Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: We're not supposed to agree with each other and like each others victories.

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 13467 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1825
No. What they will do is teach you that Galilean Relativity applies to inertial reference frames and uniform linear motion.
Something you should have learned if you have ever studied physics.

When a body is not in uniform rectilinear motion, such as a body that is oscillating, Galilean relativity does not apply.

For example you would have a difficult time applying GR to these coins moving on the vibratory conveyor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExwAISBfu4

How would you do it? Can you stop the conveyor and say the wind in the room is moving the coins?

Being a CRACKPOT with no real knowledge of Physics, I suppose you would and you will be as wrong about that as you are about the cart.

You would need to understand something about non-inertial frames and non-uniform motion, but since you are confused about Galilean relativity, you will never have any hope of understanding the more advanced topics.
OK,
Here are some FACTS to dispel your crackpot notions about the treadmill:
Here is a FACT for you Heinz: Putting the word FACT in front of a lie or erroneous statement does not miraculously transform the statement into a FACT, not even if the word FACT in all capitals.
Quote
In any inertial frame of reference the belt is rotating and has rotational kinetic energy.
Not really. The ends of the belt are rotating. The top of the belt (you know, the part which actually interacts with the cart i.e, the part that actually is important) is translating. The rotation of the ends is immaterial. It's remarkably similar to your and humber's claim that the Blackbird test was invalid because the wind gusted or changed direction before the test started. Apparently in your universe, one could never do a valid test outdoors because surely the wind was blowing in a different direction last Tuesday.
Quote
There is NO inertial reference frame in which the belt does not have rotational kinetic energy.

There is NO inertial reference frame in which the belt does not transfer rotational kinetic energy to the cart.

In ALL inertial reference frames there is relative motion between the belt and the cart.
Hey, the last one is actually correct. For you one out of three (of course counting the errors and lies  outside that block brings the average down considerably.) I think it's sort of like a broken clock. Every once in awhile you get something right by accident. As for the first two, irrelevant red herrings. Now, here is a FACT that you always seem to conveniently forget. In ALL inertial frames there is relative motion between the belt and the air in the room. This FACT is what keeps the cart from being a perpetual motion machine. I am well aware that there is no hope that you will ever understand this.
Quote
At a belt speed of 4 m/s the belt rotates between 1 -2 times per second, depending on the size of the treadmill.

If the belt rotates at 1 rev/sec that is 6.28 rad/sec which is most definitely non-inertial. By comparison, the Earth rotates at 7.2921159 × 10−5 radians/second and even that is not a true inertial frame, but we can consider it to be inertial. The treadmill belt is many orders of magnitude less inertial than the earth and cannot ever be considered to be inertial.
Okay here we go again. An inertial frame of reference is an abstraction (I know abstractions of any kind are far beyond your limited intellect.). It does not have to be (nor can it actually be) attached to any physical object. However, we can choose a frame of reference in which some physical object which is moving at a uniform (unaccelerated) velocity is stationary. This is what is usually done to simplify calculations. For instance, we can choose a frame of reference in which the top part of the treadmill belt is stationary.
Quote
There is NO inertial reference frame in which the belt is stationary for the duration of the experiment with the cart
Correct but irrelevant.
Quote
so there will be non-inertial forces and accelerations acting on the cart from the belt as it rotates during the experiment.
Actually, no. Not unless the cart somehow ends up at the end of the treadmill where the belt is actually rotating.
Quote
The cart that is hovering on the treadmill NEVER has any tailwind force acting on it in ANY inertial frame of reference and if it advances it only experiences a relative headwind, NEVER a tailwind.
Wow, right again, sort of, in the frame where the cart is stationary (well, if we have a treadmill long enough to allow a self start, the cart will have an apparent tailwind until it comes up to speed). Of course, from the frame in which the belt is stationary, there is a tailwind for the cart.
Quote
The cart that is hovering on the treadmill is always collecting energy from the belt, and ONLY from the belt, never any energy from the air.
Sadly, you will never get a handle on the concept that kinetic energy is frame-dependant (you know, that v^2 part). Oh well, there are many jobs available to people of limited intellectual capacity. Unfortunately, most of them don't pay very well as I'm sure you are well aware.
Quote
The power available at the propeller is always less than the power collected at the wheels, due to transmission losses.

Considering Power = Force x Velocity with less power at the propeller and the same velocity applies to both the wheels and the propeller, it is OBVIOUS the propeller thrust will always be LESS than the braking force at the wheels.
Predictably, here is where you have completely fucked up. Remember that relative motion between the air and the belt? (aka the wind). That is what allows the propeller to  capture more energy by interacting with the air than the wheels capture from the belt. This is the part you apparently will never, ever understand.
Quote
The cart on the treadmill can advance ONLY by periodic braking of traction with the belt, as the HFR video WILL show.

This has NOTHING to do with a cart going directly downwind faster than the wind and is a total FARCE.



No. This is where you have gone completely off the rails. If the cart is advancing on the belt (i.e. moving relative to the air in the room in the opposite direction of the belt) it is going DDWFTTW, regardless of the mechanism that allows it to do so. Of course, your vibrational conjecture is a complete load of crap. By way of illustration, let us suppose that we put the cart on a vibrating surface that is not moving relative to the air, and push it to some speed. Will the vibration make it work? Of course not. Note that the source of energy for the cart, whether it is maintaining traction or not is the relative motion of the surface the wheels are working on and the air. Though breaking traction will cause a momentary forward acceleration, this will be immediately followed by deceleration, as the undriven propeller (and wheels which are geared to it) slows down. Periodically interrupting the transfer of energy from the belt to the wheels and propeller will reduce the amount of energy transferred from the belt to the wheels and propeller. The cart might still work, but it will advance slower than it would with continuous traction. This is so obvious that only a complete idiot could fail to understand it.
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 09:58:09 AM by CORed

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1826
Quote from: HH
The power available at the propeller is always less than the power collected at the wheels, due to transmission losses.

Considering Power = Force x Velocity with less power at the propeller and the same velocity applies to both the wheels and the propeller, it is OBVIOUS the propeller thrust will always be LESS than the braking force at the wheels.
Predictably, here is where you have completely fucked up. Remember that relative motion between the air and the belt? (aka the wind). That is what allows the propeller to capture more energy by interacting with the air than the wheels capture from the belt. This is the part you apparently will never, ever understand.
There's another problem as well.  Heinz blindly applies "P = F v" without understanding where it comes from, so he doesn't understand which velocity goes into the formula.  He's also unclear about which reference frame he thinks he's working in.

He's trying to say

(1) Pprop = FT v,
(2) Pwheels = FB v,
(3) Pprop < Pwheels,
so
(4) FT v < FB v,
and therefore
(5) FT < FB (by cancelling out "v")
...where v is the velocity of the cart.

If we go with the rest frame of the ground under the treadmill (so that we can say that the air isn't moving), then (2) is simply wrong.  The energy gained by the cart (from the belt) is rotational, so it's actually gained at the rate Pwheels = TB ω, where ω is the angular velocity of the wheels.  Since TB = FB r (where r is the radius of the wheels), and ω = (v + v0) / r (where v0 is the belt speed), we actually have Pwheels = FB (v + v0).

So (4) should say
FT v < FB (v + v0)

And it's clear that this does not imply that FT < FB.

On the other hand, if we go with the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, then (3) is wrong, because the cart can harvest energy from the resulting tailwind.

Either way, his argument is bogus.  But that won't stop him from repeating it over and over.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1827
I continue to be befuddled by the utter certainty on both sides.
Out of curiosity:  What exactly do you think I'm "utterly certain" about?
Basically that going ddwfttw has been proven beyond doubt, and that the cart on a treadmill is part of that proof. I'm far more convinced the former is true than the latter, but I would-and have-bet money that you and spork et al are right. As the physics in play are mostly beyond me however, to be totally certain I would need to see visual proof. It still bothers me that none that I find at all convincing has been shown after all this time. :(
Ok, so I was musing some more about "utter certainty", and I should probably say more than my previous (partially tongue-in-cheek) response to this.

Some people would argue that you should never hold 100% certainty about anything.  Is this part of where you're coming from, with your comment on "certainty"?  If so, how far should this principle go?

I simply can't have any doubt about my own existence.  That does not compute.

Should I hold some doubt that 1 + 1 = 2, or is it ok for me to have "utter certainty" about it?  (Can anything make any sense if that equation is wrong?)

Should I hold some doubt that the USA exists, or is it ok for me to have "utter certainty" about it?  (It seems to me that I've been there, perhaps a dozen times.  Possible false memories?)

Have you encountered any flat-earthers online?  Some people (apparently seriously) make all kinds of Heinz-like arguments in order to deny that the earth is round.  Would you be "befuddled" by the "utter certainty" shown by people arguing against the flat-earth nutcases?  Just how far does this befuddlement go?  (Serious question, by the way.)

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1828
Good points, BD. Perhaps it's "turtles all the way down?"   :smug:

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1829
For those itching to reminisce into some of I.Ratant's "work", here's a (temporary) link to a 32MB zip on my server containing some photos and one classic (11 min) video.

IRATANT.zip

Do note that many of his carts have no connection between the prop and the wheels. For the ones that do, he never provided readable diagrams that describe his cart configurations. It was, in fact, difficult to determine which way he had the props attached and which way they were supposed to turn (they may have been mounted backwards for some of the tests).

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1830
For those itching to reminisce into some of I.Ratant's "work", here's a (temporary) link to a 32MB zip on my server containing some photos and one classic (11 min) video.

IRATANT.zip

Do note that many of his carts have no connection between the prop and the wheels. For the ones that do, he never provided readable diagrams that describe his cart configurations. It was, in fact, difficult to determine which way he had the props attached and which way they were supposed to turn (they may have been mounted backwards for some of the tests).

Hey RR. I tried that link and got nothing. I recall IR did try a lot of different configurations. So all of them were wrong? When are you going to show us your cart outrunning the smoke and/or balloons? Or did you try it, and like IR didn't get the results you expected??

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1831
Sorry RR...my mistake. Didn't see links at bottom. Will check them all out. Did you get the race with the popcorn? What I've seen so far are some later experiments he did.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1832
Good points, BD. Perhaps it's "turtles all the way down?"
Further regarding certainty about the cart:

If one claims that ddwfttw can't work, one has to claim one of the following.

(A) that ddwfttw violates established physics, or

(B) that ddwfttw does not violate established physics, but that established physics has something wrong with it, and the cart business happens to be one of the places where it breaks down.

Claim "A" is a theoretical matter.  It can be addressed without reference to experiment.  And it's simply wrong.  One can reasonably be "utterly confident" about this, as with any other essentially mathematical result.  (Regarding the present thread:  It's clear to anyone with any competence at physics that Heinz has none.  That part of my earlier response was serious.)

Claim "B" is where you appeared to be going when you said "think of all the examples of widely accepted science that was eventually proven wrong".  But I'm sure you've come across the adage that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.  The claim that ddwfttw can't work is an extraordinary claim.
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 06:31:54 PM by Brother Daniel

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1833
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?



Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1834
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

You will have no problem capturing at least an hour of 720p footage at 240 FPS on a iPhone 6 or 7 and above.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1835
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

If you look at my videos you may well notice that there are tape markings on the TM belt which were put there about this issue.  When the video was examined for travel and rotation of the drivetrain, there was no evidence of slipping.  This is a dead horse Heinz is beating and we all know it.

The reason Spork is adamant is that it was shown without doubt that the cart wasn't slipping from video footage (that wasn't even intended to show that but clearly does when examined closely).  Heinz is just making up the happy horsecrap about the camera because no one has actually done it so he is hiding behind it.  If the camera he is asking for shows no evidence as he states, he'll simply state that it isn't fast enough or move on to the next recycled issue.

The rest of us have looked at the experiments and video in detail and all data was completely consistent with no slippage and that the cart was traveling at belt speed from propellor speed shown on the video which was capable of being ascertained clearly from the registration dots in slow motion.  It's important to question (which we did) if there is a way this could be occurring, but the evidence (in multiple modes of video and audio) show that it is not.

The only reason I personally hang around is not to convince Heinz as all of his allegations and hypotheses (and there have been lots of them) have been refuted, but to have fun in finding the flaws and clarifying the information even further for myself.  The issues have been settled long ago for anyone who has been around for a while. 

At this point, we are just watching the next person who wanders by and is mystified by how the cart works.  It's pretty explicable in a multitude of ways even if it is initially counterintuitive.   Different people respond to different explanations but most eventually have an "aha" moment where it finally clicks.  Some of us enjoy explaining the physics, why the answer is counterintuitive, and why a lot of people don't have a good understanding of relative motion of media due to cognitive biases also known as "folk physics" which blinds most people initially to correct understanding.

Heinz has never gotten past the first chapter of physics book and clearly doesn't understand the foundational information of what an inertial reference frame is and how kinetic energy is a frame dependent variable since it contains velocity in its definition.  And velocity is with respect to a agreed upon frame of reference which is typically chosen to be an inertial reference frame.  There are two fundamental questions most semi-sophisticated people have about the cart:  Does it create an unbalanced force at windspeed so it can accelerate and does it violate conservation of energy (perpetual motion).  It does the former but not the latter.  So consequently, his mathematical derivations involving energy and propeller thrust always contain an error or an absurd flaw. 

Most of us are leaning to the idea that he really is as stupid as he sounds but he may be being deceptive.  The jury is out on that one.  I lean towards the idea as a combination of both.  He is as stupid as he looks but he leans towards deception when his own analyses contradict his misconceptions that the cart can't work as we state.

But again, I encourage experimentation on your part to convince yourself it does indeed work and if you need some explanation as to how, talk to us.  After all, Spork was the inventor and well understands his creation.

Windgrins :grin:
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1836
He's deceptive, strokin' off on the Cargo Cult.  (Oops, should have quoted.  Heinz, of course).
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:12:51 PM by MikeB

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1837
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

You will have no problem capturing at least an hour of 720p footage at 240 FPS on a iPhone 6 or 7 and above.



Cool, except I don't have an i phone and a new one would cost almost as much as a new Sony camera, apparently.

I was thinking something like this might show more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA

A strobe light can be cheaper than a camera or a phone. Probably under $50.

Here's one for under $10 from the hardware store. "adjustable". Of course they can also get expensive, but I think the chances of finding something that could do the job for under $100 is great.

http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=29355076&KPID=17520926&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Halloween_Decorations&pla=pla_17520926&k_clickid=66dce119-de33-4b7f-ac01-3f88e97685ba&gclid=CjwKCAiAxarQBRAmEiwA6YcGKNJOhaZ7bYg8gwc-EBaDGnmdFjdcnxgw1d-s6Hr2ZcXQPIUqfw6AMhoC6wMQAvD_BwE


With the strobe and some marks it would show clearly any movement or slippage, more than even the best high speed camera IMO.
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 08:05:49 PM by Tom Booth

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1838
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

You will have no problem capturing at least an hour of 720p footage at 240 FPS on a iPhone 6 or 7 and above.



Cool, except I don't have an i phone and a new one would cost almost as much as a new Sony camera, apparently.

I was thinking something like this might show more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA

A strobe light can be cheaper than a camera or a phone. Probably under $50.

Here's one for under $10 from the hardware store. "adjustable". Of course they can also get expensive, but I think the chances of finding something that could do the job for under $100 is great.

http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=29355076&KPID=17520926&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Halloween_Decorations&pla=pla_17520926&k_clickid=66dce119-de33-4b7f-ac01-3f88e97685ba&gclid=CjwKCAiAxarQBRAmEiwA6YcGKNJOhaZ7bYg8gwc-EBaDGnmdFjdcnxgw1d-s6Hr2ZcXQPIUqfw6AMhoC6wMQAvD_BwE


With the strobe and some marks it would show clearly any movement or slippage, more than even the best high speed camera IMO.

Surely you can find someone at school and borrow their phone for an hour.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1839
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

You will have no problem capturing at least an hour of 720p footage at 240 FPS on a iPhone 6 or 7 and above.



Cool, except I don't have an i phone and a new one would cost almost as much as a new Sony camera, apparently.

I was thinking something like this might show more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA

A strobe light can be cheaper than a camera or a phone. Probably under $50.

Here's one for under $10 from the hardware store. "adjustable". Of course they can also get expensive, but I think the chances of finding something that could do the job for under $100 is great.

http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=29355076&KPID=17520926&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Halloween_Decorations&pla=pla_17520926&k_clickid=66dce119-de33-4b7f-ac01-3f88e97685ba&gclid=CjwKCAiAxarQBRAmEiwA6YcGKNJOhaZ7bYg8gwc-EBaDGnmdFjdcnxgw1d-s6Hr2ZcXQPIUqfw6AMhoC6wMQAvD_BwE


With the strobe and some marks it would show clearly any movement or slippage, more than even the best high speed camera IMO.

Surely you can find someone at school and borrow their phone for an hour.

Or maybe get the whole class involved and we could have 30 videos uploaded to YouTube by the end of the day.

I still need a cart though.

I vote Heinz Hershold  pays spork to build one, since he's willing to put some money on it. At least then we could all be sure it is put together right. I might put the wheels on backwards or something.

I've never built one before, and frankly I don't know as I could find the time.

I didn't anticipate having to build the thing myself, I just wanted to know where I could buy one to play with.

I'm a full time student. I already have a lot of catching up to do in my courses. Not that I'm not happy to do some experiments, but I don't know when I'll ever find the time to work on building the thing. Maybe in about six weeks after the semester is over.






Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1840
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

You will have no problem capturing at least an hour of 720p footage at 240 FPS on a iPhone 6 or 7 and above.



Cool, except I don't have an i phone and a new one would cost almost as much as a new Sony camera, apparently.

I was thinking something like this might show more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA

A strobe light can be cheaper than a camera or a phone. Probably under $50.

Here's one for under $10 from the hardware store. "adjustable". Of course they can also get expensive, but I think the chances of finding something that could do the job for under $100 is great.

http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=29355076&KPID=17520926&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Halloween_Decorations&pla=pla_17520926&k_clickid=66dce119-de33-4b7f-ac01-3f88e97685ba&gclid=CjwKCAiAxarQBRAmEiwA6YcGKNJOhaZ7bYg8gwc-EBaDGnmdFjdcnxgw1d-s6Hr2ZcXQPIUqfw6AMhoC6wMQAvD_BwE


With the strobe and some marks it would show clearly any movement or slippage, more than even the best high speed camera IMO.

Surely you can find someone at school and borrow their phone for an hour.

Or maybe get the whole class involved and we could have 30 videos uploaded to YouTube by the end of the day.

I still need a cart though.

I vote Heinz Hershold  pays spork to build one, since he's willing to put some money on it. At least then we could all be sure it is put together right. I might put the wheels on backwards or something.

I've never built one before, and frankly I don't know as I could find the time.

I didn't anticipate having to build the thing myself, I just wanted to know where I could buy one to play with.

I'm a full time student. I already have a lot of catching up to do in my courses. Not that I'm not happy to do some experiments, but I don't know when I'll ever find the time to work on building the thing. Maybe in about six weeks after the semester is over.

Now you listen here, Tom Booth. Are you a Mexican or are you a Mexican't?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1841
I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage"...

Of course it would - for you and me, and almost anyone else on this thread.  But I guarantee that's not going to work for Heinz.

Quote
Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

If we're still talking about Heinz it has nothing to do with evidence.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1842
Most of us are leaning to the idea that he really is as stupid as he sounds but he may be being deceptive. 
Keep in mind... the H's don't just come by here spouting their nonsense.  They contact other folks at NASA, NALSA... to try and prove this thing is a hoax.  To me that strongly suggests they are genuinely idiots.  But just for fun let's assume they're just trolling.  I'd say a decade of trolling makes them idiots too.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1843
All I know is, I walk past that exercise room full of treadmills twice a day. Nobody ever seems to use them that I've seen.

By the time I get a cart put together I'll probably be out of school.

I'm in digital photography, digital media, and besides all the students have cell phones, there are at least three TV studio cameras, about half a dozen hand held video cameras available for student use and probably, between my classes and the other clases all day long there is probably 100 kids carying higher end digital cameras around nearly every day with assignments to go find stuff to photograph and shoot video and compile footage to upload to youtube and write up news stories for the school paper and on and on.

So can anyone put one of these carts together, and guarantee it will climb a treadmill? Or to save me some time and put together a ready to assemble kit I could put together fast?

I'd be willing to pay for it. Or maybe someone could do it as a contribution to the school or whatever? I mean how hard is it?

On the one hand I hear it's easy, on the other some people who tried just couldn't get it to work for one reason or another.

I don't particularly care about the whole 300 fps. thing but I'm pretty sure with one of those carts on display or available someone will come up with the necessary equipment or cell phone or strobe or whatever, but sooner would be better than later.

The build videos are great but seems like a lot of special parts from several places I never heard of. I still havn't had time to watch them all the way through.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1844
All I know is, I walk past that exercise room full of treadmills twice a day. Nobody ever seems to use them that I've seen.

By the time I get a cart put together I'll probably be out of school.

I'm in digital photography, digital media, and besides all the students have cell phones, there are at least three TV studio cameras, about half a dozen hand held video cameras available for student use and probably, between my classes and the other clases all day long there is probably 100 kids carying higher end digital cameras around nearly every day with assignments to go find stuff to photograph and shoot video and compile footage to upload to youtube and write up news stories for the school paper and on and on.

So can anyone put one of these carts together, and guarantee it will climb a treadmill? Or to save me some time and put together a ready to assemble kit I could put together fast?

I'd be willing to pay for it. Or maybe someone could do it as a contribution to the school or whatever? I mean how hard is it?

On the one hand I hear it's easy, on the other some people who tried just couldn't get it to work for one reason or another.

I don't particularly care about the whole 300 fps. thing but I'm pretty sure with one of those carts on display or available someone will come up with the necessary equipment or cell phone or strobe or whatever, but sooner would be better than later.

The build videos are great but seems like a lot of special parts from several places I never heard of. I still havn't had time to watch them all the way through.



Sounds like a fair deal, I am sure you can have a cart sent to you, it has happened before. But, wouldn't it be so much more interesting if Spork were to deliver it personally and together with Heinz you could all make a documentary film.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1845
Most of us are leaning to the idea that he really is as stupid as he sounds but he may be being deceptive. 
Keep in mind... the H's don't just come by here spouting their nonsense.  They contact other folks at NASA, NALSA... to try and prove this thing is a hoax.  To me that strongly suggests they are genuinely idiots.  But just for fun let's assume they're just trolling.  I'd say a decade of trolling makes them idiots too.
I won't say that Heinz achieves the full trifecta of stupid, dishonest, and insane.  But I think a pretty good case can be made that he scores two out of three.  (Which two, is the question.)

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1846
All I know is, I walk past that exercise room full of treadmills twice a day. Nobody ever seems to use them that I've seen.

By the time I get a cart put together I'll probably be out of school.

I'm in digital photography, digital media, and besides all the students have cell phones, there are at least three TV studio cameras, about half a dozen hand held video cameras available for student use and probably, between my classes and the other clases all day long there is probably 100 kids carying higher end digital cameras around nearly every day with assignments to go find stuff to photograph and shoot video and compile footage to upload to youtube and write up news stories for the school paper and on and on.

So can anyone put one of these carts together, and guarantee it will climb a treadmill? Or to save me some time and put together a ready to assemble kit I could put together fast?

I'd be willing to pay for it. Or maybe someone could do it as a contribution to the school or whatever? I mean how hard is it?

On the one hand I hear it's easy, on the other some people who tried just couldn't get it to work for one reason or another.

I don't particularly care about the whole 300 fps. thing but I'm pretty sure with one of those carts on display or available someone will come up with the necessary equipment or cell phone or strobe or whatever, but sooner would be better than later.

The build videos are great but seems like a lot of special parts from several places I never heard of. I still havn't had time to watch them all the way through.



Sounds like a fair deal, I am sure you can have a cart sent to you, it has happened before. But, wouldn't it be so much more interesting if Spork were to deliver it personally and together with Heinz you could all make a documentary film.

There are guest speakers here regularly. I'm sure. spork would love to cut his vacation short in Maui and head right over.

Generally, if you see something on YouTube that looks like "perpetual motion" or something, it's only natural, I think, that most people will assume it's a hoax.

Out of the 10,000 fake videos, why should anyone think this is any different?
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 07:54:40 AM by Tom Booth

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1847

Generally, if you see something on YouTube that looks like "perpetual motion" or something, it's only natural, I think, that most people will assume it's a hoax.

Out of the 10,000 fake videos, why should anyone think this is any diferent?

They probably won't except for the fact that this got quite of bit of airtime in WIRED magazine and a lot of physics experts have endorsed it as definitely functioning but not an example of PM.  Professor Donald Simanek for example who is minorly famous for busting myths about PM machines initially thought it was a PM machine until it was explained to him.  Now he endorses it.  What is ironic is that he was brought to the forum by Heinz.  The noise around the ddwfttw cart has died down.

One of the major differences between this and PM machines shown on the internet is that the perps are claiming those machines are PM machines and will be the solution to the world energy crises when details are worked out.  The DDWFTTW crowd here all clearly contend it is definitely NOT a PM machine, works with simple physics principles, and has no obvious use to date (other than stirring up the internet)!

But, if you want to bring it back to the forefront, more power to you.

But proving it isn't PM is a bit late (by a few years).  That ship has sailed long ago.  The fact that Heinz makes noise about it falls in the category of flat earthers, Young earth creationists (6000 years old) and Spacex landing and moon landings are fake.

At this point, you can see all the evidence that has been gathered which definitively illustrates the concepts for anyone interested.  It is still interesting to see the little carts working for yourself in person but there are literally hundreds of explanations and experiments showing that it does work and how.

The most interesting thing about this is that it is real and completely counterintuitive for the vast majority of the public.  That is worth a film documentary.  But the physics itself is completely conventional and only a bit more complex than the cogcarts shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65MpjT_jnI

The only difference between this simple device and the ddwfttw cart is that one medium is invisible, and fluid and the propeller can "slip" when it couples to the medium of air.  Which is what is happening as the cart operates at different speeds (different amounts of "slip" in the air).  The principles are the same otherwise and the cog cart goes ddtftts (directly down track faster than the slide). 

With the cart, the "windspeed" point is the same with just enough "slip" of the prop in the windstream to go only ddw as fast as the wind.  But when the wind is just a bit faster, the prop develops enough efficiency for the cart to come closer to the ideal illustrated by the cog cart (the ideal being a speed relationship of the gearing of the prop and wheels with no slip at all).  It never quite reaches that but it can definitely go faster than the wind like the cog cart can go faster than the slide.

One of our pundits here stated that he would believe it if he could see it outrun popcorn in the wind.  So I made a very real physics video that illustrates this quite clearly doing just that with a touch of humor (running along beside the cart at windspeed).  But amusingly he doesn't understand it.

That is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keEQgYkyecI

Windgrins :grin:

PS: one of the other little tidbits that show it isn't working from "vibrations" is that it will run forward or backwards on the TM as illustrated here.  As I recall, running backwards, as shown here in the video is not quite as efficient since the prop has a backwards camber but it does work at a lower efficiency level evidenced by a higher Vminhover speed.  The little vibration players on "vibration football games" only run in one direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJI9sFJ9RXQ


  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 08:53:53 AM by windgrins
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1848
I want to do a documentary on this. The problem is the audience is such small percent that even cares.  And also spork hates my guts.  But other than that, it would an awesome subject for a science/sociology doc, with loads of footage already in the can.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1849
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭