Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

[John Freestone]

Yes I do.
The balancing is not so simple, but it is simply a fact.

A fact as described by the cart's protagonists according to standard physical theory, not a fact according to your unexplained "balancing", which, if I remember, has something to do with it not having any friction.

All out of town at the moment.

Yeah, shall we have a little guessing game which description they think matches reality before they get back? Oh look, Greg's here now - Greg, do kites fly if you just tie a drogue parachute to them? Can you think of a way they might manage it for a while by using a pulley?

You seem to accept that metaphorical pulleys can drive a yo-yo

I said what? I don't think I've mentioned yo-yos or metaphorical pulleys. I find the former annoying and the latter useless.

, but this simple possibility, escapes you. There are many possibilities for 'reversing' the force' but you know it can be done, because of the Ventomobile, that runs against the wind.
So now you can fully agree.

Now that you've changed the proposition to include the reversal of the force, which I taught you earlier, I can partially agree with your new re-vamping of it. Ventomobile? We can tie the kite to an aeroplane or a helicopter or a bridge or a boy's bicycle, or a nanny's umbrella - it just needs something to stop it being accelerated by the drag of the air, towards airspeed, like hot-air balloons get to when untethered, whereupon kites do not produce any lift anymore and fall, being unlike hot-air balloons and requiring aerodynamic lift. As they fall, there's some chance they will produce lift again, because they are moving relative to the air again as they fall, but it's a losing game. They land quite soon. Once again, your suggestion is backward - not only a way to keep a kite up steady state, but a way to bring it to windspeed even more rapidly - attach a drogue to it!

Now that I've had time to think about it, the pulley idea isn't going to work for long either. It would depend on a very unlikely balance between the drag on it and the kite. At least I was somewhere near reality.

If provides a load, and keeps the kite stable. That allows more power to be transferred. See MPT.

You're talking rot far too vehemently. See NPD.

Note also the difference between static and dynamic force.

Note also the difference between stating and dynamically repeating a load of BS.

There is no pulley, and the forces need not be equal. None of those arrangements you describe can work on the treadmill. Nothing can fly without a string on the treadmill. That is not like any wind tunnel, or real wind.

Oh good, Flash Gordon is back; Captain; mint choc chip.

Take a familiar example. Run with a kite against the wind. It flies and you feel the wind.

Or run with a kite against still air and it flies and you feel the wind.

On the treadmill, how do you run against the wind?

You stand still wrt the belt.

At best, being on the belt is like running in still air,

which is sufficient to fly a kite.

but only if attached to the belt with sufficient adhesion to support the necessary force.

Wear sneakers. That's fine. In fact, just don't wear rollerskates or stand on a plank resting on a load of oranges. Just take ordinary precautions. Don't cover the belt with special anti-gravity fluid, or spray it with your negative-drag gun.

That cannot drive a windcart in the same manner as the real wind.

and the videos are...? (fake? optical illusions?...oh yeah, no friction so "balancing"!)

Wind speed is stand still, in still air.

There, you got a point, despite the grammar. Have another party.

'Given an infinite treadmill' and 'boundary conditions' are excuses.
Your example may hold if there were to be a moving flatbed truck with each wind cart. Video #7 shows there are no pixies behind the curtains, but also no trucks.

No, you're being a bit silly again. The truck does the same thing as the treadmill or moving walkway. It provides relative motion w.r.t. the air, to overcome the problem that the windspeed w.r.t. the ground is zero. So they don't need both.

Not my fault.

Is so.

Gliders. In fact anything that can be though of as flying. Only devices that balance, can stay on the belt.

What can't balance?

So why make a fuss about it.

No fuss, just endlessly correcting your incorrect view.

Not a matter of bothering. Turn the treadmill around in the room. No difference. Yes I know, the ground; the frame that dare not speak its name.

Yes, it's all because the ground is homosexual.

So you say. The formula not. I imagine you think your car is powered by friction to the road.

Indeed it is.

It makes sense. You stop when you get a puncture, and they automatically refresh themselves by driving you to fill the tank.

No, don't be silly. You can drive on punctures. It doesn't significantly reduce the friction. The engine tries to turn the wheels, the wheels try to spin pointlessly, but friction between them and the road powers you forward. Try driving on sheet ice. Alternatively, take away everything from the engine that gives rotary motion, just leave the piston banging on the tarmac. Now, is it the engine that powers the car's motion?

KE is the result of acceleration. It can be later re-deplayed. It's like a hamster. Store when the force is available.

I take it back about talking to infant-school children. You'll confuse them. They'll end up thinking the school hamster is a hot-air balloon, tie it to a brick and throw it out the window.

No, read again.

Ok. "Now that there has been a begrudging admission that momentum may power a cart to windspeed, do you think that may be part of the reason why meteorological balloons can travel close to the wind?"

No. (You're right - that was a better reply.)

Perhaps you are right. Let's make that 'an attempt to warm-over my idea, so that it can be used to tell me why I was wrong in the first place.'

You were wrong in the first, and almost every other, place.

 

[John Freestone]

It would be both. But we couldn't call it a balloon

ok. anti-gravity device?

 

[RossFW]

What's this latest buffoonery? A kite with a drouge on the end?

In his endless inability to mentally model simple systems, Humber SEEMS to be saying that if you have a drouge parachute on the end of a kite string, the fact that they move wrt the ground will mean the drouge is providing aerodynamic drag, and therefore forcing the kite to have a relative airflow, and therefore provide lift.

Humber, if the kite is moving at windspeed, it has no relative airflow and can't produce lift. If the drouge is travelling at windspeed, it has no relative airflow, and can't produce drag. The drouge could only produce drag in the direction needed if it was going FASTER than the wind.Aerodynamics works by the interaction of air flowing over something. If you are traveling at the same speed as the air around you, none is.

 

[spork]

Humber, its very simple, point to a law of physical motion that says the maximum power you can transfer from one object to another is only 50%, that there is a physical equivalent to "electrical load", or just confess that you're flat out lying.

There is no such law. Therefore you're lying.

Oh, remember this little gem?

So, after getting nailed for the total farce that your "Maximum Power Theorem" is, you came back with this little gem as your smoke screen. That there are "real" sources of energy and "not real" sources of energy. And if it's "real", then you will lose 50% of your energy, because of some law of nature.

Which law, you haven't said. Because none such nonsense exists.

You're lying to cover your lies, humber.

And the real kicker? None of this has anything to do with the cart, the treadmill, or anything else. You're blowing smoke, humber. You don't know what you're talking about. You're lying.

This would be exactly the sort of thing I would expect the James Randi forum to not tolerate. Someone hiding behind a pseudonym, talking pseudoscience and technical mumbo jumbo, all of it wrong, to pull off some sort of con. Even if it's nothing more than a con to make yourself feel superior, to troll, whatever, it's still a con.

If you were charging money for this garbage, you'd deserve to be shut down in a heartbeat. For all I know, you're just practicing your con lines here for free so you can charge money in the real world.

How about that... looks like you're being "pwnd" by humber.

 

[RossFW]

Yeah, I know how he feels...

Every time i think I'm out....he Pulls me back in!!

 

[spork]

Yeah, I know how he feels...

Every time i think I'm out....he Pulls me back in!!

I do as well, but I haven't insulted most of the people on this thread for doing exactly what I'm doing.

 

[mender]

Wind speed is stand still, in still air.

Thank you for defining wind speed as requested, humber!

Well done, significant progress here! Much better than when you were trying to convince everyone that for the cart to be at wind speed on the treadmill, it would have to first go from moving back with the belt, to moving against the belt with enough speed to match the rearward movement of the belt and be stationary with the air in the room (which you finally accept as wind speed), then moving forward against the belt at the same speed that the belt is moving back wrt the air.

That would have the cart moving much faster than wind speed, which isn't what the treadmill test is for. It is only to allow us to examine carefully what the cart is doing when at wind speed.

I'm glad that you have provided us with the right definition of wind speed. This will help tremendously in future discussions.

 

[GregLondon]

How about that... looks like you're being "pwnd" by humber.

Humber's use of science is on par with Intellgent Design. He'd mangle the Second Law of Thermodynamics to "prove" his nonsense. Calling it nonsense isn't being "pwnd" by humber. Trying to show Humber where he is wrong and trying to teach him the correct way, would be being "pwnd" by humber.

There were a number of Evolutionists who thought teh best way to deal with Intelligent Design was to not dignify it with a response. This only gave the ID'ers traction to get their nonsense into schools, and it took a massive court battle relatively recently to finally kick their crap out of schools. So, I figure the best response is to keep the spotlight on the complete and absolute nonsense he's saying. No need to spend a lot of energy on it, but just act as a reminder that he's talking complete and total voodoo.

Folks trying to teach humber some physics have as much hope as someone trying to teach a young earth creationist that evolution is a valid scientific theory.

 

[humber]

Humber, its very simple, point to a law of physical motion that says the maximum power you can transfer from one object to another is only 50%, that there is a physical equivalent to "electrical load", or just confess that you're flat out lying.
There is no such law. Therefore you're lying.

Hopeless, Greg. You are not usually one for the direct ad hom, but you still impute ignorance to your opponents.
Usually, force and velocity are modeled as simple primitives. The remainder of the construct is what is hoped to be modeled. It does not replace the laws or mathematics behind it, so MPT still applies in your case, even though you don't know it, or even accept that it can be modeled that way.
MPT does not say how or why the power is transferred, but only the conditions necessary for maximum transfer.

....or just confess that you're flat out lying.

Good. Here we have the defense for the 'turnip twiddler' of your earlier post, who you denied the opportunity to speak for himself.
Like his grin, you would need my confession before being sure that were not fiction!

Ridiculous. Do you think I make the laws of nature? It seems that a great deal of science has fallen for my story.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/733214j1955t208k/
http://www.invenia.es/tech:06_be_fliw_0g64.
They are a bit late with that idea...it's shocking what I know about acoustics.
------
...and from your claimed field. It's simple and chatty, but a start.
http://www.usna.edu/EE/documents/EE_News.pdf

Q: You say the “Buck Converter” is like the gearing on my bicycle?
A: Right, it’s just like that except it’s electrical.

-----
A real mechanical load is dissipative. That is resistive. See? Friction/heat/ even "resistance to motion". Works for heat, acoustics and biology...

While I am here, I should point out a massive blunder within your yo-yo idea. It is true that pulleys allow the exchange of force and velocity. Your pulley example allows less force for the same work, but only at the expense of time. For example, it takes longer to haul the object to a given height.

Now, don't you think that fact may be a significant bummer, if your goal is increased velocity, i.e. distance over time?

Oh, remember this little gem?
So, after getting nailed for the total farce that your "Maximum Power Theorem" is, you came back with this little gem as your smoke screen. That there are "real" sources of energy and "not real" sources of energy. And if it's "real", then you will lose 50% of your energy, because of some law of nature.

You are an electronics engineer? On this planet?
Take a capacitor. 1 Farad charged to 1 Volt. W(energy) = 1/2CV^2 = 0.5J. Put that in parallel with a discharged capacitor of the same value.

Now the voltage is 0.5V, but the capacitance is now 2 Farad. W = 0.25J.
50% of the energy is lost in dissipation as the charge transferred via resistance. In the simple case, the rule applies for all values of resistance, except for zero. Though, like momentum, charge is conserved (CV).

'Real' is a ubiquitous term. It means that the load in not reactive or complex. Current is in phase with voltage. Real loads do not store energy, but dissipate it. Start here, then find a text book. Walk, the run, Greg.
http://www.electro-tech-online.com/general-electronics-chat/14048-complex-power.html

Mechanical equivalents are springs and flywheels. Odd things flywheels. They have an average displacement of zero, yet are always accelerating, as if missing a dimension. That makes 'em onery.

Which law, you haven't said. Because none such nonsense exists.
You're lying to cover your lies, humber.
And the real kicker? None of this has anything to do with the cart, the treadmill, or anything else. You're blowing smoke, humber. You don't know what you're talking about. You're lying.

Really. I say the treadmill has nothing to do with the cart or wind.
Like I said, I responded directly to your questions and remarks. Some cage-rattling included for fun. You refused to take any notice, and behaved like a juggernaut with one idea. There were many mistakes I did not comment upon.

This would be exactly the sort of thing I would expect the James Randi forum to not tolerate. Someone hiding behind a pseudonym, talking pseudoscience and technical mumbo jumbo, all of it wrong, to pull off some sort of con. Even if it's nothing more than a con to make yourself feel superior, to troll, whatever, it's still a con.

There are many videos where James Randi speaks for himself. Watch them.

If you were charging money for this garbage, you'd deserve to be shut down in a heartbeat. For all I know, you're just practicing your con lines here for free so you can charge money in the real world.

Sorcery, actually. I am The Lord Anubis. Your girlfriend rang.
You are being paid as an electrical/electronics engineer? Isn't that dishonest?

 

[Dan O.]

When applying MPT to accelerating a balloon to wind speed, the balloon's impedance must be matched to that of the wind. In this case, the balloon instantly accelerates becoming part of the wind but leaves behind an image of itself composed of still air that will slowly dissipate as random scattering decouples the coherence.

 

[humber]

What's this latest buffoonery? A kite with a drouge on the end?

Buffon? Where did I see that last used...

In his endless inability to mentally model simple systems, Humber SEEMS to be saying that if you have a drouge parachute on the end of a kite string, the fact that they move wrt the ground will mean the drouge is providing aerodynamic drag, and therefore forcing the kite to have a relative airflow, and therefore provide lift.

No. Like the string, the drogue provides a load, but is a static load. Kites have low mass, and this makes for inefficient coupling to the wind, so little power is transferred if they are entirely free.

Humber, if the kite is moving at windspeed, it has no relative airflow and can't produce lift. If the drouge is travelling at windspeed, it has no relative airflow, and can't produce drag.

But they don't travel at windspeed, RossFW. That is a fiction. There is relative flow between airborne objects and the wind. That's how the lift or motion is generated. Even so, I could make an inefficient kite/drogue.

The drogue could only produce drag in the direction needed if it was going FASTER than the wind.Aerodynamics works by the interaction of air flowing over something. If you are traveling at the same speed as the air around you, none is.

No, it can produce a force, and do work if necessary. The drogue or kite can be designed to produce a specific force for a given condition.
(1) No object that that can be said to fly or glide can do so on the treadmill, once it is decoupled from the belt. A non-wind tunnel ( LTA balloons work everywhere of course, so why consider them?)

(2) Any object that is dragged through the air by a belt-observer, will continue to move in the same direction (towards the observer) even if only for a short time. Must do.
That does not happen in wind, because its force is independent of the ground (belt) .

 

[mender]

MPT does not say how or why the power is transferred, but only the conditions necessary for maximum transfer.

Wouldn't it be easier to use mechanical equivalents and talk about Newton's third law instead?

 

[mender]

(1) No object that that can be said to fly or glide can do so on the treadmill, once it is decoupled from the belt.

Yet glides towed into the air with a winch on a calm day continue to fly after being decoupled.

 

[GregLondon]

Hopeless, Greg. You are not usually one for the direct ad hom, but you still impute ignorance to your opponents.
Usually, force and velocity are modeled as simple primitives. The remainder of the construct is what is hoped to be modeled. It does not replace the laws or mathematics behind it, so MPT still applies in your case, even though you don't know it, or even accept that it can be modeled that way.
MPT does not say how or why the power is transferred, but only the conditions necessary for maximum transfer.


Good. Here we have the defense for the 'turnip twiddler' of your earlier post, who you denied the opportunity to speak for himself.
Like his grin, you would need my confession before being sure that were not fiction!

Ridiculous. Do you think I make the laws of nature? It seems that a great deal of science has fallen for my story.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/733214j1955t208k/
http://www.invenia.es/tech:06_be_fliw_0g64.
They are a bit late with that idea...it's shocking what I know about acoustics.
------
...and from your claimed field. It's simple and chatty, but a start.
http://www.usna.edu/EE/documents/EE_News.pdf

Q: You say the “Buck Converter” is like the gearing on my bicycle?
A: Right, it’s just like that except it’s electrical.

-----
A real mechanical load is dissipative. That is resistive. See? Friction/heat/ even "resistance to motion". Works for heat, acoustics and biology...

While I am here, I should point out a massive blunder within your yo-yo idea. It is true that pulleys allow the exchange of force and velocity. Your pulley example allows less force for the same work, but only at the expense of time. For example, it takes longer to haul the object to a given height.

Now, don't you think that fact may be a significant bummer, if your goal is increased velocity, i.e. distance over time?



You are an electronics engineer? On this planet?
Take a capacitor. 1 Farad charged to 1 Volt. W(energy) = 1/2CV^2 = 0.5J. Put that in parallel with a discharged capacitor of the same value.

Now the voltage is 0.5V, but the capacitance is now 2 Farad. W = 0.25J.
50% of the energy is lost in dissipation as the charge transferred via resistance. In the simple case, the rule applies for all values of resistance, except for zero. Though, like momentum, charge is conserved (CV).

'Real' is a ubiquitous term. It means that the load in not reactive or complex. Current is in phase with voltage. Real loads do not store energy, but dissipate it. Start here, then find a text book. Walk, the run, Greg.
http://www.electro-tech-online.com/general-electronics-chat/14048-complex-power.html

Mechanical equivalents are springs and flywheels. Odd things flywheels. They have an average displacement of zero, yet are always accelerating, as if missing a dimension. That makes 'em onery.


Really. I say the treadmill has nothing to do with the cart or wind.
Like I said, I responded directly to your questions and remarks. Some cage-rattling included for fun. You refused to take any notice, and behaved like a juggernaut with one idea. There were many mistakes I did not comment upon.


There are many videos where James Randi speaks for himself. Watch them.



Sorcery, actually. I am The Lord Anubis. Your girlfriend rang.

All this nonsense, to avoid one simple fact:
There is no physical equivalent to the max power theorem.

You're a liar, humber. You might as well mangle the Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain how evolution is impossible.

 

[GregLondon]

Humber:

MPT does not say how or why the power is transferred, but only the conditions necessary for maximum transfer.

Wouldn't it be easier to use mechanical equivalents and talk about Newton's third law instead?

Yes. But that's the problem. Humber would run out of nonsense and gibberish to spew on the thread.

MPT is Humber's "watchmaker" argument. That's why the treadmill indoors is not equivalent to being outside in teh wind. Max power theorem, an electrical engineering concept that tells you how to pick a resistor value, is humber's "reason" for why a "real" source of power can only put 50% of that power into moving an object, the rest MUST be lost as heat or friction or whatver.

 

[humber]

Wouldn't it be easier to use mechanical equivalents and talk about Newton's third law instead?

Perhaps, Mender, but it makes no difference to the principle.
The idea is the same.

If the force from a parachute is linear with velocity, then that is simply;
Power (available) = force* distance/time = force * velocity.

If the load, such as drag, is proportional to velocity squared.
Power (demand) = force * (V^2)

If the load is a skater pulled by a rope, then the forces must be the same, as they are effectively in series. One rope, one line of force.

Solve the two equations, and you have the maximum power transferred, and the maximum obtainable velocity.
This can be done graphically, if there is measured data available. Where the chute and skater load lines intersect, is the maximum velocity.

 

[humber]

All this nonsense, to avoid one simple fact:
There is no physical equivalent to the max power theorem.

You're a liar, humber. You might as well mangle the Second Law of Thermodynamics to explain how evolution is impossible.

Rubbish. You know nothing. Your reply speaks volumes.

 

[GregLondon]

When you store energy in that pendulum you mentioned, the losses are also very low. But, if the energy transferred to it from a mechanically 'real' source is 100J, then 200J must come from the source. 50% is lost in the source as perhaps heat. A law of nature.

Shorter Humber: Transfering energy from a "real" source into a pendulum will lose 50% of that energy. A law of nature.

This is so much rubbish that it boggles the mind that people are still trying to "convert" humber to some sort of real understanding of physics.

Humber obviously doesn't want to be converted.

 

[spork]

Humber's use of science is on par with Intellgent Design. He'd mangle the Second Law of Thermodynamics to "prove" his nonsense. Calling it nonsense isn't being "pwnd" by humber.

And yet two pages ago you explained how everyone on this thread but you was being "pwnd" by humber...

If he knows more than he says, you're being completely duped.
If he knows as much as he says (i.e. nothing), then if he's anything like this guy I know, he's simply feeding off the reaction he gets to make himself feel superior.

Either way, he's pwning you...

Those who are poking Humber to see what crazy thing he'll say next, to get quotes out of him to make fun of, are being pwned by Humber. He's saying crazy things just to keep you going along with him. He's saying crazy things to get you to react to him. You're doing exactly what he wants.

Whether Humber knows more than he lets on or not, he is pwning you.

As a side question, do people over the age of 13 use the term "pwnd"?

 

[John Freestone]

(1) No object that that can be said to fly or glide can do so on the treadmill, once it is decoupled from the belt.

Can you tell me what happens then if something that can fly takes off from the ground, on which we have laid a treadmill, not turned on, not in motion, not doing anything, like a model airplane, say, which we could make take off from the belt since it is just there doing nothing, like a bit of ground, or a table, or a fridge, or a flatbed truck with a puncture and no engine, and then, when it's flying, we turn the treadmill on?

If I fly my RC heli through the supermarket, does it plummet to the ground when it passes over the checkout conveyor belt?

We're right back to page 1 of the parent thread, in case anyone hadn't noticed - planes taking off from treadmills! Only humber thinks that once they're airborne, that's when they can't fly anymore. While they're coupled to it - he does love "coupling" doesn't he - they can fly fine!

It can fly! - don't take off - there, you blew it!