Down wind faster than the wind

[sol invictus]

Pettifoggery, to cover up your usual approach of reading what suits you.
The meaning is the same.

Pettifoggery?

The meaning is the same... just like when you add "not" a few times to a sentence.

You are an "expert" in this field, and you are unaware that if you do not make all measurements locally to the craft, errors will arise?
( See Formula one in-car telemetry)
And that the operator cannot add information, by the observation of future events for example, and gain advantage over a strictly steady state vehicle ?
You can post your credentials, but don't put denial of that in your CV or resume.
ETA:
Or even statistically?

Total gibberish.

Yes I did. Force that is greater than the arbitrary level obtained due to stray friction in the treadmill.

My question: what force is acting on the treadmill cart that isn't acting on the road cart?

humber's answer: the force that's acting on the treadmill cart and isn't acting on the road cart. Duh.

Enough of this stupidity - I only converse with trolls when it entertains me, and it has ceased to entertain me for now.

 

[humber]

Of course the ratios are important. Try walking around on the deck of a large ship moving at constant speed. The forces are almost exactly the same as on the ground, and you will not be able to tell the difference. Even though your movements do accelerate the ship, the amount of acceleration is negligible. Now do the same in a motorized canoe. Your movements will accelerate the canoe significantly, and things will get a lot more complicated. Similarly, a relatively large vehicle's accelerations will accelerate a treadmill belt, or the earth. The small cart on the treadmill is just like you on the ship. Have you ever been on a large ship? Assuming smooth seas, did you have to walk differently than on solid ground to avoid falling? Why do you think a belt would be any different?

I am not arguing about relative masses of the two. In that respect, I am sure that the belt and road are equivalent enough. Power is also adequate.
The frictional requirements, needed to support the forces in each case, would be the same for the road as the treadmill. If the treadmill is equivalent, (regardless of relative acceleration) then it would be inadequate, and dependent upon the treadmill itself. It is an uncontrolled variable.
The remainder of the post still remains unanswered.

 

[spork]

Enough of this stupidity - I only converse with trolls when it entertains me, and it has ceased to entertain me for now.

I'm somewhat relieved to see this. I was hoping to find that you're only toying with humber for giggles. Afterall, I hope we can agree that he's simply bat-***** crazy - right?

 

[humber]

Pettifoggery?
The meaning is the same... just like when you add "not" a few times to a sentence.

See 'intentional blindness' and 'alexia'
The 'not' of your reference, was not not not not not in keeping with the text. See 'literal'.
However, my recent post to Brian_M, should make all clear to you on that topic.

Total gibberish.

The full extent of your knowledge on that topic. Full resume.

My question: what force is acting on the treadmill cart that isn't acting on the road cart?

humber's answer: the force that's acting on the treadmill cart and isn't acting on the road cart. Duh.

Oh...silly you. That means that the forces that are present in the real device are not present on the treadmill!

Enough of this stupidity - I only converse with trolls when it entertains me, and it has ceased to entertain me for now.

I think you too frequently use another way of entertaining yourself.

Exit Sol.... admires in mirror.

 

[humber]

I'm somewhat relieved to see this. I was hoping to find that you're only toying with humber for giggles. Afterall, I hope we can agree that he's simply bat-***** crazy - right?

Talk to the hand.
Why not have a go at #1366. You said I was crazy for not believing your version. Prove it.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm somewhat relieved to see this. I was hoping to find that you're only toying with humber for giggles. Afterall, I hope we can agree that he's simply bat-***** crazy - right?

Yeah, he's probably a physics crank. It's a specific type of schizophrenia where you believe everyone else has it wrong, only you know the truth, and usually they're trying to suppress your ideas. You wouldn't believe how many emails, internet manifestos, and self-published books containing the theory of everything I've seen.

You've done a great job - I hope you make it on mythbusters.

 

[Dan O.]

I think we've taken this about as far as it can go. We've provided video's demonstrating the cart in action, simplified mechanical drawings showing the principles involved, the math showing that the energy is available and top all that off with a wager to allow an independent third party to perform the test.

It's time for the trolls to either put up or shut up. They need to provide evidence that contradicts some part of our model, show that there is a mistake in our math or physics or put up a wager to make it worth while for a third party to perform the necessary testing.

 

[humber]

Yeah, he's probably a physics crank. It's a specific type of schizophrenia where you believe everyone else has it wrong, only you know the truth, and usually they're trying to suppress your ideas. You wouldn't believe how many emails, internet manifestos, and self-published books containing the theory of everything I've seen.

You've done a great job - I hope you make it on mythbusters.

Lamentable retort. You are just not getting a rounded education in your ivory tower are you?

"and usually trying to suppress your ideas" Ooops.

Just so I make it clear to you. The treadmill is not equivalent to the real device in the wind. In fact, not at all. An indicator of which is the lack of motive force, and suitable friction to support it, were it generated. It is an uncontrolled variable, against an unknown quantity.

(The force and friction that we "think" we need) = (Those same forces that just happen to be generated by a treadmill bought from Walmart)

 

[humber]

I think we've taken this about as far as it can go. We've provided video's demonstrating the cart in action, simplified mechanical drawings showing the principles involved, the math showing that the energy is available and top all that off with a wager to allow an independent third party to perform the test.

It's time for the trolls to either put up or shut up. They need to provide evidence that contradicts some part of our model, show that there is a mistake in our math or physics or put up a wager to make it worth while for a third party to perform the necessary testing.

The treadmill model has been shown to contradict your model. You refuse to address those criticisms directly.

You do not have evidence of actual travel.
How do I know? Because Spork alone would love to show it to me.
This means that he knows what he has is inadequate, even by his own standards.

 

[spork]

Yeah, he's probably a physics crank. It's a specific type of schizophrenia where you believe everyone else has it wrong, only you know the truth, and usually they're trying to suppress your ideas.

D'OH!!! I think maybe I have that disorder.

 

[humber]

D'OH!!! I think maybe I have that disorder.

Bit circular that. You need a second party.

Since you would ask for a trail, I wonder what standards you would use.
I expect that they would fall within the scientific norms, which you would scrutinise for error, should you lose.

 

[sol invictus]

D'OH!!! I think maybe I have that disorder.

Ha ha - me too, a little. I try to cultivate it...

 

[humber]

Ha ha - me too, a little. I try to cultivate it...

Only the one in there?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

In the video the cart “rocks” back and forth between the “pit” of the roller and the “bump” created by the boards under the belt (the cart is effectively surfing).

Ynot, two things:

A: There IS NO "pit" at the roller on our treadmill. I'll happily demonstrate this in my next video by placing the level at the rear (with the cart in place) and show there is no light under the level at that point. The belt is tight, spans less than an inch of open space and the rear wheel of the cart weighs barely over one ounce. The pit only exists in your imagination. (if the cart was heavier -- say our "truck" design -- it could create such a pit)

B: There IS NO BUMP across the belt created by the boards. The boards do not extend more than a half inch under the edges of the belt. They only turn up the edges a bit to create a fence effect and keep the cart from falling off. I can also demonstrate this for the next video by placing the level on the belt and show no light under it. The bump only exists in your imagination.

To run a device like this on a treadmill *unattended and unattached* is quite a challenge. You have to manage the side to side issue (thus the fence), and you have to get the balance right so it won't fall off the back or climb off the front.

Here's the reason that in the *unattended* 1:48 long video, the cart operates where it does on the treadmill: the propellor is less efficient when operating close to the belt -- simply because of gradient issues. This means that the device can operate at a lower speed with the prop hanging off the back of the belt then it can in the middle. We used this behavior simply to keep the cart from climbing off the top of the treadmill -- the prop generates it's best thrust hanging off and advances the cart slowly ... once the prop reaches the belt it loses thrust by a hair and the momentum carries the cart up just a bit and then with the lessened thrust it begins to back up until the prop bites again off the end. These cycles eventually end up big enough that the cart climbs far enough up the belt and falls back faster than the prop can recover from before the rear wheel falls off the belt.

You see, it's really easy for people to critical of the testing, but until you try to please everyone you really have no clue what it's like.

You want strings hanging off the device -- most see strings and say "WTF -- those strings are part of the hoax". Most want see the device run hands off -- you say "what the heck did you put boards along the edges for".

Get one working of your own and then you can have your very own 500 post thread where people say "your tests are bogus -- here, perform my bogus test".

JB

 

[humber]

Ynot, two things:

A: There IS NO "pit" at the roller on our treadmill. I'll happily demonstrate this in my next video by placing the level at the rear (with the cart in place) and show there is no light under the level at that point. The belt is tight, spans less than an inch of open space and the rear wheel of the cart weighs barely over one ounce. The pit only exists in your imagination. (if the cart was heavier -- say our "truck" design -- it could create such a pit)

B: There IS NO BUMP across the belt created by the boards. The boards do not extend more than a half inch under the edges of the belt. They only turn up the edges a bit to create a fence effect and keep the cart from falling off. I can also demonstrate this for the next video by placing the level on the belt and show no light under it. The bump only exists in your imagination.

To run a device like this on a treadmill *unattended and unattached* is quite a challenge. You have to manage the side to side issue (thus the fence), and you have to get the balance right so it won't fall off the back or climb off the front.

Here's the reason that in the *unattended* 1:48 long video, the cart operates where it does on the treadmill: the propellor is less efficient when operating close to the belt -- simply because of gradient issues. This means that the device can operate at a lower speed with the prop hanging off the back of the belt then it can in the middle. We used this behavior simply to keep the cart from climbing off the top of the treadmill -- the prop generates it's best thrust hanging off and advances the cart slowly ... once the prop reaches the belt it loses thrust by a hair and the momentum carries the cart up just a bit and then with the lessened thrust it begins to back up until the prop bites again off the end. These cycles eventually end up big enough that the cart climbs far enough up the belt and falls back faster than the prop can recover from before the rear wheel falls off the belt.

You see, it's really easy for people to critical of the testing, but until you try to please everyone you really have no clue what it's like.

You want strings hanging off the device -- most see strings and say "WTF -- those strings are part of the hoax". Most want see the device run hands off -- you say "what the heck did you put boards along the edges for".

Get one working of your own and then you can have your very own 500 post thread where people say "your tests are bogus -- here, perform my bogus test".

JB

JB,
In one of the videos there is a pit, because the vehicle is heavy. That does not imply that yours does. If the treadmill is a difficult tool, and is contested, use something else!
A wind generator could be built from a fan. A plenum chamber, either a box or inflatable device, could act as a mass load for the fan, and smooth out the air flow.
In this airflow you could devise a number of tests to show the forces involved. Restrain it with a cheap spring balance and so forth.
Simple venturis, tubes and water can make barometers, and tell you the pressure differential across the propeller or air velocity.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

ynot:

I thought I had given you an EXACT script for the test. It really is quite simple.

It isn't so simple Ynot -- each time you give us the script, you throw in details that just don't make sense -- I'll elaborate:

Here it is again - Tether your cart (from the front of your cart) to a fixed point off the top end of the centre of the tread so that the string extends down the centre of the tread and the cart is held not too close to the bottom roller (just lower than the center of the tread).

Easy enough so far -- I've got a string down the center of the treadmill, anchored somewhere above the top of the belt and extending down and tied to the front of the cart. No problem.

The string should keep the cart self-centred and it shouldn‘t need to be touched at all.

PROBLEM #1: the single string from above WILL NOT keep the cart "self-centred". Tow one car behind another on a long rope and you will see that the car behind doesn't just "self-centre" - it still goes where it wants unless someone steers it.

So, we are screwed from the start -- currently you've got an expectation of a test that simply can't be performed if we follow your script to the tee.

Start the tread at it’s slowest speed and gradually increase the speed until the moment the propeller develops enough thrust to move the cart against the motion of the tread. The string will become slack.

PROBLEM #2: Let's suppose the string magically *did* keep the cart centered (it doesn't) -- once the string goes slack, what keeps the cart centered? What magical force have you proposed in your test to keep the cart from wandering off the belt?

DON’T speed the tread up anymore and see if (given enough time) the cart eventually moves backwards with the tread and the string becomes taught again.

PROBLEM #3: My cart's not on the belt anymore Ynot -- hasn't been from something like the 5 second mark. Happy with the test?

See Ynot, you complain about our "bad science", but you can't even describe a test that keeps the cart on the belt for more than a few seconds. WTF kind of science do you call that?

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

JB,
In one of the videos there is a pit, because the vehicle is heavy. That does not imply that yours does.

Thanks for that bit of wisdom -- I believe I had that covered when I said in my post you quoted:

(if the cart was heavier -- say our "truck" design -- it could create such a pit)

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Ynot, I really do want to do a test that accurately conforms to your theory -- but I'm not wasting my time with garbage that you'll just say "well, that didn't work".

A: The cart is not much smaller than the belt.

B: The cart will not stay in the middle of the belt on it's own

C: Build your own and you will see that the above is just the truth.

JB

 

[humber]

Thanks for that bit of wisdom -- I believe I had that covered when I said in my post you quoted:



JB

Well, you need it. That example is related to a real event, but that is not important. As you can see, though, the performance is belt related.

The problem concerns self starting and interference, I think. I don't see this as a problem, but some do.

You could perhaps run a fine guide thread above the belt, passing it through an eye on the cart (perhaps two to keep it stable). Hold the cart at the bottom of the belt, with the propeller stalled, or the cart held above the belt. Release it, and see if it can climb unaided.
This would also make it easier to add threaded weights, as requested.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Well, you need it.

Apparently I don't need it, because as the record shows, I covered it before you did.

JB