Down wind faster than the wind

[Dan O.]

Humber, what kind of word games are you playing? You said you didn't think Goodman's video was faked. Wouldn't a variable speed transmission be cheating the same as towing the cart by another vehicle off screen?

 

[humber]

I see. First you claim i can't comprehend, then you claim i'm about a conspiracy.

So, Goodman's cart then. So what? Spork and JB have built a very same version of that cart, only to later use a refined design. In any case, the principle is the same, and none of them contain gearboxes (besides the very simple gear or belt to connect the prop to the wheels) or flywheels. As has been said many times, the carts are identical when it comes to their operation. And as you can see in the Goodman video, it uses a belt as connection between the prop and the wheels. Do you think that we should consider that they've hidden a gearbox in the belt, or a flywheel?

And yes, Goodman's video shows the cart traveling at a higher speed than the wind, and it accelerates to that speed on it's own. That's what the windsock on it's side indicates. So, again, your original comment to what you have quoted from me has to do exactly what with the quoted part?

And also again, care to answer the questions that i raised in the other post's to you?

Greetings,

Chris

Both are still in question.
How many times have you suggested that I have "very cleverly" put in false links and changed your words, when in one case it was your mistake, and the other a missing HTML quote that should have separated my answer from your question?

Go back and read. I have quite clearly stated that the motor, gearbox whatever are metaphorical. There are no delibarately hidden objects. They are part of the machines, and nothing more than you can see. There is no difference between the drawings and the actual cart.
To you, the cart is inexplicable, a wonder, so I must be cheating to deny or explain it. I am not going to linger over every word, to ensure that you are unable to nit pick what I post.

No answers this time. I don't like your attitude, your questions are based upon your own misunderstandings, and most have been answered. You can start again if you like, but If you persist in not reading, I will ignore you.

 

[humber]

I repeat. The last 1500 posts sums to this:
There is no test which could invalidate humbers model, no matter what the result.

JB

But I can yours.

Humber, what kind of word games are you playing? You said you didn't think Goodman's video was faked. Wouldn't a variable speed transmission be cheating the same as towing the cart by another vehicle off screen?

No word games Dan_O. Mostly Mr Christian's misunderstandings.

The motors, and gearboxes are either metaphorical or used as an illustrative example. I have now 10 (?) times explicitly denied that I think TAD or Goodman are faking their videos.

Goodman's is a momentum machine. The process is 'like' having a motor, and some means of applying that to gain advantage 'like' the gearbox of a car. What none of you seem to appreciate, is that I understand your skepticsm, and try and explain what is not so obvious, yet there.
If I did not concern myself about that, I would just say "Gooodman's cart appears to be an example of overshoot in a second order reactive system, move on"
That is what it is. To those who understand systems and signals, then that may mean something, if not, then what?
I deliberately use metaphors, because they are useful. If 'insight' is gained, then a lot of obstacles are overcome.
It is necessary to read, and then think about it. I am not going to write a point by point analysis of anything. It is about exchanging ideas, not some means of absorbing information like a vacuum cleaner.

I was not intending to discuss Goodman's cart, but later I will post some details. Please wait until then, otherwise I am chasing figments. Not so much time available.

Dan_O. I have answered you directly several times about the cheating angle. If you do it again, I regret that I will have to assume it deliberate.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Me:

There is no test which could invalidate humbers model, no matter what the result.

Humber:

But I can yours.

Then do so -- as you have not done it yet.

Please describe a test in detail and the result of said test which will invalidate our model.

JB

 

[humber]

Me:


Humber:


Then do so -- as you have not done it yet.

Please describe a test in detail and the result of said test which will invalidate our model.

JB

Details later JB. What do you think of this test? Build a small windtunnel, just a corridor of moving air. Put the cart on your treadmill, and place it in that airflow. Allow the cart to come to speed on that treadmill, so that the belt speed is the same as that of the airflow.
It is now at the usual 'windspeed". Release the cart.
If you are right, it should at least maintain its launch velocity.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Details later JB. What do you think of this test?

You'll see.

Build a small windtunnel, just a corridor of moving air. Put the cart on your treadmill, and place it in that airflow. Allow the cart to come to speed on that treadmill, so that the belt speed is the same as that of the airflow.

You have created in your description is what is known as a "rolling floor" or "moving floor" wind tunnel.

By specifying a matching wind speed and belt speed you have defined, using a very expensive method, a way to recreate what we like to call a "still air day".

It is now at the usual 'windspeed".

Incorrect. We have specified clearly throughout that unless there is relative motion between the rolling surface and the surrounding air the cart will not motivate itself.

Release the cart.

If we were to place a cart in such a rolling floor wind tunnel set to your description and release it, our model states that it would immediately begin to accelerate towards the back of the tunnel/belt and quickly smash into the rear wall of the facility.

If you are right, it should at least maintain its launch velocity.

Nope, you are not representing our model correctly. Our model states that on a still air day -- or in your wind tunnel recreation, if you push to cart to speed (any speed) and let it go, it will immediatly begin to slow down and will quickly come to a stop relative to both the air and the rolling surface.

To devise a test to invalidate our model, you must first understand and accurately represent our model. You don't.

Still waiting.

JB

 

[H'ethetheth]

Details later JB. What do you think of this test?...

...so that the belt speed is the same as that of the airflow."

Honestly Humber, for someone who speaks derisively about reversing vectors willy nilly, it might be better for you to think this through a little more.
This test will not work, because when the belt speed and airflow speed are identical, the cart will come to a halt relative to the treadmill. In other words, this test setup can only serve to demonstrate (in a very laborious, roundabout way) that the cart will not roll down the street when there is no wind.

ETA: Aww...too late

 

[Christian Klippel]

Both are still in question.
How many times have you suggested that I have "very cleverly" put in false links and changed your words, when in one case it was your mistake, and the other a missing HTML quote that should have separated my answer from your question?

Actually, i never suggested that. In one case i simply pointed out that you seemed to mixed up post's that you intended to replay to, the other time i wasn't sure if you tried to "put words in my mouth" or if you simply placed the quote delimiters wrong. In no case i have "suggested that you have very cleverly" put anything. If you think i did, then point me to where i said that, including the context. As i did. Shouldn't be that hard, should it?

But i know, if anything fails, it's always the other's fault.

Go back and read. I have quite clearly stated that the motor, gearbox whatever are metaphorical. There are no delibarately hidden objects. They are part of the machines, and nothing more than you can see. There is no difference between the drawings and the actual cart.

I would say that you can't have it both ways. You can not claim that there is more to the cart than there is, be it metaphorical or real, and at the same time have no difference at all between the drawings and the actual cart.

If you claim there is more, even if only metaphorical, then you need to explain what. So far, you didn't do that. Other people asked you the same, to no avail.

To you, the cart is inexplicable, a wonder, so I must be cheating to deny or explain it. I am not going to linger over every word, to ensure that you are unable to nit pick what I post.

No, it is by no means a wonder or inexplicable to me, and i guess it is no wonder to others either. It is you who appears to think it must be a wonder that this cart works. In fact, i already stated how i think that this cart works, and as a simplified description, one of the builders confirmed that i was right with this.

You better should linger over every word you write, really. You claim to stick to the scientific method. I'm sure you know that science expresses things in pretty clear descriptions. If you want to transport a certain meaning through words, you better make sure that you choose the right words in the right context. Simply to avoid misunderstandings. So far you failed with that.

No answers this time. I don't like your attitude, your questions are based upon your own misunderstandings, and most have been answered. You can start again if you like, but If you persist in not reading, I will ignore you.

If the questions are based on misunderstandings, then it is purely because you don't express what you intend to say in clear words. It is not my fault that they are misunderstood. And they are misunderstood not only by me, i'm sure.

I am reading, do you?

So, instead of giving answers, you weasel out and threaten to ignore someone. Seem's to me that you are running out of arguments, or ran out of them already.

Remember, if one person can't understand you, it might be the fault of that person. If one person claims that you are wrong, it might be that person who is wrong instead. But if many people don't understand what you mean, and many people point out where you are wrong, chances are more than high that the fault is simply and solely on your side. Think about that for a while.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[humber]

You'll see.



You have created in your description is what is known as a "rolling floor" or "moving floor" wind tunnel.

By specifying a matching wind speed and belt speed you have defined, using a very expensive method, a way to recreate what we like to call a "still air day".



Incorrect. We have specified clearly throughout that unless there is relative motion between the rolling surface and the surrounding air the cart will not motivate itself.



If we were to place a cart in such a rolling floor wind tunnel set to your description and release it, our model states that it would immediately begin to accelerate towards the back of the tunnel/belt and quickly smash into the rear wall of the facility.



Nope, you are not representing our model correctly. Our model states that on a still air day -- or in your wind tunnel recreation, if you push to cart to speed (any speed) and let it go, it will immediatly begin to slow down and will quickly come to a stop relative to both the air and the rolling surface.

To devise a test to invalidate our model, you must first understand and accurately represent our model. You don't.

Still waiting.

JB

I was no attempting to invalidate your model, but to suggest a real wind test. All of the above concerns the model at "windspeed". That is what the treadmill does. Yes, I know all about the relative winds.

It is the cart in wind that is to be tested, not the treadmill. I say that you have no evidence of that claim. That was the subject of the wager.

 

[humber]

Honestly Humber, for someone who speaks derisively about reversing vectors willy nilly, it might be better for you to think this through a little more.
This test will not work, because when the belt speed and airflow speed are identical, the cart will come to a halt relative to the treadmill. In other words, this test setup can only serve to demonstrate (in a very laborious, roundabout way) that the cart will not roll down the street when there is no wind.

ETA: Aww...too late

Firstly, H'ethetheth, I apologise for not responding to your last post. I will do so a.s.a.p.
On the first point, it is not the "vectorial equivalence" that is the problem. Of course, windtunnels working against a static vehicles exploit the same idea. The treadmill model is wrong, not the principle.

The wager that I have with Dan_O, is at least in my understanding, about a wind test. Platt's test is OK, if not a little inconvenient. If no other can be found, then that would seem to be the only choice.

The test I suggested is actually risky from my point of view. It would mean that the cart has already beaten the drag barrier, so that I gave that away in favour of "windspeed" launch. My tethered power test is no good. Platt's circular test is no good. Real wind is too uncontrolled...

It would not normally be acceptable by anybody's standards to test with the treadmill. On the treadmill, the device under test is the cart, and not the simulator itself.

If TAD want to actually launch the vehicle into the wind at windspeed, then that may be OK, as long as some conditions are met.
The claim is not speed dependent, so any non-trivial speed should do. Perhaps the slowest speed at which the cart will function when on the treadmill? Pull it by wires. As long as it is set free, then the cart should be able to sustain itself. Again, perhaps risky for me if I overlook something. That was the general idea, but I included the treadmill as a compromise. It is not my model, and I don't think it is valid, so I let TAD decide on that matter.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

humber:

I was not attempting to invalidate your model,

Then please return to post #1784.

JB

 

[humber]

Actually, i never suggested that. In one case i simply pointed out that you seemed to mixed up post's that you intended to replay...<snip>
Chris

OK Christian. I don't want to trawl through a huge number of posts to find the exact words. Here are some of yours:

Sure, i know that it doesn't fit in your line of reasoning to admit that of course you do know the details of the cart, or at least you could know. Your reasoning is more like to say that you don't know something, and then you yourself copy a link to that knowledge (plan, in this case), denying that you have knowledge of it.

Now, how much second guessing do I need to unravel that?

Then, we caught lying or ignoring, you pretend it to be something else that you meant/talked about.

I heard that.

That's a really strange thing to say given the fact that the next quote you cite contains the link to the plans of the cart. If you try to trick people, don't make it that obvious, at least.

That is the one I meant. You suggest I am trying to trick you.

Now, somewhere amongst your posts, there may be some questions. I had no idea what you were talking about when you referred to the cart plans. OK, so there were two carts. The context where I say I don't have plans, is about Goodman's cart. Other posts, to other people, contain some remarks that contradict your claims.

If you think that I am going to change my view to avoid whatever it is you think I fear, then you are wrong. There is no real motor in either cart. Why would I claim that, then support the momentum idea? Why would I need to, if its got a motor?

If you want all your answers in readily digested form, then why bother?
Learning just to pass the time?
Remember, I do not have these carts to examine. It is sometimes necessary to call upon metaphors to raise a possibility, in order to begin to support it.
Mender countered with regenerative braking, right?
Do I say "WTF have brakes got to do with it !!!! ?" No, I understand why he made that parallel.

The nature of scientific inquiry is held in a library of books. That you have to do yourself. Questions specific to the cart are otherwise.

Cut the nonsense and injured sensibilities, and I will try answer your questions. No point in going over the previous posts. If you do think I am trying to deceive you, then there would be no point in asking me anything, would there?

 

[humber]

humber:


Then please return to post #1784.

JB

You left out "....to suggest a real wind test".
The treadmill cannot be invalidated by testing. That it is not falsifiable has been one of my long standing claims. If you think I have changed my mind, then I should ask that you provide evidence.

I will post on why I think the treadmill is false, that I have also quite clearly stated. You also know that I have clearly said that the cart on the treadmill is not like a cart in wind.
The cart itself is a separate issue.
The proposed wind tests are a separate issue.

You know, all these claims about faking and switching of opinion, may say more about their authors than the intended targets.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

humber:
You left out "....

to suggest a real wind test".

No, I left nothing out.

We have stated our model clearly and repeatedly. You stated in #1783 that you could define a test which would invalidate this model. I took you up on your offer and asked you to define just such a test.

Simple request -- please define a test for our model and specify the result that would invalidate the model.

JB

 

[sol invictus]

Details later JB. What do you think of this test? Build a small windtunnel, just a corridor of moving air. Put the cart on your treadmill, and place it in that airflow. Allow the cart to come to speed on that treadmill, so that the belt speed is the same as that of the airflow.
It is now at the usual 'windspeed". Release the cart.
If you are right, it should at least maintain its launch velocity.

That was the most concentrated dose of stupid I've seen in this thread for a while (most of your posts are too incoherent to even get that far).

You still, after nearly 2,000 posts, have no clue what this thread is about or how this cart is supposed to behave. At the very least it's now apparent that you aren't just a troll - you truly have no understanding of this at all.

How you've managed to maintain your ignorance unscathed through all the attempts to explain it to you.... Gold paint? Glue? Gasoline?

 

[Dan O.]

Humber, Thank you for the insight that a cart using a variable speed transmission can use stored energy in the propeller to propel itself to faster than wind speed. When you make your donation to JREF, please request that they post a note here stating that you have satisfied your obligation.

Of course, the rest of us have always been discussing a cart with fixed gearing and still claim that such a cart can be built that satisfies the claim. If you want to limit the claim to carts with fixed gearing I will permit you to do so. But the burden of proof as specified in the wager is, and always has been, yours.

 

[spork]

I will post on why I think the treadmill is false, that I have also quite clearly stated. You also know that I have clearly said that the cart on the treadmill is not like a cart in wind. .

I would have thought the cover-charge for even entering this conversation was the understanding of the most basic principles of physics that go back 100's of years (or at least the willingness to learn them). Until humber completely understands and accepts the principle of equivalency of inertial frames what could there possibly be to debate with him?

 

[John Freestone]

<snip> As long as it is set free, then the cart should be able to sustain itself. <snip>

I don't know. It's tough out there on the streets.

 

[humber]

That was the most concentrated dose of stupid I've seen in this thread for a while (most of your posts are too incoherent to even get that far).

You still, after nearly 2,000 posts, have no clue what this thread is about or how this cart is supposed to behave. At the very least it's now apparent that you aren't just a troll - you truly have no understanding of this at all.

How you've managed to maintain your ignorance unscathed through all the attempts to explain it to you.... Gold paint? Glue? Gasoline?

I don't know there. I was thinking that if the cart on the treadmill was actually the equivalent of windspeed, than putting it in air at the same speed might not be a problem. It would simply cross over. But then I thought no, that won't work. Why not?
I then realised that if a made another model, but used real wind, then I wouldn't have a problem. My conclusion is the treadmill model is not.

I have an immune system that responds to Internet vectored BS.

 

[humber]

humber:
You left out "....

No, I left nothing out.

We have stated our model clearly and repeatedly. You stated in #1783 that you could define a test which would invalidate this model. I took you up on your offer and asked you to define just such a test.

Simple request -- please define a test for our model and specify the result that would invalidate the model.

JB

No, I looked. I say I can, but not the means.

ETA:
I was not thinking of proposing such a test, but now that I have thought about it, I just thought of one or three. I am rather busy, so I am not going to offer such a test until you can tell me how you would plan to perform it. As you acknowledge, it is for "any test", so are you prepared for that? You cannot prejudge the outcome of the test, and I need only to follow the relevant "equivalency" rules.

On the other hand, I could offer you a simple test, not at all difficult, but then I would want your commitment to performing it.