Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • If there's not at least one goonsay in the memecloud, I can't be held responsible for the actions that I or other concerned citizens of Talkrational might take.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Heinz Hershold

1
Another question for uncool:

Do you think  the claimed "transform" from a cart that is on a treadmill, to a cart on a road in a wind, is a Galilean transform?

Feel free to state your reasons why or why not.

That should be enough to get the discussion started.
2
Quote
It is then a simple matter to realize that a singular vehicle with appropriately arranged sail mechanism can easily exceed windspeed ddw.

A simple matter for Heinz!?   :happyno:

You sure as hell haven't figured it out. Crackpot!
3
One of the more interesting arguments about the cart on the treadmill centers on the idea of relative motion. It seems that the believers in ddwfttw think that applying a force to move a belt under a wheel must be the same as applying a force to move a wheel over the belt.  While this kind of reciprocity is considered to be some sort of fundamental truth in mechanics, it may shock some people to learn it is not universally true!
It is true that if a force F is applied to one end of a sliding block, and then the same force F is applied to the other end of the same block, the resulting motions of the block will be symmetrical; the block behaves the same in both directions.
However, if the physical system is more complex, involving springiness and rotations, as the cart on the belt does, there is no guarantee that the motion will be symmetrical in such a non-linear system. In fact, there is currently quite a lot of research being done in this area, with several materials already being made that exhibit this non-symmetrical, non-linearity to motion.
That is just one more nail in the coffin for the claim that the treadmill cart, being powered by the belt, says something about a cart on a road powered by the wind.
Before anyone claims that this is denying Galileo, no, it is not! The GT of the cart on the belt is just changing the frame of reference while staying with the same situation; it is always a cart on a treadmill, powered by the belt.
What the carters are claiming is a magical transform; that a cart on a belt, powered by the belt, is the same as a cart in the wind, powered by the wind and that is total nonsense!







You can also reply to this post, uncool.

Do you agree or disagree with what I have written here. If you disagree, state your reasons.
4
semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.
This has been pointed out to Heinz many times, but he's either too dishonest to acknowledge it or too stupid to understand it (or, most likely, both).

If all you have is snide comments you can fuck off. I will talk physics to anyone who wants to but I will not answer to your horseshit.
5
You're making the same class of mistake humber, F_X, socrates, and Dave make there, Heinz.

semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.

Then he should have said "application" not derivation. Derivation implies how the equation is arrived at in the first place, not how it is used.
I was vague there; I was referring to your derivation of the impossibility of the cart.
Quote
In any case, my application of the equation is correct and nobody here has shown otherwise, including you.
I'm more than happy to, if you are willing to give me some leeway in doing so. Are you willing to answer some physics questions? It should be purely numerical stuff.

That works both ways.

You can start by answering this question:

Are the contact patches different for a wheel rolling on a road and a wheel being turned by a belt drive?

Feel free to refer to the diagrams I have posted in this thread.
6
You're making the same class of mistake humber, F_X, socrates, and Dave make there, Heinz.

semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.

Then he should have said "application" not derivation. Derivation implies how the equation is arrived at in the first place, not how it is used.

In any case, my application of the equation is correct and nobody here has shown otherwise, including you.

If you would consider a derivation from the most basic axioms, you might realize how and where to use the correct quantities in the equations.

Another vague sophism. You have no direct argument to make.

(Another vague sophism. You have no direct argument to make.)^2

Another vague sophism. You have no direct argument to make.)^∞
7
You're making the same class of mistake humber, F_X, socrates, and Dave make there, Heinz.

semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.

Then he should have said "application" not derivation. Derivation implies how the equation is arrived at in the first place, not how it is used.

In any case, my application of the equation is correct and nobody here has shown otherwise, including you.

If you would consider a derivation from the most basic axioms, you might realize how and where to use the correct quantities in the equations.

Another vague sophism. You have no direct argument to make.
8
Guys, relax.  Earlier in the run, when I released the balloons, we were not quite directly downwind and the BB was prevented from turning (by a coned off area) to follow the balloons.  That is why I was remarking (in the video) that I should have waited until later, when the BB was free of the coned area, and I could have made a better job of it.  At that point, recording the video, we certainly were traveling essentially directly downwind.

We had been asking the BB driver, Steve, what the controls were like and if the variable pitch control had much force feedback.  He replied that it was surprisingly little.  Then he also noted that it seemed pretty easy to sense when he was angling off the wind direction, as that would have a noticeable effect in slowing the BB when he got more than some amount off.  He said that turning near a right angle with the wind would quickly bring the BB to a stop.

I had been keeping track of the wind direction, there were streamers and flags here and there to help, and I can assure you that in the part of the run I videoed we were close enough to directly downwind that we were getting full performance for that weak wind.  Angling off wind direction only hurts the BB performance.

If the BB ever get out to El Mirage again, I'll try to manage the balloon demo better, and will either take a less worried friend or just re-think it and do everything myself.

Edit - just noticed comments that if I drove 90 degrees to the wind direction, directly cross wind at 20 mph in a 20 mph wind, that the streamer would point straight back?  No, it would point 45 degrees from straight back.  This streamer was close to six feet away from the side of the car and well above the lake bed, so it would have been able to show that.

No, you read, or interpreted the comment incorrectly.

I was talking about the cart being in a 10 mph wind and going 20 mph at an angle of 90 degrees and the streamer would point backwards. No mention of it being straight backwards. Of course the angle would not need to be 90 degrees to invalidate the so-called streamer evidence! Any angle greater than that used by iceboats to go faster then the wind invalidates it. I think iceboats get as close as 15 degrees and go as fast as 4X wind speed. The cart gets nowhere near that mark and is a joke.

The other thing that was not mentioned was the height of your streamer compared to the hub height of the propeller. I am sure you are aware of wind gradient; the wind at propeller height would have been much stronger than the wind at the height of your streamer. There is no way that cart was even going at wind-speed, let alone faster.

All the arguments for ddwfttw positively reek of sophistry.




Careful Heinz, if you take the numbers you quoted on the ice yacht it is clear that the velocity component ddw exceeds windspeed. It is then a simple matter to realize that a singular vehicle with appropriately arranged sail mechanism can easily exceed windspeed ddw. After that you realize the propeller cart is an exact manifestation of the required arrangement, and your whole life feels like a waste, or more positively, a journey to your current state of enlightenment.

The argument is not about the vector components, idiot! It is about the vector pointing ddw, or are you now trying to change the argument this late in the game?
9
Teehee.

Someone takes their cart for a belt on a lake. Cue 10 pages of abdominal discomfort.

The balloon test was a total failure. The only abdominal discomfort I feel is from laughing so hard! At the test, and the excuses! It is "the dog ate my homework" level of funny!
10
We had been asking the BB driver, Steve, what the controls were like and if the variable pitch control had much force feedback.  He replied that it was surprisingly little.
There's not much force feedback in the lever that controls the pitch, but the impact on the vehicle's acceleration is quite noticeable. 

Quote
Then he also noted that it seemed pretty easy to sense when he was angling off the wind direction, as that would have a noticeable effect in slowing the BB when he got more than some amount off.  He said that turning near a right angle with the wind would quickly bring the BB to a stop.

Yup.  We had a streamer on the nose of the vehicle and I would simply steer toward the tail of that streamer to keep my bearing as close as possible to dead downwind.

Quote
Angling off wind direction only hurts the BB performance.

Sure - that's just what they WANT you to think!  It's all a conspiracy.  If it were real you would have done the balloon test, but you scuttled it because Spork must have paid you off!

Quote
If the BB ever get out to El Mirage again, I'll try to manage the balloon demo better...

The funny thing is this... I'd like to see the balloon demo, but only for the entertainment value of watching Heinz deny it.  It's perfectly obvious to the rest of us how the demo will come out of course.


Yes, of course! What a laugh!
11
Guys, relax.  Earlier in the run, when I released the balloons, we were not quite directly downwind and the BB was prevented from turning (by a coned off area) to follow the balloons.  That is why I was remarking (in the video) that I should have waited until later, when the BB was free of the coned area, and I could have made a better job of it.  At that point, recording the video, we certainly were traveling essentially directly downwind.

We had been asking the BB driver, Steve, what the controls were like and if the variable pitch control had much force feedback.  He replied that it was surprisingly little.  Then he also noted that it seemed pretty easy to sense when he was angling off the wind direction, as that would have a noticeable effect in slowing the BB when he got more than some amount off.  He said that turning near a right angle with the wind would quickly bring the BB to a stop.

I had been keeping track of the wind direction, there were streamers and flags here and there to help, and I can assure you that in the part of the run I videoed we were close enough to directly downwind that we were getting full performance for that weak wind.  Angling off wind direction only hurts the BB performance.

If the BB ever get out to El Mirage again, I'll try to manage the balloon demo better, and will either take a less worried friend or just re-think it and do everything myself.

Edit - just noticed comments that if I drove 90 degrees to the wind direction, directly cross wind at 20 mph in a 20 mph wind, that the streamer would point straight back?  No, it would point 45 degrees from straight back.  This streamer was close to six feet away from the side of the car and well above the lake bed, so it would have been able to show that.

No, you read, or interpreted the comment incorrectly.

I was talking about the cart being in a 10 mph wind and going 20 mph at an angle of 90 degrees and the streamer would point backwards. No mention of it being straight backwards. Of course the angle would not need to be 90 degrees to invalidate the so-called streamer evidence! Any angle greater than that used by iceboats to go faster then the wind invalidates it. I think iceboats get as close as 15 degrees and go as fast as 4X wind speed. The cart gets nowhere near that mark and is a joke.

The other thing that was not mentioned was the height of your streamer compared to the hub height of the propeller. I am sure you are aware of wind gradient; the wind at propeller height would have been much stronger than the wind at the height of your streamer. There is no way that cart was even going at wind-speed, let alone faster.

All the arguments for ddwfttw positively reek of sophistry.


12
You're making the same class of mistake humber, F_X, socrates, and Dave make there, Heinz.

semper isn't saying that p=fv is wrong. He's saying that your conclusion based on it is wrong, implying that the mistake is in your derivation. That p=fv is correct, but that your application is wrong.

Then he should have said "application" not derivation. Derivation implies how the equation is arrived at in the first place, not how it is used.

In any case, my application of the equation is correct and nobody here has shown otherwise, including you.
13
The simple math of Power = Force x Velocity says that with full traction the prop thrust will never be greater than wheel drag.


Ahh, yes, the old Law of Conservation of Force. Can you provide references, a derivation, anything?

You need a derivation for P=FV

No wonder you are a sucker for ddwfttw!

14
At which point we are 10 years back in time arguing the exact same shit

You have a point there. Without any scientific evidence it really is a pointless argument, but somebody has to counter crackpots.
15
The wind resistance isn't a problem since a cart that is at windspeed will have the same wind resistance as one in still air on the treadmill.

There is a real problem though, with the contact patch being different for a wheel that is rolling on the ground and for a wheel being turned by a belt. I have shown this several times now, with diagrams. People can deny it all they like but none can refute it with any sort of coherent argument.

That is just part of the problem though. The other part is the fact that the treadmill cart is held down on the belt to initially spin up the propeller. That act of holding the cart down is countering the reaction force from the belt driving the wheel. That force acts upwards. When the cart is released, that reaction force reduces traction and by extension reduces wheel drag. With reduced wheel drag the cart can advance. Nothing similar happens with a cart on a road in a wind. The simple math of Power = Force x Velocity says that with full traction the prop thrust will never be greater than wheel drag.

As I have just written, there is no law of physics that says that motion must be symmetrical in a non-linear system. That is, the motion does not necessarily act the same if the same force is applied at different ends of the system, due to things rotating and springs being compressed, which is what you have with a wheel on an elastic belt. The transform that is being claimed by the carters, from a cart on a treadmill to a cart on a road in the wind, is not a Galilean transform in any sense, it is just a load of horseshit.

Finally, there is no evidence in the outdoors to support the claim. The balloons offered a chance to provide such evidence and that was a failure.

All in all, ddwfttw remains a fantasy, nothing more.
16
Plastic bags thrown in rivers  = animal murder

For once I can agree. The amount of plastic in the oceans is astounding and it kills everything from the tiniest animals to the largest. It's a real problem.
17
People who release helium balloons to end up in the ocean are murderers of animals.



As compared to all the plastic bags in the oceans?
18
One of the more interesting arguments about the cart on the treadmill centers on the idea of relative motion. It seems that the believers in ddwfttw think that applying a force to move a belt under a wheel must be the same as applying a force to move a wheel over the belt.  While this kind of reciprocity is considered to be some sort of fundamental truth in mechanics, it may shock some people to learn it is not universally true!
It is true that if a force F is applied to one end of a sliding block, and then the same force F is applied to the other end of the same block, the resulting motions of the block will be symmetrical; the block behaves the same in both directions.
However, if the physical system is more complex, involving springiness and rotations, as the cart on the belt does, there is no guarantee that the motion will be symmetrical in such a non-linear system. In fact, there is currently quite a lot of research being done in this area, with several materials already being made that exhibit this non-symmetrical, non-linearity to motion.
That is just one more nail in the coffin for the claim that the treadmill cart, being powered by the belt, says something about a cart on a road powered by the wind.
Before anyone claims that this is denying Galileo, no, it is not! The GT of the cart on the belt is just changing the frame of reference while staying with the same situation; it is always a cart on a treadmill, powered by the belt.
What the carters are claiming is a magical transform; that a cart on a belt, powered by the belt, is the same as a cart in the wind, powered by the wind and that is total nonsense!

Hyeveinz, you are a loon.

Do you have anything of substance to say about what I wrote?

Maybe you know of some law of physics which contradicts me?

Or is blathering idiocy all you have to offer?
20
One of the more interesting arguments about the cart on the treadmill centers on the idea of relative motion. It seems that the believers in ddwfttw think that applying a force to move a belt under a wheel must be the same as applying a force to move a wheel over the belt.  While this kind of reciprocity is considered to be some sort of fundamental truth in mechanics, it may shock some people to learn it is not universally true!
It is true that if a force F is applied to one end of a sliding block, and then the same force F is applied to the other end of the same block, the resulting motions of the block will be symmetrical; the block behaves the same in both directions.
However, if the physical system is more complex, involving springiness and rotations, as the cart on the belt does, there is no guarantee that the motion will be symmetrical in such a non-linear system. In fact, there is currently quite a lot of research being done in this area, with several materials already being made that exhibit this non-symmetrical, non-linearity to motion.
That is just one more nail in the coffin for the claim that the treadmill cart, being powered by the belt, says something about a cart on a road powered by the wind.
Before anyone claims that this is denying Galileo, no, it is not! The GT of the cart on the belt is just changing the frame of reference while staying with the same situation; it is always a cart on a treadmill, powered by the belt.
What the carters are claiming is a magical transform; that a cart on a belt, powered by the belt, is the same as a cart in the wind, powered by the wind and that is total nonsense!





21
In 2020 one lone voice of reason will be still mocking everyone else for falling for this huge scam.

As I said earlier, as long as YOU believe in this, FX, the more sure I am that it is nonsense.
22
The balloon test was a bust. There is no point in arguing about that any more.

The physics of the treadmill is far more interesting. I will continue to discuss that later.
23
Quote
Cassava is a highly productive crop in terms of food calories produced per unit land area per unit of time, significantly higher than other staple crops. Cassava can produce food calories at rates exceeding 250,000 cal/hectare/day compared with 176,000 for rice, 110,000 for wheat, and 200,000 for maize (corn).
http://eol.org/pages/1154718/hierarchy_entries/46213115/details

Trying to find a more specific source than this, especially since I'm not sure whether they mean calories or Calories (i.e. kilocalories).

Well, it does say "food calories".

Food calories are Calories or kilocalories.
24
The wind was not strong, it was no more than 10 mph, and the BB was making 20 mph as shown on my speedometer.  They had a gps on the BB and it recorded a peak of 22 mph.
The video shot through my car window shows the streamer attached to the pvc pole on my car blowing backward while we stayed alongside the BB.


Without the balloons to indicate the wind direction, you could have been at right angles to the wind, for all we know and of course your streamer will be pointing backwards at 20 mph!


Do go on.  :parrot:

OK, if you insist
We don't know what the windspeed was, but If the wind was blowing at 10 mph and the cart was travelling at 20 mph at an angle to the wind, (which is possible) the streamers will point backwards.
Does this in any way demonstrate ddwfttw to you?
Iceboats do this all the time and they do not achieve ddwfttw or claim to.
In order for the streamer pointing backwards to be meaningful, we need to know the cart was travelling ddw, or very close to it.
Since the balloons travelled off at an angle when they were released, it is clear the cart and the MikeB's car, were not going ddw and the streamers indication is meaningless.
But I do understand that crackpots must cling to the last straw even though the balloon test was an abject failure.
As I said, I give MikeB credit for trying but all that fumbling around just doesn't make any sense. They could have driven up ahead of the cart and just parked and one of them releases the balloons as the cart approaches, while the other films the whole scene. The fact is, these carts do not go ddwfttw and that is the reason why there is no film evidence of it, and there never will be any film evidence of it.


Except for all the film evidence that is.

There is none. That was the whole point of the balloon exercise. It failed.



And, if
the cart was travelling at 20 mph at an angle to the wind, (which is possible)

What is the critical angle which you believe there must be in order for it to be possible?

For example at 60 degrees to the wind anything with a sail can go 2X windspeed.

FFS can't you even do simple trig?


This is really interesting Heinz. Yes, I can do simple trig, actually did some just before to see if your assertion that ;

The wind was not strong, it was no more than 10 mph, and the BB was making 20 mph as shown on my speedometer.  They had a gps on the BB and it recorded a peak of 22 mph.
The video shot through my car window shows the streamer attached to the pvc pole on my car blowing backward while we stayed alongside the BB.


Without the balloons to indicate the wind direction, you could have been at right angles to the wind, for all we know and of course your streamer will be pointing backwards at 20 mph!


Seems false.

But anyway, please educate me (us) on your theory
For example at 60 degrees to the wind anything with a sail can go 2X windspeed.

And, BTW, the most recent video and Blackbird operations may not have all the experimental and instrumentation artifacts needed for proof, but the operations from a few years ago, ratified by the yacht club etc do provide very compelling evidence.

It "seems" false? I am sure if you really thought that, you would show me why!

Of course it is not false and if you cannot work it out there is no sense in me educating you about it.

And, who gives a rat's ass about what some yacht club "certified"?

If we are talking Physics here, you need to provide some scientific evidence, and you have not. In fact, the fiasco with the balloons strongly suggests this is all a load of horseshit.

BTW, the streamer in MikeB's video sometimes just hangs straight down, with the car going 20 mph, so the wind was gusting at least to 20 mph, even at an angle to the direct downwind direction!

That is strong evidence against the claim of a 10 mph wind!

The claim is a farce, face it.
25
The wind was not strong, it was no more than 10 mph, and the BB was making 20 mph as shown on my speedometer.  They had a gps on the BB and it recorded a peak of 22 mph.
The video shot through my car window shows the streamer attached to the pvc pole on my car blowing backward while we stayed alongside the BB.


Without the balloons to indicate the wind direction, you could have been at right angles to the wind, for all we know and of course your streamer will be pointing backwards at 20 mph!


Do go on.  :parrot:

OK, if you insist
We don't know what the windspeed was, but If the wind was blowing at 10 mph and the cart was travelling at 20 mph at an angle to the wind, (which is possible) the streamers will point backwards.
Does this in any way demonstrate ddwfttw to you?
Iceboats do this all the time and they do not achieve ddwfttw or claim to.
In order for the streamer pointing backwards to be meaningful, we need to know the cart was travelling ddw, or very close to it.
Since the balloons travelled off at an angle when they were released, it is clear the cart and the MikeB's car, were not going ddw and the streamers indication is meaningless.
But I do understand that crackpots must cling to the last straw even though the balloon test was an abject failure.
As I said, I give MikeB credit for trying but all that fumbling around just doesn't make any sense. They could have driven up ahead of the cart and just parked and one of them releases the balloons as the cart approaches, while the other films the whole scene. The fact is, these carts do not go ddwfttw and that is the reason why there is no film evidence of it, and there never will be any film evidence of it.


Except for all the film evidence that is.

There is none. That was the whole point of the balloon exercise. It failed.



And, if
the cart was travelling at 20 mph at an angle to the wind, (which is possible)

What is the critical angle which you believe there must be in order for it to be possible?

For example at 60 degrees to the wind anything with a sail can go 2X windspeed.

FFS can't you even do simple trig?