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

[mender]

Um, yeah. About 2500 posts ago I stated that the prop essentially added mass to the system, exhibited as thrust.

Thrust is the change of mass wrt to time.

Your first statement was unclear to me, but I think I understand what you are meaning now. Thrust is the change in momentum of the air over a specified time.

You need to measure the lift/drag ratio instaneously while the cart is on the treadmill. And you need a very small time interval between measurements. No small task.

Can you explain why I need to measure the lift/drag ratio in such a fashion?

Have you read this article?

http://www.ayrs.org/DWFTTW_from_Catalyst_N23_Jan_2006.pdf

 

[Furcifer]

I said: I've never blogged a single word in my life.

3bodyproblem said: Now that's a lie and you know it. Shameful.

I don't lie. If you're going to call me a liar you'd better be prepared to prove it. Show me where I've ever posted one word of blog.

Are you delusional or just ignorant of what blogging is?

Aside from 661 (and counting) "blogs" here there are countless other "blogs" on numerous websites all over the net, not to mention the countless "video blogs" on youtube.

 

[spork]

If both the cart and the treadmill were proportionally scaled up in size, and it were still running at the same meters/second and the same rotational frequency, then most certainly it would have the same resonant effect on the cart.

Yes, it would have exactly the same resonant effect - ZERO.

This place is getting bukake'd with humber-types.

With the wind around such a giant treadmill swirling incoherently...

The wind is swirling "incoherently"!? Are you sure you're not thinking of your post?

IF the “faster then treadmill” effect is due solely to the cart achieving resonance with the treadmill, and IF the cart cannot achieve the same resonance with the ground when off the treadmill, the cart cannot achieve “faster than the wind” whilst running on the surface of the earth.

Man - I picked a bad week to stop dropping acid!

Thrust is the change of mass wrt to time.

Dan, this CLEARLY qualifies for your list of things that are misunderstood about classical physics. It's just pure wrong. How do I nominate it?

 

[spork]

Are you delusional or just ignorant of what blogging is?

I'm quite aware of what blogging is. And I'm quite aware that you're a liar. I've never posted a word of blog.

 

[humber]

I take this as another recant of the "wind speed is stand still, in still air" statement.


Another correct statement! "You can say that the cart accelerates away from that ..." - yes, you're absolutely correct, I can say!

The small motion that you see, Mender, can hardly be denied. That motion is w.r.t the ground. It is hardly surprising that a treadmill motor could somehow power a cart to such snail-like progress. Have you not wondered how much 'road' actually passes under the wheels, as the cart moves forward 10cms?
Abominable efficiency.
There is no "windspeed". The belt is nothing more than the means by which the motor is coupled to the cart. A small roller directly driving the wheels would have the propellor generate exactly the same amount of "thrust". Is that then windspeed too?

 

[Christoph]

Man - I picked a bad week to stop dropping acid!

Maybe this explains why you believe in DDWFTTW?

 

[Furcifer]

Your first statement was unclear to me, but I think I understand what you are meaning now. Thrust is the change in momentum of the air over a specified time.



Can you explain why I need to measure the lift/drag ratio in such a fashion?

Have you read this article?

http://www.ayrs.org/DWFTTW_from_Catalyst_N23_Jan_2006.pdf

To determine a sinusoidal increase in velocity you would need an instantaneous velocity at two points in the cycle. The interval would have to be less than the frequency of sin wave.

 

[spork]

"Wikipedia" -The Idiot's Guide To Knowing Everything There Is To Know

It looks like you have some reading to do.

 

[mender]

That seems reasonable, IF you can show where the energy is coming from. A resonance can greatly multiply the energy delivered to a mechanical component in a resonant system and it can explain the cart going faster than the treadmill. If you discount the resonant effect, then you need to propose another source for the energy, especially in the down wind situation. The main problem with the down wind situation, as I see it is that no one has been able to explain where the energy is coming from.

I would ask you the same thing. If resonance can multiply the energy without an external source, I'd say that you have described a pmm. The energy has to come from somewhere as you say.

The energy source is the air moving over the ground. A wind turbine makes use of that by slowing down the air relative to the ground. The cart does exactly the same thing, except that it does it while moving. A method of compensating for that movement must be used to enable the cart to extract energy from the air when it is moving, otherwise, it would outrun its energy source. The propeller is geared to push back air (or pull back if you like) at a faster rate than it is traveling over the ground.

The speed of the air moving over the ground is not a restriction to the speed of the cart. The amount of energy available in the wind vs the drag on the cart is the restriction on the cart's speed.

It's easy to check that correlation. If the wind speed is low, the energy in the wind is also low and the car will move slowly. As the wind picks up, more energy is available and the cart moves faster.

Feel free to make me explain each part step by step. Each part of this must be satisfactory before moving on to the next point.

 

[semper]

That seems reasonable, IF you can show where the energy is coming from. A resonance can greatly multiply the energy delivered to a mechanical component in a resonant system and it can explain the cart going faster than the treadmill. If you discount the resonant effect, then you need to propose another source for the energy, especially in the down wind situation. The main problem with the down wind situation, as I see it is that no one has been able to explain where the energy is coming from.

An energy multiplier, just what I need! How did resonance get into the debate, I suppose there is some rhythm in thread posting.

"no one has been able to explain where the energy is coming from." Gold, shear gold. But really, I guess you haven't been following the debates for very long. One of the fundamental assumptions is that there is energy available due to the relative motion of (in this case) a solid a fluid. We aren't really interested (except Humber) about how those masses originally got into relative motion.

 

[Christoph]

An energy multiplier, just what I need! How did resonance get into the debate, I suppose there is some rhythm in thread posting.

"no one has been able to explain where the energy is coming from." Gold, shear gold. But really, I guess you haven't been following the debates for very long. One of the fundamental assumptions is that there is energy available due to the relative motion of (in this case) a solid a fluid. We aren't really interested (except Humber) about how those masses originally got into relative motion.

So that is what your argument is based on; a fundamental assumption? In that case, I suppose there is no way to convince you otherwise as you have formed a religious viewpoint, nothing at all to do with science!

 

[Furcifer]

Dan, this CLEARLY qualifies for your list of things that are misunderstood about classical physics. It's just pure wrong. How do I nominate it?

The exhaust velocity is implied. Do you really need to be spoon fed this stuff?

 

[fredriks]

Schrøder, why did you use a different user name on this forum?

 

[spork]

So that is what your argument is based on; a fundamental assumption? In that case, I suppose there is no way to convince you otherwise as you have formed a religious viewpoint, nothing at all to do with science!

Perhaps Semper misspoke. It would be accurate to call it a "fundamental truth". In contrast to your bizarre oscillation "theory" (hell - now I feel guilty for even using the word theory with your bizarre and baseless notion).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Geez, I go away for an hour or two and find that spork is messing around with nuclear physics:

Thrust is the change of mass wrt to time.

I wonder what good old Albert would have to say about that?

 

[semper]

So that is what your argument is based on; a fundamental assumption? In that case, I suppose there is no way to convince you otherwise as you have formed a religious viewpoint, nothing at all to do with science!

When I see a sailboat on the water, I also make the fundamental assumption that, the boat, the water, and myself are all real. You have to start somewhere, you want to call it religion.

 

[spork]

The exhaust velocity is implied. Do you really need to be spoon fed this stuff?

I love it. You're just as arrogant as you are wrong. I declare you "humberer"!

 

[Christoph]

The energy has to come from somewhere as you say.

The energy source is the air moving over the ground. A wind turbine makes use of that by slowing down the air relative to the ground. The cart does exactly the same thing, except that it does it while moving. A method of compensating for that movement must be used to enable the cart to extract energy from the air when it is moving, otherwise, it would outrun its energy source. The propeller is geared to push back air (or pull back if you like) at a faster rate than it is traveling over the ground.

This is nonsense. The propeller Requires power in order for it to provide thrust. The propeller cannot provide the power that it needs itself in order to produce thrust! THAT is a pmm.

 

[spork]

Geez, I go away for an hour or two and find that spork is messing around with nuclear physics:

Thrust is the change of mass wrt to time.

I wonder what good old Albert would have to say about that?

Hey monkey-boy - check your facts there. I'm doing my best to ridicule the author of that ludicrous quip.

 

[mender]

The small motion that you see, Mender, can hardly be denied. That motion is w.r.t the ground. It is hardly surprising that a treadmill motor could somehow power a cart to such snail-like progress. Have you not wondered how much 'road' actually passes under the wheels, as the cart moves forward 10cms?
Abominable efficiency.

No claim to the contrary. The only claim is that it will move faster than the air around it. That it does when the ground is stationary and the air is stationary and it moves forward wrt the ground. I hope that isn't too hard to see that it does exactly that!

There is no "windspeed". The belt is nothing more than the means by which the motor is coupled to the cart. A small roller directly driving the wheels would have the propellor generate exactly the same amount of "thrust". Is that then windspeed too?

Well. I do admit to expending a fair bit of energy when I run on my treadmill at 10 mph. All that just to attain "wind speed" - which I do in my basement. Somehow I am unable to "hover", even on roller skates, especially when the treadmill is inclined. To duplicate the motion that my cart achieves on my treadmill I would need add little motors to my roller skates.

I'll bet that the treadmill motor would show an increase in power demand if I were to use little electric motors in my roller skates to move up the treadmill. What do you think?