Down wind faster than the wind

[Michael C]

What is the relevance Michael_C? To the topic at hand?

That problem is not mathematical but one of perception. You are supposed to be "surprised" at the result. Like the treadmill. "oooh it's going up hill"
If you like, I can post some similar sophisms from a book that I have, all of them along the same lines.

More sleight of hand to make you think that in that "native" way. You know it has no power gain, so it can be dismissed as unworthy of exploration.

Of course its relevant to the topic in hand. How about answering the question concerning Dan O's device: does the yo-yo move faster than the parachute, or not?

 

[humber]

You don't know what a tensor is, humber. What links the two frames is a trivial Galilean transformation: t'=t, x' = x + vw t, y'=y, z'=z, where vw is the velocity of the wind (which I've taken to be in the x-direction).

That's because you haven't provided it.

Never mind. The translation will do. So, all we have done is included "belt-speed" in a linear algebraic equation.

If we carry it trough, then it may apply to all the other equations that govern the behavior of the object. I could ask you them of you, but why bother.
Stand in front of the treadmill and DON'T add belt speed, and use the observer's reference. Saves some time and matrix manipulation.

ETA;
Of course you need to show that V = wind isn't simply a facile convenience. There's centuries of evidence for that requirement.

What are you talking about? Both Myriad's and dan O's devices are powered by the chain/wind (or more precisely by the relative motion of the chain/wind and the ground), just like the cart.

Does the spool move faster than the wind? Does Myriad's wheel roll faster than the chain speed?

Yes or no, humber?

No, let's talk about your treadmill instead.

 

[humber]

Of course its relevant to the topic in hand. How about answering the question concerning Dan O's device: does the yo-yo move faster than the parachute, or not?

The explanation has been given, however, if you wish to talk about the force-balance treadmill, then that is different.

 

[Michael C]

The explanation has been given, however, if you wish to talk about the force-balance treadmill, then that is different.

If you're going to keep avoiding the question, there's no point in continuing. I'l give it one more try. If you're not afraid to show that you might have made a mistake, answer the question:

Does the yo-yo move faster than the parachute, or not?

 

[sol invictus]

T
Never mind. The translation will do. So, all we have done is included "belt-speed" in a linear algebraic equation.

If we carry it trough, then it may apply to all the other equations that govern the behavior of the object. I could ask you them of you, but why bother.

Why bother indeed - the answer is totally trivial. Of course you have no idea what it is....

I'll say it again - every single one of the equations of motion of the system is completely unchanged by that transformation. The forces are the same, the acceleration is the same, the energy transfer is the same.

Stand in front of the treadmill and DON'T add belt speed, and use the observer's reference. Saves some time and matrix manipulation.

There are no matrices involved.

No, let's talk about your treadmill instead.

These examples are simpler and work on precisely the same principle. If you refuse to address them, it is obvious this will never go anywhere and the discussion is over. So I ask you for a third (and final) time:

Does the spool move faster than the wind? Does Myriad's wheel roll faster than the chain speed?

Yes or no, humber?

 

[humber]

Why bother indeed - the answer is totally trivial. Of course you have no idea what it is....

I'll say it again - every single one of the equations of motion of the system is completely unchanged by that transformation. The forces are the same, the acceleration is the same, the energy transfer is the same.

There are no matrices involved.

Yes, of course!

Oh, but there should be, even if done "for fun"

So you agree, your Galilean hypothesis consists of NOTHING MORE THAN the facile ADDITION of "beltspeed" to the ground observer's view. All equations remain the same.

Now that we have done that, we can talk about the equivalency of THE MODEL.

These examples are simpler and work on precisely the same principle. If you refuse to address them, it is obvious this will never go anywhere and the discussion is over. So I ask you for a third (and final) time:

Does the spool move faster than the wind? Does Myriad's wheel roll faster than the chain speed?

Yes or no, humber?

Scarcely related. Now the force-balance treadmill...

 

[Modified]

They have the same velocities, or not.

They are the same with respect to the surfaces. That is all that matters.

The charge in the battery is an analog of the vehicle's kinetic energy.

Yes, and that is kinetic energy with respect to the surfaces. Both cars are behaving identically with respect to their surfaces. Both surfaces are inertial reference frames. There is no difference.

The difference in charge may differ by an arbitrary amount, not related to mass. So they are not equivalent.

Kinetic energy is proportional to mass. Would a toy car connected to a generator going 50 mph produce the same amount of energy in coasting to a stop as a full-sized car? Use some common sense.

 

[sol invictus]

So you agree, your Galilean hypothesis consists of NOTHING MORE THAN the facile ADDITION of "beltspeed" to the ground observer's view. All equations remain the same.

You call it "facile", everyone else calls it one of the fundamental principles of "modern" physics.

Now that we have done that, we can talk about the equivalency of THE MODEL.

No, we won't - I've stopped being entertained by this, and any lurkers capable of learning from this conversation did so long ago.

Scarcely related.

You lose, humber. Bye.

 

[humber]

If you're going to keep avoiding the question, there's no point in continuing. I'l give it one more try. If you're not afraid to show that you might have made a mistake, answer the question:

Does the yo-yo move faster than the parachute, or not?

All due respect Michael C, this is about the cart. Introduced devices are not relevant. As you know, such devices as the cotton reel, can be made to move or roll according by exploiting the difference between rolling and static friction.

That "something" cannot travel faster than the wind is not a "myth" to which I subscribe. A prop-powered device, as promoted by its developers is one device that cannot achieve that aim.
There is no evidence, save for a trivial trick of the treadmill. It is nothing more than a force-balance toy, deceptively disguised.

 

[Modified]

Scarcely related.

A chain or belt is just a flow, like airflow. If a vehicle can move down chain or down belt faster than the chain or belt when driven only by the chain or belt, then you must agree that a DWFTTW vehicle is possible.

 

[humber]

You call it "facile", everyone else calls it one of the fundamental principles of "modern" physics.



No, we won't - I've stopped being entertained by this, and any lurkers capable of learning from this conversation did so long ago.



You lose, humber. Bye.

I will miss the opportunity to make fun of you.

 

[humber]

A chain or belt is just a flow, like airflow. If a vehicle can move down chain or down belt faster than the chain or belt when driven only by the chain or belt, then you must agree that a DWFTTW vehicle is possible.

Who says not?

Where is the energy source? Why should I even consider it?

This is relevant;

"Not possible by the craft promoted in the Spork videos"

"The treadmill lends no support to that claim of faster than DWFTTW"

"The treadmill is a force-balance toy, not connected with the hypothetical arguments put forward for the cart"

" The treadmill is not a model of the real cart"

"The Galilean hypothesis is incomplete, because it speaks only of velocity.
vectors."

"Beltspeed = Windspeed is mathematical only.The model does not appear to justify this equivalency"

Pointing to texts supporting "Galilean Transformations", says nothing about the manner in which that has been implemented.

 

[spork]

I've stopped being entertained by this, and any lurkers capable of learning from this conversation did so long ago.

While I have to confess to being entertained by the increasingly sarcastic responses to humber - I think there is still potential value in this thread if we simply ignore the troll altogether. I would never suggest that if there was even the slightest hint that humber was here to learn - or even for a legitimate discussion. But he's clearly not.

 

[Myriad]

Now the force-balance treadmill...

Okay, the force-balance treadmill.

Which, as you describe it, when carefully balanced can maintain the cart's position on the moving belt.

Which, as you describe it, will still work if you replace the pulley with a shaft connected to the cart's wheels by a gearbox.

Which, as you describe it, will still work if you replace a propeller as a source of drag with "a small wheel rubbing upon the belt."

Which is, therefore, an over-unity device. (Finally, something that justifies this thread's search tag!)

Please provide the details of the device. We can share credit for this invention that will solve all future energy needs. My contribution will be picking it up off the treadmill, putting it down on a flat road, and giving it a push up to the treadmill's belt speed, whereupon it will run indefinitely, rubbing its way to free energy!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[humber]

They are the same with respect to the surfaces. That is all that matters.

Yes, and that is kinetic energy with respect to the surfaces. Both cars are behaving identically with respect to their surfaces. Both surfaces are inertial reference frames. There is no difference.

Kinetic energy is proportional to mass. Would a toy car connected to a generator going 50 mph produce the same amount of energy in coasting to a stop as a full-sized car? Use some common sense.

Two identical cars.

One on the treadmill and on the road.
At the same speed, one will have kinetic energy and the other not.
That makes then not equivalent, with respect to their own inertial frames.

The 60mph treadmill car is not the equivalent of the 60mph ground car.

The generator/charge test demonstrates that.

 

[humber]

Okay, the force-balance treadmill.

Which, as you describe it, when carefully balanced can maintain the cart's position on the moving belt.

Which, as you describe it, will still work if you replace the pulley with a shaft connected to the cart's wheels by a gearbox.

Which, as you describe it, will still work if you replace a propeller as a source of drag with "a small wheel rubbing upon the belt."

Which is, therefore, an over-unity device. (Finally, something that justifies this thread's search tag!)

Please provide the details of the device. We can share credit for this invention that will solve all future energy needs. My contribution will be picking it up off the treadmill, putting it down on a flat road, and giving it a push up to the treadmill's belt speed, whereupon it will run indefinitely, rubbing its way to free energy!

Respectfully,
Myriad

There is no over unity. The power source is (still) the belt. The cart essentially goes nowhere, so its energy is dissipated due to friction of the wheels and drag.
There are no "claims" for any sort of extraordinary performance.
It is merely a force balance device.

It is the "windtunnel" exposed as such.

Do take a closer look, Myriad. There is a difference in operation between the cart upon the treadmill and the cart in wind on a road.
They are quite different.

 

[humber]

While I have to confess to being entertained by the increasingly sarcastic responses to humber - I think there is still potential value in this thread if we simply ignore the troll altogether. I would never suggest that if there was even the slightest hint that humber was here to learn - or even for a legitimate discussion. But he's clearly not.

OK Spork.

What can I learn about Galilean Transforms, that is not available elsewhere? Not the point.

But it is incomplete, and begs the question as to what advantage would be gained if it were.

A skeptic might say that is a ruse to allow "beltspeed", not to be equated with "windspeed", but relabeled as such.

There have been tests proposed to determine if the treadmill demonstrates what is being claimed.

The simplest is running the cart with or without a prop., down an inclined plane.

There are others, but that would be a start along the road to learning.

 

[GreyICE]

There is no over unity. The power source is (still) the belt. The cart essentially goes nowhere, so its energy is dissipated due to friction of the wheels and drag.
There are no "claims" for any sort of extraordinary performance.
It is merely a force balance device.

It is the "windtunnel" exposed as such.

Do take a closer look, Myriad. There is a difference in operation between the cart upon the treadmill and the cart in wind on a road.
They are quite different.

Well, argument through absolute exhaustion. You keep saying this, no matter how wrong you've proven to be. Do you think hitting the "Post Reply" button 10 times instead of one makes bad logic better?

 

[Michael C]

Despite what I said in my last post the sceptic inside still has some unanswered questions and I must retract my acceptance of the claim that a vehicle can travel downwind faster than the wind solely in the direction of the wind.

The two main issues are . . .

Can the thrust if the propeller ever exceed the rolling resistance caused to create that thrust? I don’t see how it ever can. If it could the vehicle would be able to be self propelled by it’s own inertia. When the vehicle has reached the speed of the wind or is placed on the treadmill in no wind, then wind can’t be considered as a factor as there simply isn‘t any wind relative to the vehicle.

I think a possible source of confusion is talking about "wind" instead of talking about "speed of the air". Saying "there isn‘t any wind relative to the vehicle" is equivalent to saying "the air is not moving with respect to the vehicle". This does not mean that the air no longer has any effect, or cannot be considered as a factor in the equation: the vehicle is still in contact with the air, so it can push against it.

When the vehicle is placed on the treadmill the thrust of the propeller is created solely by the motion of moving treadmill surface relative to the vehicle, and is being transferred to the propeller via the turning wheels and linkages. This is not free energy and there has to be a rolling resistance energy loss that is greater then the energy of the thrust developed by the propeller.

The movement of the propeller is indeed created by by the motion of the rolling treadmill surface relative to the vehicle, but this motion only continues because the propeller is thrusting against the air. Imagine what would happen if the propeller was not connected to the wheels: in this case, when the vehicle was lowered on the treadmill, the wheels would start spinning, but the prop wouldn't turn. The loss of energy due to friction would soon cause the wheels to spin slower and the vehicle would run off the left end of the treadmill (viewed as in Spork's YouTube videos). In fact, when the propeller is connected to the movement of the wheels, it thrusts against the air causing the vehicle to run off the other end of the treadmill.

The essential thing is that it's not "the wind" that is the motive force, it's the difference in speed between the air and the ground. If there's no difference, the vehicle won't run. If you go out on a day with no wind at all and put the vehicle on the ground, it won't do anything. If you now give it a push, there will indeed be a "wind" relative to the vehicle, but it won't help, since there is still no difference in speed between the air and the ground. In this case, the vehicle will run a certain distance but will be quickly slowed down by forces of drag and friction.

If there is a steady wind, the vehicle will accelerate up to the speed where the forces are in equilibrium, then just keep running. And it's important to point out that the point where the forces are in equilibrium is not necessarily the point where the vehicle is stationary with respect to the air. When it is stationary with respect to the air, its wheels are being turned by the ground, the propeller is being turned by the wheels and therefore thrusting against the air.

The second issue is whether two opposing winds have a compounding effect or whether they somehow cancel each other out. The wind is moving relative to the ground at 10mph and the vehicle is travelling with the wind at 10mph. It’s claimed that some of the speed of the vehicle is coming from the thrust of the propeller. If say 3mph of the vehicles speed is coming from the propeller then only 7mph of speed is coming from the 10mph wind. What happens to the remaining 3mph of wind? As the vehicle is travelling at the speed of the wind it can’t be going past the vehicle at 3mph.

If there’s something I’m missing what is it?

If the vehicle is going at exactly the speed of the wind, then all the extra thrust of the propeller is doing is compensating for any speed losses caused by drag or friction. If the vehicle is going at 10mph in a 7mph wind, then we might consider that the thrust of the propeller is accounting for the extra 3mph. It's a simplification, but it may be a step towards understanding what's going on.

 

[Myriad]

There is no over unity. The power source is (still) the belt. The cart essentially goes nowhere, so its energy is dissipated due to friction of the wheels and drag.
There are no "claims" for any sort of extraordinary performance.
It is merely a force balance device.

If you have invented, as you claim, a "force balance" device that can hold its position on a moving treadmill indefinitely, without any attachment to anything other than the belt, and without a propeller or other significant coupling to air movement, then you have invented an over-unity device. I suggest that you patent it pronto.

The device cannot be receiving any power from the belt as it is not accelerating and therefore not subject to any net force in any direction from its contact with the belt (otherwise it would not hold its position). Power = force * distance / time. No force and no distance here, so zero power input from the belt.

If the device can hold its position on the belt, it can maintain constant velocity on a fixed surface. And since it clearly has friction to overcome (since one component is a "small wheel rubbing along the belt") that makes it an over-unity device, even if its only useful application turns out to be generating heat from that friction.

Respectfully,
Myriad