just for the record, many (most?) of us "real life rocket scientists" don't insist this is an internet hoax and refuse to discuss it.

The trouble with equivalence tests is even although they might represent the real thing with 100% accuracy, they just aren’t the real thing.

How sad for you! You honestly don't understand what "the real thing" is.


Incidentally, you keep promising that you're done responding to insults, but you just keep insulting us. What's it going to take to get you to hold to your word?

 

[ynot]

Two problems with that theory. First of all, we discussed Bauer's turntable in the very thread you were participating in BEFORE you did your tests. It doesn't exactly take much research to be aware of it when you read it right here.

Secondly - whether you were aware of it or not doesn't seem to mean anything to you. You try to denigrate me for "copying" someone elses work when I (A) never claimed is as original, and (B) did arrive at it independently. You then claim that what you did WAS original. How very pathetic!



Easy enough to do when we can show that you were discussing this in the very thread where we describe his turntable experiments!



JB was there to see it unfold. He also knows me plenty well that he would never question such a silly thing. And frankly I don't care if YOU question it.



I can list 25 that I hold patents for.



This is maybe the most pathetic thing you keep spewing. Quite the contrary. You can't conduct a "spot the flaw" test if you don't tell people to "spot the flaw". What we call that is simply lying. If in fact you were conducting a "spot the flaw" test of course you wouldn't tell people what the flaw was, but you'd tell them to find it. Instead you continued to evade the question after several people had in fact spotted the flaw. You hoped it would go away. When the truth about your misrepresentation just wouldn't die, you decided to re-brand your lie as a "spot the flaw" test!

Pathetic.

Obviously TAD and yourself have been examining this principle much longer than I have. In the process you have been examining works previously done by other people including Bauer. If I knew that Bauer had used a turntable surely you two would have known that as well.

When I first suggested the idea however (Post #105 of the other thread) your first reaction was - “Shoot! I do like that idea” (post1520). TAD’s was - “Ynot, that's a really great idea. Hadn't thought of it.” (post #1509). Obviously neither of you new that Bauer had used a turntable or thought of doing it yourselves. Some other member first mention that Bauer had use a turntable for testing much later in the thread.

This and other attempts to discredit me by a series of lies and false accusations is no better than your attempt of post #94 of this thread . . .

“Personally, I've had my doubts from the start that he ever built a prop cart that advanced on his turntable. The more I read, the more trouble I have buying that story. It's a bit like the Roswell incident in that there's no video or stills showing any such thing. The difference being that with the Roswell incident we at least are given some exceptionally poor stills of a small portion of the "wreckage".

You were forced to quickly apologise when I reposted a photo of the cart I had built and you were conclusively proved wrong.

You continuously insult people on this forum and other forums. I guess it just reflects the type of person you are. I suspect that TAD is a better person but has been affected by “If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas”.

This is your real purpose on this forum and others . . . Spork - “The only practical application it has is to start pissing matches on internet forums. And for that it has no equal.”

This is the last time I will reply to any of your posts. I feel sorry for people that are directly involved with you and can’t get you out of their lives as easily as I can.

 

[spork]

This and other attempts to discredit me by a series of lies and false accusations is no better than your attempt of post #94 of this thread . . .

I know you like to accuse us of lies - but you can't give an example because none exists. The facts are this... you knew Bauer had used a turntable BEFORE you made the claim that your work was original. Not only is that a lie; it's an insulting lie, because clearly we all know better.

You were forced to quickly apologise when I reposted a photo of the cart I had built and you were conclusively proved wrong.

I wasn't "forced" to do anything. I apologized because I was wrong. That's what grown ups do. You really should try it sometime.

You continuously insult people on this forum and other forums. I guess it just reflects the type of person you are.

Yup. I'm the kind of person that doesn't stand for being attacked and lied to. I guess lying and attacking others without basis just reflects the type of person you are.

This is the last time I will reply to any of your posts.

Another lie. How many times have you made this claim!? You can't drop it - despite that fact that you started the attacks and continue to perpetuate the lies. It's all here in black and white, so it really doesn't come down to your word against mine.

Pathetic.

Lets see what Spork & Co have Offered . . .

A: Did they come up with the idea? No. it’s at least 60 years old.
B: Did they design “their” cart. No. they copied someone else’s cart.
C: Is using a treadmill their idea? No. They copied that idea as well.

But they have done very well to give this principle public exposure on several forums and boosting their egos and gaining some limelight in the process. It’s like you guys want something good to put on your CV.

At least what I’ve done has been fairly original.

Quick recap: we were careful to credit everyone in our video and elsewhere. You claim as your original work something that you KNOW not to be original.

Pathetic.

 

[John Freestone]

Before my turntable tests I thought the odds were that it would be proven wrong. Before conducting outside tests I would now think that the odds are that it would be proven correct. (I‘m only talking about me). The trouble with equivalence tests is even although they might represent the real thing with 100% accuracy, they just aren’t the real thing. If a cart was travelling downwind and obviously beating bubbles floating in the wind then to most people it would be conclusive proof that the cart was travelling downwind faster than the wind as long as it could be shown that no cheating was taking place. You will never be able to convince some people with any amount of credible proof but those people aren’t of any importance to me. In fact proving or disproving it to other people isn’t that important to me.

Yes, I see. That makes sense. My question assumed that equivalence was the same as identity, and it's not quite that simple, and I agree with the probabilities view - like I said, it's rather what being a sceptic is about. Someone could at some time in the future show me why all of this was mistaken and DDWFTTW isn't possible after all. It occupies that 0.0something% in my head. I'd have a lot of humber-pie eating to do! I'd go further and say that the equivalence isn't even 100%, so there is some margin of possibility that the differences of scale, limits of moving surfaces, etc. could render it impossible (again, I have to estimate that with reference to more educated heads than mine and pure gut instinct, and it's darn small). So at the end of the day, for me, the cart on a treadmill, once I (re?)-learned the physical principles, trusted the equivalence and trusted the experimenters, was enough. If it can climb a backward-moving treadmill, it'll beat a tailwind. End of. Anyway, I'm just rambling now because I'm a bit bored. I really can't imagine how mental someone has to be to look forward to seeing a bicycle version, but that's how mental I am! Greetings from the proper up-side of the planet, BTW.

 

[ynot]

Given this principle has been around for at least 60 years I wonder why more outdoor “real wind” testing hasn’t been done. I know winds created by natural forces are rarely if ever constant and smooth, but given the results on treadmills and turntables show a significant increases over wind speed, I would have thought that conclusive outdoor results should be relatively easily to achieve. Why hasn’t the testing done by those that have done outdoor testing been conclusive?

 

[CNY_Dave]

Given this principle has been around for at least 60 years I wonder why more outdoor “real wind” testing hasn’t been done. I know winds created by natural forces are rarely if ever constant and smooth, but given the results on treadmills and turntables show a significant increases over wind speed, I would have thought that conclusive outdoor results should be relatively easily to achieve. Why hasn’t the testing done by those that have done outdoor testing been conclusive?

Probably those of the type to be so rigorous are also the type that would tend to be satisfied proving it to themselves, and not really caring to share the results.

Especially since this internet-thing is a relative newcomer compared to how long this has been kicking around.


Speaking of such, has anyone attempted to do this with a boat?


Dave

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given this principle has been around for at least 60 years I wonder why more outdoor “real wind” testing hasn’t been done. I know winds created by natural forces are rarely if ever constant and smooth, but given the results on treadmills and turntables show a significant increases over wind speed, I would have thought that conclusive outdoor results should be relatively easily to achieve. Why hasn’t the testing done by those that have done outdoor testing been conclusive?

Since we are discussing this on the internet the best sort of proof for this medium is one that would be accepted by people learning about it on the internet. I like the idea of a Lawrence Welk type champagne bubbler machine that would make a continuous supply of bubbles. The streamer on the cart is not my favorite since the cart moves some air you could claim that you are having a false positive test before you actually hit wind speed. If you accurately measured the wind speed and accurately measured the cart by radar there would still be naysayers who would claim that the data was faked. It would be pretty difficult for them to argue that the cart passing up a flock of bubbles was not going faster than the wind, unless like humber, you believe that a hot air balloon does not move at wind speed. Physically not as accurate, but as the saying goes seeing is believing. Of course the bubbles could always be claimed to be CGI but that is a stretch.

 

[Michael C]

Speaking of such, has anyone attempted to do this with a boat?

I don't think so. Mark Drela did an analysis of DDWFTTW where he looks at both boats and land vehicles. He concludes that for wheeled vehicles DDWFTTW is achievable "without too much difficulty", but for a boat it "would be quite difficult, but possibly doable
with careful component design and matching." It would be great if somebody takes up the challenge.

 

[ynot]

Probably those of the type to be so rigorous are also the type that would tend to be satisfied proving it to themselves, and not really caring to share the results.

Especially since this internet-thing is a relative newcomer compared to how long this has been kicking around.


Speaking of such, has anyone attempted to do this with a boat?


Dave

I’ve thought of testing in water. You don’t even need a boat. Just a prop in constantly flowing water connected to a wheel or wheels on “dry land” would do the trick.

ETA - Now where can I find a long trough of constantly flowing water?

 

[ynot]

Since we are discussing this on the internet the best sort of proof for this medium is one that would be accepted by people learning about it on the internet. I like the idea of a Lawrence Welk type champagne bubbler machine that would make a continuous supply of bubbles. The streamer on the cart is not my favorite since the cart moves some air you could claim that you are having a false positive test before you actually hit wind speed. If you accurately measured the wind speed and accurately measured the cart by radar there would still be naysayers who would claim that the data was faked. It would be pretty difficult for them to argue that the cart passing up a flock of bubbles was not going faster than the wind, unless like humber, you believe that a hot air balloon does not move at wind speed. Physically not as accurate, but as the saying goes seeing is believing. Of course the bubbles could always be claimed to be CGI but that is a stretch.

Why do I get a strong felling of déjà vu? Or is it just an echo from another forum?

What do you mean by CGI? I only know it as Common Gateway Interface.