Wind powered vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind - Part 61

[Brother Daniel]

So, according to YOU, any Cargo Cult can dominate a discussion on the Internet, push forward any crackpot theory in talk forums, and that is as good as a scientific peer review?

As usual, you're not reading for comprehension. Try again.

I'll add this: When you have universal agreement, among those with the relevant expertise, that a theory is sound, the internally inconsistent objections of a demonstrably dishonest moron (that's you) are of no consequence.

[Heinz Hershold]

As usual, you're not reading for comprehension. Try again.

I'll add this: When you have universal agreement, among those with the relevant expertise, that a theory is sound, the internally inconsistent objections of a demonstrably dishonest moron (that's you) are of no consequence.

And I will add this: Unless you can submit your claim to a proper peer review, including an HFR video to show the cart is not losing traction on the belt, and it is accepted by mainstream science as correct, your cargo cult claim is of no consequence.

[semper]

And I will add this: Unless you can submit your claim to a proper peer review, including an HFR video to show the cart is not losing traction on the belt, and it is accepted by mainstream science as correct, your cargo cult claim is of no consequence.

I doubt anyone here thinks it has much consequence except as an interesting brainteaser which can promote learning and discussion, while also drawing out complete morons and showing just how hopeless it is to argue without sound reasoning and references. At this time, the unanimous agreement, even from you when we read between the lines, is that you Heinz are currently that moron. You really believe propeller thrust changes depending on the source of the torque while all other variables remain unchanged.

[Windgrins]

I doubt anyone here thinks it has much consequence except as an interesting brainteaser which can promote learning and discussion, while also drawing out complete morons and showing just how hopeless it is to argue without sound reasoning and references. At this time, the unanimous agreement, even from you when we read between the lines, is that you Heinz are currently that moron. You really believe propeller thrust changes depending on the source of the torque while all other variables remain unchanged.

Even better than that, he somehow thinks the dynamic thrust, which is a calculation based on the speed of the prop though the air, the prop parameters, and its rotational speed, is somehow affected by a belt underneath it running at any arbitrary speed.

Otherwise, why would he (like a dolt) use a belt speed parameter as V₀ in the equation for static thrust or dynamic thrust? It would be the same as trying to calculate the dynamic thrust by using the GPS speed over ground when a plane has a 100 knot tailwind or headwind, the outcome would be completely wrong and no one tends to be that stupid.

Here is the long and short version of a "dynamic thrust formula" and notice that the author is absolutely clear that the velocity to use in the equation is "airspeed of the prop through the air", not groundspeed or beltspeed. It's completely clear and unambigous.

http://www.electricrcaircraftguy.com...-equation.html

http://www.electricrcaircraftguy.com...ackground.html



F is static or dynamic thrust (it is called static thrust if V0 = 0), in units of newtons (N); RPM is propeller rotations per minute; pitch is propeller pitch, in inches; d is propeller diameter, in inches; and V0 is the forward airspeed, freestream velocity, or inflow velocity (depending on what you want to call it), in m/s.

As usual, Heinz just proves himself clueless again. And its way too obvious why he keeps running away from this with his hair on fire.



To boil it all down, Heinz, please explain why you put in the "belt speed" in the diagram for the airspeed parameter V₀ when the airspeed of the prop is 5 km/sec slower than the belt? We all know absolutely that V₀ is ([Cart speed over belt] - belt speed) or equivalently [Cart speed over actual ground] since the air is still over the actual ground in the diagram.

PS "because it would violate COE" is not an excuse to substitute a "locomotive" for a "tomato" in a recipe for tomato soup. Or in laymans language, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you get to pull an arbitrary value out of your ass and substitute it into an equation on a whim. Nowhere does the "belt speed" have anything whatsoever to do with V₀ in a dynamic thrust equation.

[Windgrins]

Note to audience.

It is clear that Heinz is not going to behave like a sane person here. We have him dead to rights and he just is going to keep ignoring the obvious.

So there's no point in engaging him any longer, we've demonstrated conclusively for any reader that Heinz is an idiot and has no interest in reality or correcting his goofy math lie. (It's not an error because he knows full well it's wrong--it's now just a flat out lie.)

[Brother Daniel]

Here we have a lone internet loser, insisting that his own uninformed intuition must trump the overwhelming consensus of experts in physics, and simultaneously pretending to care about peer review, without being able to see the inconsistency.

[buttershug]

Note to audience.

It is clear that Heinz is not going to behave like a sane person here. We have him dead to rights and he just is going to keep ignoring the obvious.

So there's no point in engaging him any longer, we've demonstrated conclusively for any reader that Heinz is an idiot and has no interest in reality or correcting his goofy math lie. (It's not an error because he knows full well it's wrong--it's now just a flat out lie.)

I wish I had bookmarked his post where he says that we don't explain part of the speed of the cart, or something like that.
When I replied about a balloon moving downwind he called my a moron because the balloon has no braking, and can't go faster than the wind.

I didn't mention it because I thought it would go faster than the wind.

And you can have the balloon drag something along the ground, and if the braking isn't too much, the balloon will still go faster than the ground.


I would repeat my question about standing on the bow of the Titanic, (or should I say prow?), but I'm sure he will still ignore it.
`

[recursive prophet]

When I replied about a balloon moving downwind he called my a moron because the balloon has no braking, and can't go faster than the wind.

I didn't mention it because I thought it would go faster than the wind.

So are you absolutely sure about this or any of the conjectures in the cargteer case for how ddwfttw works, Buttershug?? Simple as a falling mike?

[recursive prophet]

Note to audience.

It is clear that Heinz is not going to behave like a sane person here. We have him dead to rights and he just is going to keep ignoring the obvious.

So there's no point in engaging him any longer, we've demonstrated conclusively for any reader that Heinz is an idiot and has no interest in reality or correcting his goofy math lie. (It's not an error because he knows full well it's wrong--it's now just a flat out lie.)

Ah, dear Windgrins. Such an amazing contribution you have made to this debate. Late into the game you quickly came off the bench as a star, imo. Love reading your concise, 90% on target rebuttals. You're a truly awesome dude, on so many levels. I really mean this, so forgive me if I dare disagree about just a few minor issues.

Oh. and one suggestion from the peanut gallery. Do you realize how many times you have said you're done replying to Heinz? Trying to wish him away? I for one sure hope you don't give up. What I have been trying to see all along is how the H's see it. Doesn't it all come down to leverage? There is something so fundamental I'm missing here, besides a single course in physics.

So don't give up. I have yet to see any of the H's capitulate, and I need the closure, lol. You have to admit Heinz can 'talk the talk' beyond the ability of a novice like me to comprehend. Help me grok the key elements that have led the skeptics astray, minus the low fruit psych assertions. We're all bozo's on this bus. I understand why the cart works, though believe it has yet to be substantiated scientifically. (more on this later) What I want to fathom is how guys bright enough to keep y'all engaged for over 5 years can miss something even I can see. It worries me. And in many ways, someone new to this and skeptical, could reasonably see a lot of CC science red flags imbued in this saga. False flags I believe, but combined are interesting.

[ridgerunner]

She rides!

Thanks again Ravenscape (and all the others keeping up this site).

[thatsneakyguy]

jfc the forum starts working and THIS thread is the first one to get new posts?

[thatsneakyguy]

Hey I got 600 posts!

Having 599 was sending my OCD into overdrive, thanks Raven!

[thatsneakyguy]

Alllllll by myself....

Don't wanna be

Alllllll by myself....

Anymore

Alllllll by myself....

Don't wanna live

Alllllll by myself....

Anymore...

[thatsneakyguy]

It looks like a couple forums are still open:

Physical Sciences

History, Anthropological Sciences and Humanities

Theology, Hagiography and Creeds