Down wind faster than the wind

[humber]

Christian Klippel
Read what Mark added at the very top of that Blog post yesterday.

I would wait for the analysis before using it as support for my claim. Now why is that so familiar....

Stake your claim now. The treadmill is equivalent to the cart at windspeed, or not?

Obviously here is some sort of confirmation bias at work, just in the opposite direction. Let's call it denial bias. It's really fun to see that we skeptics complain about confirmation bias, and then see a skeptic doing the very same thing just in opposite direction. Add to that the twisting of facts, cherry picking things, etc.

Some skeptics are so because they understand even less, but are equally as certain. I am not in 'your' group.

 

[tsig]

You are so close. Either you have too much friction and the wind just isn't strong enough or you have found the balance point where the forces to move the cart forward and backward are exactly equal. You need only change the propeller pitch or the gearing to make a downwind faster that the wind cart or an upwind crawler.

The gearing is 1:1 as has been stated in previous posts.

 

[sol invictus]

The gearing is 1:1 as has been stated in previous posts.

What happens if you give the cart a bit of a kick or push to help get it moving downwind? Does it just stop? If so, how quickly?

 

[tsig]

What happens if you give the cart a bit of a kick or push to help get it moving downwind? Does it just stop? If so, how quickly?

You should not have to push it. It is supposed to go faster than the wind.

 

[Thabiguy]

You should not have to push it. It is supposed to go faster than the wind.

Can you please just answer the question that you were asked?

 

[tsig]

Can you please just answer the question that you were asked?

Ok If I push the cart it will stop.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I would wait for the analysis before using it as support for my claim. Now why is that so familiar....

Fair enough, lets wait for his analysis.

Stake your claim now. The treadmill is equivalent to the cart at windspeed, or not?

Yes, it is. Why shouldn't it?

When i came across this thing, first i wondered, but after less than half an hour thinking about it, it was quite clear why it can work.

There are many parts involved in this thing that move. Think about the propeller not just about an propeller, but as an airscrew. Do you know what exactly moves relative to what in this cart? It's a bit more than just "the cart". There is this airscrew, that rotates. You have a surface that moves at an angle to the air. It has a surface, which has drag, which helps the cart to start from standstill.

Look at the cart from the side, as we can see in most of the videos. Draw two diagrams, x-axis being distance over time from left to right, y being from ground level at bottom, to the maximum y dimension of the cart at top. Maximum dimension is when the prop's blades are vertical, to the upper blade's top.

Draw a horizontal line (line 1) in each diagram that crosses the center of the prop. Draw another line (line 2) across the center of the driving wheels. Imagine the propellers profile when looking at the cart's side, when the prop blades are horizontal if one would look from behind. It looks like a backslash: \

Now draw a cart in each diagram. The first one to the left. Draw the prop so that you can see that it's bottom of the \ profile profile joust touched line 1. In the second, draw a cart that displaced to the right by the difference of the top and bottom of the \ profile. Draw the prop for that cart so that it's profile is just about to leave line 1.

Now measure the length of line 1 until it hits the prop's surface in both diagrams. It should be the same actually. Measure the the length of line 2 until it hits the middle of the wheel's axis. These are different in length. So, thats the distances to the start position of two points of two different surface at the same car. In this example, the cart's propeller surface is at wind speed relative to the ground, but it's faster at the wheel's center.

By now it should be obvious why it can work. Of course there has to be low friction losses in the gearing from wheel to prop, and the right prop-size and shape is important. It has a maximum speed limit above the wind speed, which is due to these losses in the system as well as the losses at the prop.

Some skeptics are so because they understand even less, but are equally as certain. I am not in 'your' group.

You couldn't really have said it better.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Thabiguy]

Ok If I push the cart it will stop.

It sounds like either the gearing is incorrect, or the friction is too high for the wind velocity you're using.

To better determine which it might be, you can do this: detach the propeller from the wheels and fix it (with a tape, for example) so that it can't rotate at all. Then try it again.

If the cart still doesn't start, or stops when you push it, then your friction is way too high, or your windspeed is way too low. Lower the former and/or increase the latter.

If the cart does move with these changes, at more than half the windspeed, then the problem is more subtle and we'll need more specific information about the cart to see what it might be. Spork and JB will be able to give the best advice, as they have practical experience.

 

[tsig]

Fair enough, lets wait for his analysis.



Yes, it is. Why shouldn't it?

When i came across this thing, first i wondered, but after less than half an hour thinking about it, it was quite clear why it can work.

There are many parts involved in this thing that move. Think about the propeller not just about an propeller, but as an airscrew. Do you know what exactly moves relative to what in this cart? It's a bit more than just "the cart". There is this airscrew, that rotates. You have a surface that moves at an angle to the air. It has a surface, which has drag, which helps the cart to start from standstill.

Look at the cart from the side, as we can see in most of the videos. Draw two diagrams, x-axis being distance over time from left to right, y being from ground level at bottom, to the maximum y dimension of the cart at top. Maximum dimension is when the prop's blades are vertical, to the upper blade's top.

Draw a horizontal line (line 1) in each diagram that crosses the center of the prop. Draw another line (line 2) across the center of the driving wheels. Imagine the propellers profile when looking at the cart's side, when the prop blades are horizontal if one would look from behind. It looks like a backslash: \

Now draw a cart in each diagram. The first one to the left. Draw the prop so that you can see that it's bottom of the \ profile profile joust touched line 1. In the second, draw a cart that displaced to the right by the difference of the top and bottom of the \ profile. Draw the prop for that cart so that it's profile is just about to leave line 1.

Now measure the length of line 1 until it hits the prop's surface in both diagrams. It should be the same actually. Measure the the length of line 2 until it hits the middle of the wheel's axis. These are different in length. So, thats the distances to the start position of two points of two different surface at the same car. In this example, the cart's propeller surface is at wind speed relative to the ground, but it's faster at the wheel's center.

By now it should be obvious why it can work. Of course there has to be low friction losses in the gearing from wheel to prop, and the right prop-size and shape is important. It has a maximum speed limit above the wind speed, which is due to these losses in the system as well as the losses at the prop.



You couldn't really have said it better.

Greetings,

Chris

If you can go faster than the wind then why does the wind matter?

 

[Thabiguy]

If you can go faster than the wind then why does the wind matter?

Because the wind provides the energy for the vehicle to move. If there's no wind, there's no energy source.

The vehicle is designed to move, wrt ground, at up to a certain multiple of windspeed. Its speed therefore depends on the windspeed in a very obvious way.

 

[Christian Klippel]

If you can go faster than the wind then why does the wind matter?

Because the wind is what delivers the energy to move the cart as a whole. The surface of the prop is big enough to get enough energy out of the wind to 1) move the cart and 2) to make the prop rotate due to that motion relative to the ground through the wheels. The energy needs just to be enough for that. Once the prop rotates, a point it's surface is moving at a lower speed than a point on the center of gravity of the cart relative to the wind, so the wind can still push the prop while the cart's body is already at or over windspeed.

What is so hard to understand with that? Or do you refer to the equivalence of outside street with wind, and inside treadmill without wind?

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: As soon as the cart goes beyond windspeed relative to its COG, the drag of the headwind on the chassis and wheels surfaces work against the energy that the prop's moving surface extracts from it's relative tailwind. Since that increases with speed, that is also a factor why the cart can go not infinitely faster than the wind.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Oups, double post.

 

[Christian Klippel]

After thinking a second time, i must say that this one is intriguingly simple once you get around the mistake of only taking two things, cart and wind, into equation. You might think you need to consider three things then: wind, cart and ground. And the pitfall here, as i see it, that in fact you need to consider more items, actually. As i said, the cart is not only "the cart", it consists of different parts that move differently in relation to each other. So, the "cart" part alone consists of the prop and its surface, the body, and the wheels. So, you get five parts to consider, not three. The cart's parts plus wind plus ground.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

Fair enough, lets wait for his analysis.

Yes, it is. Why shouldn't it?

Thanks, but that is what I have been told. I wanted to know if you supported the treadmill idea, so that you will perhaps be ably to directly answer my forthcoming response to this argument.

We are indeed different. You are not what I see as a scientific skeptic. You seem to accept the blogger's opinion on the basis of whether he agrees with you or not.
I read his original piece, and though I find that we are in agreement on many points, he has missed much. It seems to me that he has fallen for the lure, attacked that, then perhaps recanted, but not noticed that the idea is still fundamentally flawed. As we both agree, we should wait and see.

 

[Dan O.]

Consider a segment of the propeller blade as a flat surface at a radius d from the hub and geared to the cart so that the propeller rotates 1 radian when the cart moves forward a distance d. For simplicity, we'll assume no frictional forces, infinite traction between the wheel and the road.

When the blade has 0 slope, the cart will not move because the wind simply passes across the blade without exerting any rotational or lateral force on the blade.

With a small downward slope slope on the blade, wind pushes the blade up causing a CCW rotation which turns the wheel and pushes the cart forward. The lateral force on the blade is also pushing the cart forward. The steady state speed of the cart can be found when the advancement of the cart plus the advancement of the propeller equals the speed of the wind (Vc + Vc * 1/s = Vw) or Vc =Vw * (s/(s+1). As the slope of the propeller gets larger, Vc approaches Vw and at infinite slope (when the propeller is a flat disk, Vc = Vw. If you stopped here with the analysis, you would believe that it was not possible for the cart to move faster than the wind.

When the slope is reversed however (s < 0), the rotation of the prop is pushing the cart backwards against the lateral force of the wind pushing the cart forward. When |s| is small, the cart crawls backwards into the wind. As |s| increases, the speed of the cart increases until s=-1. For reverse slopes greater than 1, Vc is again positive. For instance when s=-2, Vc = Vw * (-2)/((-2)+1) = Vw * 2.

In the real world, friction, wind drag against the cart frame and limited traction of the wheels limit the maximum speed of the cart. But these effects can be minimized so that the cart is able to travel faster than the speed of the wind forward and backwards.

 

[Christian Klippel]

[..not..] a scientific skeptic. You seem to accept the blogger's opinion on the basis of whether he agrees with you or not.

How do you come to this conclusion? And please, what exactly is a "scientific skeptic"?

See, i thought about the problem a little while, and came to a conclusion that it works. I came to that through my knowledge of physics, that i have been taught in school. Moreover, there is added knowledge of experience that i have.

Now, what exactly defines a "scientific skeptic"? Someone who knows something that has been taught as science at some point, doesn't it? What does that person do? Rely on the facts that he has been taught, combined with the results of his own experiments in whatever field of science he is involved, right?

What does that have to do with some bloggers mind? What if said blogger had the same knowledge, wouldn't we come to the same conclusion? Or did that blogger conclude what science predicts?

In any case, i have seen and thought about that device before mark posted a blog entry about it. And i came to the conclusion, based on my knowledge, that this can work. I'm not a scientist, but really, this concept isn't that hard to understand, once you don't get confused about what to recognize in this system.

Do you test the validity of the value given for the speed of light, the amount of gravity for a given mass, the length of a meter, the duration of second, each time you think about something that involves these things? Or do you trust what you have learned, and refer to long know principles, values, etc.?

I find it rather disturbing that someone who claims to hold onto science immediately rejects something that he cant understand in a blink of an eye, like you do. Is that what brought science to what it is nowdays? Do you claim that current science, and the peoples (who have learned it) understanding of it is 100% correct and 100% error free? Or do you rather think that there is still new stuff to explore, that one person can not know everything, and everyone can always learn something new?

Do you think that science would have advanced to what we have nowdays if people (said scientists) think they know it better, had dismissed every new idea without at least checking and testing it?

If science is really about directly rejecting any unconventional thought without checking, then well, i'm wondering why we have science at all and don't still live at the stone age. And what applies to science as a whole, should apply to anyone interested in science. If we don't think about things we don't understand, we will never advance in scientific knowledge. It's that simple.

Of course, simply sitting there and rejecting everything that doesn't fit in ones worldview is much simpler than actually thinking about it, and investing some time and energy into it.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

Let's state this more clearly then: In a frame of reference relative to the ground, if a cart is moving left to right at 1 m/s and the wind is moving left to right at 2 m/s, I ascertain that the free end of the sock will hang to the right of the end of the sock anchored to a mast on the cart. This indicates that the cart is not traveling faster than the wind speed.
If the cart then slows to less than 1 m/s the cart is still not traveling faster than the wind and the sock will continue to hang to the right.
Do you agree?

OK, yes, but you are doing it again, Dan O. Assuming your position to be correct, and then forcing an answer of yes or no.
Not seen a flag blowing randomly in the wind? Under some conditions, the sock will indicate your case, but many not. As the cart accelerates or the decelerates, the sock will respond. It responds to differential pressures. It is not a reliable or unique indicator of > windspeed.
At least a secondary means of verification is required.

Are you certain about this? The momentum of the cart (both linear momentum and angular momentum of it's moving parts) is directly proportional to its velocity over the ground because of the fixed gearing (and invariant mass).

Certain, in this thread? Just because the wheels and propeller are geared, does not mean that the cart must move at the velocity dictated by the wind. It still needs to accelerate to that point. More mass, fixed or otherwise, in fact any additional load, will slow that rate. In this case, it is an additional load that results in stored energy.
The argument is about physics. I say that the cart cannot achieve windspeed because of the drag. The energy consumed in the process is obviously important to that argument and cannot be circumvented by special pleading, or the practical means of measurement. Those are the problems of the test. Timing the cart is easy.

During this period of a lull in the wind while the cart has a momentum and velocity gained by the earlier stronger wind, that the cart is moving faster than the current wind speed as indicated by the wind sock, is it possible for the cart to gain additional momentum and velocity?

Yes. That is, a cart could be constructed to do this, but I cannot say if this particular cart does so. No evidence, no examination.

The propeller does not care about velocity. All that is needed is enough power, enough momentum exchange, to turn it. If that happens, the cart may accelerate from its current velocity. If it turns faster, then it also gains momentum. If the propeller, does not turn, the force is still on the cart. If the wheels slip, then that may well push the cart forward by itself, but now it need not store momentum in the propeller!
There are two modes. Wheels on ground higher force/low velocity and not, high velocity/lower force. The cart can, by a simple mechanism, store energy when there is plenty of power, using the former mode, and then later, when coasting in lighter wind, the latter. Details of the design of the cart, and the small wheels against an uneven surface, are that mechanism. Figuratively, it is like a windsurfer taking advantage of the energy acquired while getting to the top of one wave, to carry him to the next. High peak load, but low duty cycle.

Is this a fraud? I do not know of the builder, but perhaps it is like this.
The road is the builder's local test facility. He tweaks, tests, and tweaks, until the cart begins to match the test environment. The last thing that 'worked' is taken to be golden; "aah, the idea is correct, I just didn't get it quite right". He "knows" when the wind is right. Slowly the cart morphs from a wind machine into a momentum gathering machine, without being re-examined. See treadmill.

 

[humber]

How do you come to this conclusion? And please, what exactly is a "scientific skeptic"?

You did say "You couldn't really have said it better." Should I hold you to that or is there more you would like to say?

See, i thought about the problem a little while, and came to a conclusion that it works. I came to that through my knowledge of physics, that i have been taught in school. Moreover, there is added knowledge of experience that i have.

It is only your assumption that I did less. I thought quite a lot about it, and came to the opposite conclusion.

Now, what exactly defines a "scientific skeptic"? Someone who knows something that has been taught as science at some point, doesn't it? What does that person do? Rely on the facts that he has been taught, combined with the results of his own experiments in whatever field of science he is involved, right?

Education is secondary. It is about the application of the scientific method, especially regarding evidence. Some would have you believe that it is otherwise. It is possible to demonstrate that something is possible, without a hypothesis. Science describes, not dictates.

What does that have to do with some bloggers mind? What if said blogger had the same knowledge, wouldn't we come to the same conclusion? Or did that blogger conclude what science predicts?

Not the blogger's mind; yours. Do you accept his authority or not? Do you post links to unknown authors? He may be wrong, twice.

In any case, i have seen and thought about that device before mark posted a blog entry about it. And i came to the conclusion, based on my knowledge, that this can work. I'm not a scientist, but really, this concept isn't that hard to understand, once you don't get confused about what to recognize in this system.

Mixed review there. "I am not a scientist, (but I am sure)" and "easy to understand" are cause for concern. Fair enough, but that means that the evidence must be very good, because you need to convince those that do have knowledge.

Do you test the validity of the value given for the speed of light, the amount of gravity for a given mass, the length of a meter, the duration of second, each time you think about something that involves these things? Or do you trust what you have learned, and refer to long know principles, values, etc.?

Natural phenomenon are independent of view. The meter is an SI unit, kept in France.
FYI. Einstein certainly questioned the second. Newton did too, but being a deeply religious man, refused to believe that god would be so devious and untidy, so he made time a constant. Who knows what would have happened had he done so. Relativity, centuries sooner?

I find it rather disturbing that someone who claims to hold onto science immediately rejects something that he cant understand in a blink of an eye, like you do. Is that what brought science to what it is nowdays? Do you claim that current science, and the peoples (who have learned it) understanding of it is 100% correct and 100% error free? Or do you rather think that there is still new stuff to explore, that one person can not know everything, and everyone can always learn something new?

Blink of an eye? The timescale may well depend upon such matters as knowledge. Science "does not know everything", so any nonsense may be true? Life is too short for any individual to know everything that is currently known. Get over it.

Do you think that science would have advanced to what we have nowdays if people (said scientists) think they know it better, had dismissed every new idea without at least checking and testing it?

Your conclusion is "it looks like it works to me, so it must be so", but not according to the standards that you would hold me.
You are living in the past, when individuals such as Newton, were the authority. Don't believe anybody that tells you they know everything, or that they don;t need to prove what they say. Only on TV does science work "according to Hoyle".

If science is really about directly rejecting any unconventional thought without checking, then well, i'm wondering why we have science at all and don't still live at the stone age. And what applies to science as a whole, should apply to anyone interested in science. If we don't think about things we don't understand, we will never advance in scientific knowledge. It's that simple.

Please define unconventional thought. Is it that the paper lying is in the bottom drawer that the author thinks is "original", but others a waste of time? Taking eye witness as evidence, is one way to stay in the cave, especially because of the ghosts and gremlins outside. You don't see David Hume as advancing science?

Of course, simply sitting there and rejecting everything that doesn't fit in ones worldview is much simpler than actually thinking about it, and investing some time and energy into it. So, we only need to convince fully-abled people, with access to the appropriate facilities? Too bad for Steven Hawking, then.

Please see my post #1427. This is a reprise of many posts on the treadmill. Perhaps you would be so kind as follow the remainder and tell me why the treadmill is not a force balance as I claim. If you think there is a wind, what happens if you should shield it? Surely that is possible, if they are equivalent.

An aggressive response to your remarks, I admit , but I am tired of hearing the same old story.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Despite the fact that you seem to purposefully twist the meaning of a post, and that you cross-reference stuff where it shouldnt, i'll answer ....

You did say "You couldn't really have said it better." Should I hold you to that or is there more you would like to say?

Thats where you make a strange cross-reference. In post #1667 i said "You couldn't really have said it better.". And i said that in response to you saying "Some skeptics are so because they understand even less, but are equally as certain. I am not in 'your' group."

Maybe you missed the irony, or i should have marked it as such, but the very same applies from my viewpoint towards you.

Furthermore, you placed that as if it would belong to me saying "How do you come to this conclusion? And please, what exactly is a "scientific skeptic"?", which i said in post #1676 in response to you saying "[..not..] a scientific skeptic. You seem to accept the blogger's opinion on the basis of whether he agrees with you or not."

So, what game do you try to play on me here?

It is only your assumption that I did less. I thought quite a lot about it, and came to the opposite conclusion.

But so far you haven given virtually no explanation how you came to that. You never really explained why it cant work, constantly refusing to take care of the things that people have told are important to take care of, in the context of this cart.

So, you leave no other way for a bystander than to think that you haven't thought about it thoroughly. If you complain about normal people to get it wrong, you need to explain why it is wrong in terms that these very people can understand.

Education is secondary. It is about the application of the scientific method, especially regarding evidence. Some would have you believe that it is otherwise. It is possible to demonstrate that something is possible, without a hypothesis. Science describes, not dictates.

So then, again, what is a "scientific skeptic". Someone who sticks to thing that are described to him? Someone who follows the accepted hypothesis? How is that different from what i asked by saying things like "Someone who knows something that has been taught as science at some point, doesn't it?"

Not the blogger's mind; yours. Do you accept his authority or not? Do you post links to unknown authors? He may be wrong, twice.

Exactly, my mind. So again, what does that have with some bloggers mind when you ask "You seem to accept the blogger's opinion on the basis of whether he agrees with you or not."

I could also say "You seem to accept Newtons opinion on the basis of whether he agrees with you or not." about you.

Mixed review there. "I am not a scientist, (but I am sure)" and "easy to understand" are cause for concern. Fair enough, but that means that the evidence must be very good, because you need to convince those that do have knowledge.

So, do you mean to say that i cant state that i am sure gravity pulls on things if, and that it is easy to understand that principle by letting something fall to the ground when i'm not a scientist? You think only "real scientists" are allowed to say that? Would that statement be in dispute by you when i say it?

Natural phenomenon are independent of view. The meter is an SI unit, kept in France.

Yes, and it has changed over time, as i'm sure you know.

FYI. Einstein certainly questioned the second. Newton did too, but being a deeply religious man, refused to believe that god would be so devious and untidy, so he made time a constant. Who knows what would have happened had he done so. Relativity, centuries sooner?

So, you admit that you use seconds in calculations, while the very meaning/duration of a second might be in dispute? And you do so without checking the duration of a second yourself? So, you accept the authority of the people who define the second, meter, etc? If so, who are you to question what authorities i might accept or not?

Blink of an eye? The timescale may well depend upon such matters as knowledge. Science "does not know everything", so any nonsense may be true? Life is too short for any individual to know everything that is currently known. Get over it.

You mean, such nonsense, by its time, that the sun revolves around the earth isn't true? You mean, science always knew that the the earth revolves around the sun? Yes, life is too short for any single individual to know everything. Same applies to you as well, but you might have forgotten that.

Your conclusion is "it looks like it works to me, so it must be so", but not according to the standards that you would hold me.
You are living in the past, when individuals such as Newton, were the authority. Don't believe anybody that tells you they know everything, or that they don;t need to prove what they say. Only on TV does science work "according to Hoyle".

I have no clue what you want to state with this, since it is in response to me saying "Do you think that science would have advanced to what we have nowdays if people (said scientists) think they know it better, had dismissed every new idea without at least checking and testing it?". See my remark about earth/sun above.

You dont try to jump topics or move goalposts here, do you?

Please define unconventional thought.

A thought, as from your viewpoint, that this device works. What you do is to broadly say that it cant work based on what you know. That, indeed, is exactly what i meant with "If we don't think about things we don't understand, we will never advance in scientific knowledge. It's that simple." Simply because you act on a denial-bias, instead of giving it the thought that others did. You simply reject it, not clearly stating why, based on your knowing of whatever. Alternatively, you might try to understand the device as described by others (as to how it works or might work). If you are that bright with science and math and whatever, you should be able to come up with some definite stuff that either confirms or denies that this device can work.

But so far, you only handwaive around what people say, rejecting to include their hints into your assumptions/calculations/whatever. Some might call that "stubborn".

Is it that the paper lying is in the bottom drawer that the author thinks is "original", but others a waste of time? Taking eye witness as evidence, is one way to stay in the cave, especially because of the ghosts and gremlins outside. You don't see David Hume as advancing science?

Uhm, are you actually aware of what you say here, given the context of what i asked? You are basically saying that whenever some scientists test something, and thus is an eyewitness to the outcome of a theory, everyone listening to him is automatically believing in "ghost and gremlins"? You are indeed aware that science has that at its core: Theories are made, they are verified in experiments to either accept or deny what they state, depending on what was witnessed as the outcome fits into the physically observed reality?

You dont really want us to believe that many scientists witnessing the outcome of experiments of theories are actually making us believe in "ghosts and gremlins", do you?

Please see my post #1427. This is a reprise of many posts on the treadmill. Perhaps you would be so kind as follow the remainder and tell me why the treadmill is not a force balance as I claim. If you think there is a wind, what happens if you should shield it? Surely that is possible, if they are equivalent.

Now it gets fun because you answered that to supposedly this quote from mine:

Of course, simply sitting there and rejecting everything that doesn't fit in ones worldview is much simpler than actually thinking about it, and investing some time and energy into it. So, we only need to convince fully-abled people, with access to the appropriate facilities? Too bad for Steven Hawking, then.

Do you add stuff to what i said? And if that is accidentally something that you wanted to state, well, 1 point for you for actually missing the meaning of what i said by a mere 100%. I hope you now see what happens if you take stuff out of context, interpret stuff into it that isn't in there, etc.

Please note that the only part from the above that i actually wrote is only the first sentence.

An aggressive response to your remarks, I admit , but I am tired of hearing the same old story.

No aggressive, just completely missing what was said in that post. You really re-interpret stuff to make it fit the way you want, and if it is only to disagree. You seem to completely avoid to get a grasp on what people try to tell you.

sorry, but i really cant help you anymore. Try better next time. Unless you have something that explains in simple and easy terms why this wont work, while considering the factors that people said are important, you simply failed.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[John Freestone]

The confusion come from that fact that we don't see the cart advancing in Brian's diagram. In fact the the wheel does indeed turn against the conveyor belt in the direction indicated: the whole point is that the cart is moving to the right faster than the conveyor belt. Imagine the cart advancing to the right, "working its way" along the conveyor belt so that it is out-pacing it. <snip>

Nice one Michael, I didn't think of that. I'll sleep on that.