Down wind faster than the wind

[ThinAirDesigns]

tsig:
>Cart moves prop, prop moves cart..

And you keep leaving out the wind.

If you keep insisting on that I'm have to also conclude 'Troll'.

JB

 

[Modified]

Cart moves prop, prop moves cart..

Do you also believe that Michael C's last posted video is a fake because "Cart turns wheel, wheel moves cart." can't be possible?

 

[spork]

my explanation contradicts yours.

Of course it does. Mine is right.

You talk a lot of rhetoric about others admitting being wrong, but when it's your turn that is your cowardly and adolescent response.

You are completely loony humber. I'm not wrong, I haven't admitted I'm wrong, and I haven't contradicted myself.

I think Prof. Whiteman is correct.

I'm sure you do. Wayne Whiteman is perhaps as thick as you.

You claim to have a recording of the phone call,

Please show me where I make that claim.

 

[humber]

You'll have to show yourself since I'm not where you are.

Run downwind the same speed as the wind -- do you feel any wind? Though your feet are moving, you are now at rest relative to the air.

Ride a bike downwind the same speed as the wind -- do you feel any wind? Though your feet are spinning, you are now at rest relative to the air.


Drive downwind the same speed as the wind and stick your hand out the window -- do you feel any wind? Though your wheels are spinning, you are now at rest relative to the air.

Do this as many different ways as you wish (including riding on the chassis of a DDWFTTW cart) and the results will be the same -- when going downwind the speed of the wind, you are at rest relative to the air.

Treadmill set at 10mph -- same as going 10mph downwind in a 10mph wind.

JB

The first examples are perhaps valid. The last is the trivial limiting case, which when combined with fallacious use of the equivalence, produces the claimed result. That claim lacks independent support.

 

[Myriad]

Cart moves prop, prop moves cart..

Wind acts on propeller to push cart. It can do this even while the cart body is travelling at the same speed as the wind because the propeller blade surfaces are advancing against the wind (toward the rear of the cart) due to the spinning of the prop.

As the cart is pushed forward, the wheels rolling on the ground spin the prop.

If properly constructed, there's no reason for it not to work.

Here's an easier-to-understand example:

The open parachute at the top moves toward the rear of the cart frame as the cart rolls left to right. That is, it moves right to left relative to the cart frame. However, for each rotation of the wheel at bottom center, the parachute moves a shorter distance left to right (a distance equal to the circumference of the inner wheel that the belt carrying the chutes is wrapped around) than the cart frame moves toward the right (a distance equal to the circumference of the outer wheel that's in contact with the ground). Therefore, the parachute moves left to right relative to the ground.

To repeat: the parachute at the top moves right to left relative to the cart frame, and left to right relative to the ground.

Now, imagine the cart is moving downwind, left to right, at the speed of the wind.

1. Because the parachute is moving right to left relative to the cart frame, it's moving slower than the wind, and the wind still pushes it.

2. Because the parachute moves left to right relative to the ground when the cart rolls, the wind pushing on the parachute provides thrust to the cart in the left to right direction.

Accept points 1 and 2, and the device has to work. Some people seem to have a problem with point 2, but many physical models of it have been presented here. The downruler-faster-than-the-ruler model is a very close analogue, with the top surface of the wheel corresponding to the top parachute in the above device.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[humber]

Of course it does. Mine is right.



You are completely loony humber. I'm not wrong, I haven't admitted I'm wrong, and I haven't contradicted myself.



I'm sure you do. Wayne Whiteman is perhaps as thick as you.



Please show me where I make that claim.

JB explicitly made claims to a three way phone call in your support. If you cannot back that with evidence, then we do have written cdenial from Prof Whiteman. No, your explanation is wrong. You denied mine in the usual derisory way. Demonstrate that the argument put forward in Dan_O's post is false.
As to the numbered remarks, Spork, I am calling you a liar. You have much pride, so where is it now?

 

[spork]

Spork, I am calling you a liar. You have much pride, so where is it now?

Sorry humber I can't respond to your concerns because I am literally unable to even parse them. If you can find someone that will translate to them to "sane", I will happily respond.

Spork, I am calling you a liar

And I'm calling you an idiot. The difference is that I have scores of posts to prove my point.

 

[spork]

I actually found something coherent enough from you that I can respond to it:

humber says: "You claim to have a recording of the phone call"

spork says: "Please show me where I make that claim."

humber says: "JB explicitly made claims to a three way phone call"

 

[humber]

Sorry humber I can't respond to your concerns because I am literally unable to even parse them. If you can find someone that will translate to them to "sane", I will happily respond.

They are in my post. You made claims against Prof Whiteman, but do not have evidence to support them. I say you are a lying in all the examples I cited. They are in plain English and numbered for your convenience.

(1) I think Prof. Whiteman is correct. You are irrational. You claim to have a recording of the phone call, so let's hear it, so that others may judge for themselves. A transcript may suffice.

(2)You said that you had accepted many challenges to your bet, but that they failed because the other party bowed out or otherwise could not agree. I asked you to provide details, but as usual you do not. Let's see those.

(3)You have made claims that some academics do agree. You post links to those who do not, so let's see some for those who do.

I say that your explanation of the cart's behavior false, and contradicts current knowledge on the matter. If you claim mine is not correct, then you should not only be able to refute mine, and that posed by Dan_O.

I claim that you are personally unable to do this.

ETA:
Yes JB. You have made accusations against prof Whitman, and now admit that have no recorded support.
Next points, please.

 

[spork]

I say you are a lying in all the examples I cited.

(1) I think Prof. Whiteman is correct. You are irrational. You claim to have a recording of the phone call

I know you think Wayne Whiteman is correct. You are both wrong. Pretty much everyone on this thread knows it. I have NEVER claimed to have a recording of the call. It seems YOU are the liar.

You said that you had accepted many challenges to your bet

Again you lie. I have only ever had one person accept my challenge in any way that seemed remotely viable. He admitted he was wrong and he asked to be let out of the bet. His name is waker on kiteforum.com

You have made claims that some academics do agree.

It's like the moon landing. I don't need to list the people that believe it happened. It's more interesting to name the crackpots that don't.

I say that your explanation of the cart's behavior false, and contradicts current knowledge on the matter.

Yes I know you think my understanding is wrong. That's because you don't understand the first thing about physics. You claimed before that I contradicted myself - which is yet another lie from you.

You've offered absolutely no evidence that I've contradicted myself or lied in any case. In this very post you've exposed your own lies.

 

[Myriad]

Since others in this thread have expressed interest (as I did when I joined in all those pages ago) in the subject of how to explain how and why a propeller DDWFTTW cart works, I thought I'd describe how I'd explain it if I had the skills and software to create animated 3D computer graphics.

I'd start with an iceboat moving downwind at a 45-degree angle to the wind, showing that the downwind component of the iceboat's movement can be faster than the wind. (How that works might require a separate explanation, but there's plenty of established evidence that it does.)

Here are the steps I'd then animate:

1. Wrap the ice surface into a tube, with the wind flowing down the tube and the iceboat on the inside surface of the tube. The iceboat is now moving in a helix at the same downwind angle it was sailing before.

2. Add a second otherwise identical iceboat 180 degrees out of phase with the first, that is, sailing in the exact same way on the opposite wall of the tube.

3. Lengthen the masts of the two iceboats until they join in the center.

4. Add a rotating shaft extending from the center point where the masts join, parallel to the length of the tube.

5. Introduce outside the tube a flat fixed road running parallel to the ice tube and fixed in position relative to the ice tube.

6. Add a continuous thin gap in the tube where it's closest to the road, narrow enough for the iceboats to glide over it without any problems.

7. Add bearings around the center shaft, and framework struts extending toward then then through the gap.

8. Add a wheeled base that the framework attaches to. The wheels are running along the road at the same speed the other components are moving down the ice tube.

9. Connect the wheel axle to the center shaft with a perpendicular shaft and gears. There are now two different mechanisms determining how far down-tube and down-road the device moves for each orbit of the ice boats: the ice boat blades, and the shafts-and-gears linkage between the wheels and the ice boat masts. Everything moves smoothly because the mechanisms are in synch.

10. Either one of the two mechanisms will suffice, so remove the ice boat blades. Then remove the hulls, leaving only enough structure to hold the sails in shape.

11. The ice tube is now irrelevant, so remove it (keeping the wind).

What's left is the DWFFT cart. The sails and masts of the two ice boats form the propeller.

There is no step at which the operating principle ceases to be valid.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[humber]

I know you think Wayne Whiteman is correct. You are both wrong. Pretty much everyone on this thread knows it. I have NEVER claimed to have a recording of the call. It seems YOU are the liar.

Yes, I lured you into admitting you have no evidence, otherwise you would have resorted to the tactics that you have used in response to the above posts.

Again you lie. I have only ever had one person accept my challenge in any way that seemed remotely viable. He admitted he was wrong and he asked to be let out of the bet. His name is waker on kiteforum.com

You made claims that all challenges were ultimately not accepted. Is this only one, a mistaken challenge?

It's like the moon landing. I don't need to list the people that believe it happened. It's more interesting to name the crackpots that don't.

Yes I know you think my understanding is wrong. That's because you don't understand the first thing about physics. You claimed before that I contradicted myself - which is yet another lie from you.

No, nothing like the moon landing conspirators, except perhaps containing the same level of denial.

(4) I am challenging you to deny a claim that directly refutes yours. I deny you can answer to Dan_0's question, and the ideas that support it.

(3) You have made claims that some academics do agree. You post links to those who do not, so let's see some for those who do.

One down perhaps, three to go.

 

[spork]

Yes, I lured you into admitting you have no evidence.

In other words you lied. As you know I never claimed to have a recording or any other evidence beyond JB as a witness.

One down perhaps, three to go.

Thanks anyway. I'm satisfied that you admit that you lied on even one point. There's no value in communicating with you.

 

[spork]

I thought I would never say this but humber is correct.

His description of the cart on the treadmill being in balance is absolutely correct.

What are the forces acting on the cart? Here is a simplified diagram:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1514449426363349b8.jpg[/qimg]

The external forces acting on the cart are gravity, a normal force from the surface, belt push due to the energy the cart is extracting from the motion over the surface and thrust from the acceleration of the air by the propeller. When the system is in balance, the thrust generated by the propeller equals the push from the surface plus the residual of the gravity and normal forces.

If the cart is able to balance when on an inclined surface, there will be a net forward force with the inclination removed so the cart would accelerate. What energy source is supplying this extra force?

Velocities are all shown as differences relative to the cart

I agree with everything in this post with the possible exception regarding humber being right. I know for a fact that humber is wrong on all sorts of stuff all the time. I simply don't read a whole bunch of his stuff, so it's possible he was right in the instance you reference.

But I should point out that nothing here contradicts anything I've said about this cart.

I will point out that there is nothing about this cart or setup that tends to cause it to balance on an inclined treadmill. It just happens that it's possible to set the speed and incline of the treadmill to achieve such balance (or nearly so) if you go to great pains to do so.

Where does the energy come from? As always from the differential speed of the belt and the air.

 

[humber]

In other words you lied. As you know I never claimed to have a recording or any other evidence beyond JB as a witness.



Thanks anyway. I'm satisfied that you admit that you lied on even one point. There's no value in communicating with you.

No, a prophylactic against your tactics. There you go again. You fell for it twice. Despite all of the other direct questions, where I cal you a liar and suggest you are a fraud, you plumb for the ad hom against me.
Spork, when the heat is on, you run away. My explanation stands.

ETA:
Quote Spork:
I will point out that there is nothing about this cart or setup that tends to cause it to balance on an inclined treadmill. It just happens that it's possible to set the speed and incline of the treadmill to achieve such balance (or nearly so) if you go to great pains to do so.

No, the balance is quite natural. In the arguments developed for the relative velocity of the winds, it is assumed in all examples that the cart is in normal operation, that is, the cart is being driven by the wind.
However on the treadmill, the cart adopts another mode of behavior; that of the described balance. Now that has been acknowledged I can advance my claim.

I have earlier said that I expect the cart would climb faster on a steeper incline than when level.
Misuse of equivalency, and the balance mechanism inherent to the cart, mean there is no load fro the propeller and this limit the amount of system force.

(1) The propeller does not develop significant thrust because of poor load matching to the still air around it.

(2) The propeller also has no load because on a level treadmill, there is no significant work for the cart to do.

(3) Along with vestigial friction to the belt, the above result in the cart adopting the balance mode.

(4) The wheel and propeller torques are in equal and opposite balance as previously described. However, because the cart is against the belt, feedback not only enforces the balance, but drives it to a minimum. The force "well" I have referred to.

(5) When inclined, there is some work for the cart to do, and this acts to imbalance the above mechanism. However force feedback still tries to minimize the total force, so it hunts in the direction, driven by momentum, and that is up the belt.

When the case for zero wind is put forward, the actual consequence should be that the cart goes back with the belt. If all other factors are kept consistent, then the cart should go back with the belt, and be seen to drive itself forward. However, the low friction and the balance mechanism, allow the cart to escape this fate, allowing the claim that it is at windspeed.

Talking about "equivalence" in a metaphorical way, is dangerous territory, because it allows perception to cloud the result.
If you work through the examples, you should see how the observer is switched around in the treadmill. If consistent, then the observer on the belt, and that beside the treadmill should be the same viewpoint, or the belt be windspeed air, but then not the road.
That is how I see the equivalency problem, but that does not actually harm my case if wrong, because if well connected to the belt, the cart will adopt the mode it uses in real air, and go back down the belt. For sure.
Also, as is claimed by Spork's academic rivals, the treadmill is not an "equivalent system" its a model.

 

[CyCrow]

Humber, look at Dan_O's post again (1961). The ONLY thing he gives you credit for is that the forces on the cart balance. Given that we all know it isn't accelerating, that much should be bleedin obvious to anyone.

I suspect Dan_O was trying to sneak some sense into you by appearing to agree. You completely ignored the (correct) description he gave and seem to think he agrees with you. He doesn't. You never answered his question in the post. You are hopelessly wrong on this.

// CyCrow

 

[mender]

I thought I would never say this but humber is correct.

His description of the cart on the treadmill being in balance is absolutely correct.

What are the forces acting on the cart? Here is a simplified diagram:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1514449426363349b8.jpg[/qimg]

The external forces acting on the cart are gravity, a normal force from the surface, belt push due to the energy the cart is extracting from the motion over the surface and thrust from the acceleration of the air by the propeller. When the system is in balance, the thrust generated by the propeller equals the push from the surface plus the residual of the gravity and normal forces.

If the cart is able to balance when on an inclined surface, there will be a net forward force with the inclination removed so the cart would accelerate. What energy source is supplying this extra force?

Velocities are all shown as differences relative to the cart

Since it's obvious that the still air around the cart can't be adding energy to the system, the only other part of the system that is moving and therefore able to contribute energy is the surface underneath the cart. In fact, the air is getting energy added to it because the propeller is accelerating the air, changing the momentum of the air passing through the propeller. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere, and like I said, the only thing moving is the surface under the cart.

That's how I see it, and that's how the cart sees it too.

Does that satisfy you, Humber? Did you come up with the right answer too?

Dan O's comment is that the cart is in balance, NOT that he thinks you have the right explanation of why. Read his comment a little more carefully.

No one runs away, they (like me) hope that eventually you'll get tired of the inanities and try to understand this.

 

[tsig]

You'll have to show yourself since I'm not where you are.

Run downwind the same speed as the wind -- do you feel any wind? Though your feet are moving, you are now at rest relative to the air.

Ride a bike downwind the same speed as the wind -- do you feel any wind? Though your feet are spinning, you are now at rest relative to the air.


Drive downwind the same speed as the wind and stick your hand out the window -- do you feel any wind? Though your wheels are spinning, you are now at rest relative to the air.

Do this as many different ways as you wish (including riding on the chassis of a DDWFTTW cart) and the results will be the same -- when going downwind the speed of the wind, you are at rest relative to the air.

Treadmill set at 10mph -- same as going 10mph downwind in a 10mph wind.

JB

No the treadmill has no wind. All the power comes from the treadmill.

 

[humber]

Since it's obvious that the still air around the cart can't be adding energy to the system, the only other part of the system that is moving and therefore able to contribute energy is the surface underneath the cart. In fact, the air is getting energy added to it because the propeller is accelerating the air, changing the momentum of the air passing through the propeller. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere, and like I said, the only thing moving is the surface under the cart.

That's how I see it, and that's how the cart sees it too.

Does that satisfy you, Humber? Did you come up with the right answer too?

Dan O's comment is that the cart is in balance, NOT that he thinks you have the right explanation of why. Read his comment a little more carefully.

No one runs away, they (like me) hope that eventually you'll get tired of the inanities and try to understand this.

Surface? Any drive will do. Nonetheless , the cart is not operating in a way that it could use any more energy, as the inherent balance mechanism implies.

Yes, I am aware of the qualitative differences that Dan_O makes and that he still regards the cart as being at windspeed. There is a recent post where I have asked that he confirm that.
I should also add, that any arguments to support 'ground effect' from the belt or otherwise, do not deny that mechanism or its consequences.
All of this, I have put forward loooong ago.

No, that makes no difference. without this mechanism, no matter how derived (and it is agreed that it is there), the illusion will fail.

Lets say a fast walk, then

 

[humber]

Humber, look at Dan_O's post again (1961). The ONLY thing he gives you credit for is that the forces on the cart balance. Given that we all know it isn't accelerating, that much should be bleedin obvious to anyone.

I suspect Dan_O was trying to sneak some sense into you by appearing to agree. You completely ignored the (correct) description he gave and seem to think he agrees with you. He doesn't. You never answered his question in the post. You are hopelessly wrong on this.

// CyCrow

Now its not accelerating and it is not equivalent.
I have explained that, but not quite in the same way as Dan_O does, (my use of qualitative), because if he developed his argument further , then the answer would be clear.

Also, one cannot but admire the spirit of inquiry , that called so many to put forward explanations.
I would have, but I was waiting.