Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I totally forgot about this forum.

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 - CORed

1
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
And I say Bullshit! What is obvious to me is if there is an additional v due to the cart translating up the belt, that is a sure indication that the wheels are sliding since no belt in direct contact with a wheel, and driving that wheel directly can ever drive it so ω > v/r. I asked you for an instance of such and you have not been able to provide it, only makeing up some more bullshit which you cannot support.
This claim is a sure sign that Heinz has no idea what is going on. Let's examine it.

First, a reducto ad absurdem. By Heinz' "logic", if you push the cart with your hand, such that the cart moves up the belt, this "proves" that the cart is losing traction due to vibration, because the wheel necessarily is turning faster than Heinz thinks is possible.

This sounds really stupid, but only because the basic claim is really stupid. In the case of the cart, the propeller is doing the pushing. If Heinz were correct, it would be impossible to push the cart up the belt without the wheel losing traction. I can only conclude that Heinz really doesn't understand how wheels work.


Yes, under HeinzFiziks, the wheel must slip or hop or skip if the cart is advancing on the belt with the wheel under resistive load. No matter if you are pushing it with the external force of hand, or propeller thrust. The only way it could remain in constant traction is if a positive torque like a motor drive were present. Negative torque ( creating a 'braking' force ) is not allowed.

It is a weird form of kinematics based un-reasoning which requires a serious dis-understanding of reference frames etc. Sort of a one way clutch in the mind.

I don't think there's a one way clutch in Heinz' mind. I think it's completely seized up.
2
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
And I claim that the cart on the treadmill will behave completely differently if there are > 3 boxes of pizza in the same room.  So hey tiny sporky ("Chief Scientist"), have you ever indulged your keen desire for scientific correctness and integrity, and taken a look at whether your cart will continue to advance on the treadmill if there are lots of pizza boxes in the room?  No?  I thought not!  And I do not wonder why; I know why . . . . you are scared shitless of what you will see . . . . wheels magically transforming from circular to square . . . and your fantasy world will implode along with Heinz's empty head.
Hmmm... if there's pizza involved maybe I will do this experiment :)

I think you should insist that Heinz buy the pizza.
3
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
And I say Bullshit! What is obvious to me is if there is an additional v due to the cart translating up the belt, that is a sure indication that the wheels are sliding since no belt in direct contact with a wheel, and driving that wheel directly can ever drive it so ω > v/r. I asked you for an instance of such and you have not been able to provide it, only makeing up some more bullshit which you cannot support.
This claim is a sure sign that Heinz has no idea what is going on. Let's examine it.

First, a reducto ad absurdem. By Heinz' "logic", if you push the cart with your hand, such that the cart moves up the belt, this "proves" that the cart is losing traction due to vibration, because the wheel necessarily is turning faster than Heinz thinks is possible.

This sounds really stupid, but only because the basic claim is really stupid. In the case of the cart, the propeller is doing the pushing. If Heinz were correct, it would be impossible to push the cart up the belt without the wheel losing traction. I can only conclude that Heinz really doesn't understand how wheels work.
4
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
And I claim that the cart on the treadmill will behave completely differently if there are > 3 boxes of pizza in the same room.  So hey tiny sporky ("Chief Scientist"), have you ever indulged your keen desire for scientific correctness and integrity, and taken a look at whether your cart will continue to advance on the treadmill if there are lots of pizza boxes in the room?  No?  I thought not!  And I do not wonder why; I know why . . . . you are scared shitless of what you will see . . . . wheels magically transforming from circular to square . . . and your fantasy world will implode along with Heinz's empty head.
At this point, you are totally losing the argument as well as losing your mind.
Yes, I know my point was too subtle for you.  But I bet some of the others got it.
I'm pretty sure Heinz is the only participant in this thread who didn't get your point.
5
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
We can all be driving one of these soon:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJcyeO0DR50
Hahahaaa!  What a contraption.  Someone has way too much time on their hands.

I couldn't see enough of the mechanism but it appears to be a large cylinder diesel engine spun up by a much smaller engine.

The gyroscopic effects must be nasty when you turn the vehicle, have to keep it pretty slow.  If you go over a sudden uphill bump or downhill drop, it will lurch to one side or the other.
It looks like two old "hit and miss" engines, the smaller one used to start the bigger one (small one probably started by hand cranking). Those things are usually spark ignited, but they are low enough compression that they can be run on diesel or kerosene.

"Hit and miss" refers to the governing system, which instead of a throttle, would keep the exhaust valve closed when the engine was above the governed speed, so that the engine would "miss" until it slowed down. The intake valves just had a weak spring, so engine vacuum would open them (when the exhaust valve was opening so the engine would fire).
6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
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
Was Heinz or one of his alternate identities the one who predicted that type of cart could never work? That it would just lock up and not go anywhere? Good times.

IIRC, his explanation for why that cart works is that the person pulling it can supply whatever amount of force is needed to make it go, thus implying that there is some amount of force that makes it work, and by implication implying that there is some amount of force that will make the DDWFTTW cart work as well. Yet another tacit admission by Heinz that the cart works.

I think it was humber that said that it would lock up (though I could be misremembering after a few years). humber, IMO was a different person than Heinz, though the person currently posting as Heinz apparently (based on similar arguments and overall posting style) used several names (Harold Bricer, yevgheni, ProfPanGloss among them) on the old TalkRational forum and several others. I used to type ProfPanGloss Pr0/0fPanGl=0ss, because at some point he used a thrust fromula with an airspeed term in the denominator at zero airspeed and thought that 0 / 0 = 0.

Humber, however, took the cake for ridiculous blunders. For any topic that came up he would claim to be an expert, and usually took only one or two posts to demonstrate that he didn't have a clue about the topic. And for physics, he produced some real howlers: Among them, that a lighter-than-air balloon drifting with the wind would go slower than windspeed, and that an object in a ballistic trajectory had an acceleration  (not velocity) of 0 at the top of its arc.
7
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I actually don't think DDWFTTW is an extraordinary claim. It is only the deniers who claim it violates established physics, but that is due to poor understanding of both physics and the way the cart works on their part.
exactly.
Quote from: CORed
The Blackbird run used a variety of instruments, including GPS and anemometers, to record the results. I really don't understand why actual measurement is less convincing than popcorn
oh, but [Heinz]only spork ever handled the data, so we still only have his word for it, and of course he's a fraud, and furthermore I know exactly what was in the data, and it shows that the cart WASN'T going ddwfttw, and I don't care that I just contradicted myself!!!!![/Heinz]

It was actually humber who started with the claims of data manipulation, though Heinz (whatever name he was using at the time) was quick to echo them. And yes, humber would simultaneously argue that the data was manipulated, and that it showed that the BB didn't really go DDWFTTW (the argument for the latter was based on the fact that there were gusts and direction changes (as there will inevitably be in actual wind outdoors). humber (quite recently echoed by Heinz) even argued that gusts and direction changes before the test started invalidated the test. 
8
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hmm. So even minus any visuals such as I Ratant produced, you think that 'extraordinary evidence' has been presented to prove ddwfttw? Also, can we prove beyond refute that anything 'can't work?' Beyond 'reason,' and perhaps physics, but also beyond any science?

In the runs spork used as proof, he had 2 other vehicles following along. There was some talk beforehand about using smoke or balloons, which could have been done by one of the 2 following BB. It didn't happen. This is what I still find 'extraordinary.'  :raisebrow:


I actually don't think DDWFTTW is an extraordinary claim. It is only the deniers who claim it violates established physics, but that is due to poor understanding of both physics and the way the cart works on their part.

It is well established that sailing craft can achieve downwind vmg faster than the wind when sailing on a broad reach.* The DDWFTTW cart simply allows the "sails" (propeller blades) to operate on a broad reach while the cart itself travels DDW.

The feedback loop between wheels and propellers makes it look at first glance like a perpetual motion machine, and for a couple of physics challenged people, that is enough to convince them that it is a perpetual motion machine.

The Blackbird run used a variety of instruments, including GPS and anemometers, to record the results. I really don't understand why actual measurement is less convincing than popcorn (not really even a reliable indicator of wind speed), smoke or balloons, nor do I understand why streamers and dust are not convincing.
 
ETA: The treadmill tests were a far more than adequate proof of concept. It was the denial of this that made it abundantly obvious that the deniers didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to physics. The only question not answered by the treadmill tests was, "How much faster than the wind is practical?", because once the little carts exceed windspeed, they quickly run out of treadmill.

* A "broad reach" means sailing in a direction with a downwind component, but at an angle to the wind.
9
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
What I mean is, there are other forces at work other than thrust from the prop.

Eliminating the resistance from the very blunt edges of the dummy prop might very well result in some noticeable difference in performance, given that the cart with zero thrust seems to only need a slight nudge to send it up the treadmill.

It's got wheels, and  that "prop" acts as a flywheel and stores some energy, so I don't really find its performance at all surprising. Reducing the wind resistance of the prop (or friction in the wheels and drive train) would make it take a bit longer to roll backwards as would increasing the angular momentum of the "prop" (by adding weight or concentrating the weight to the outer part of the "prop",  but without thrust, that's all that it would do.
10
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
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.
11
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
You slimeballs have already lost the argument with all your back pedaling and ass covering and by now you all know the cart is losing traction on the belt and that is the ONLY way it moves up the belt.
The Black Knight always triumphs.

Heinz, if you give us a shipping address, we can return your arms and legs.
12
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Found one single AAPT physics teacher that agrees with your vibration hypothesis, Heinz?

Thought not.
I wonder why.

Like a broken record Toby, Got anything else? Maybe after the HFR video is made the AAPT will be interested in correcting their mistake of being fooled by a gang of crackpots at DTU during the physics olympiad.
Why bother with us cargo cult lunatics then?
Go straight to the AAPT, and correct things.

Yeah, right, Mr Chicken!

My guess is that by now AAPT is returning his mail unopened. Unless of course they are turning it over to law enforcement.
13
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I would think the shoelaces would prevent the cart from jumping off the belt or losing traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMRviy-5zY

No, not taut enough. To lose traction, the cart doesn't "jump off the belt". It is a matter of millimeters, that is all it takes since the cart barely makes any traction in the first place.
As soon as the cart moves forward, the laces become slack anyway and then you can actually see them oscillate as the cart oscillates on the belt.

I can't say I actually follow your reasoning. If I'm driving my car and loose traction on ice or sand or going up hill whatever, the car will go slower, sideways, backwards, anything but forward FASTER, but this is an unusual car, driven in an unusual way under unusual circumstances so I am curious. You may have a point. I have difficulty understanding how the thing works at all. I'll see what I can do. I'd like to do a few experiments myself but for other reasons.

Tom,  one has to be very careful here because there is a grain of truth in Heinz's hypothesis.  If the cart breaks traction, it TEMPORARILY has no retarding force from the wheels and the inertia of the drivetrain will keep the prop turning which will produce thrust.  So surprising for many, the cart will momentarily accelerate when it does break traction from the unopposed prop thrust.  But, the energy stored in the prop will quickly dissipate and the drivetrain will slow and when it does touch back down, the retarding force will be greater than the prop force and it will slow.  This cycle is overall lossy so it won't climb the belt at Vminhover if the cart loses traction.  So the cart losing traction will lose ground at Vminhover compared to the same cart not losing traction at its Vminhover .

However, a cart losing traction when the TM runs above Vminhover may still actually work, just not nearly as efficiently as a cart with full traction.  Cart's with full traction have the slowest Vminhover speed and accelerate better at higher speeds which you can prove to yourself by building your own functioning ddwfttw cart per the instructions.

We strongly encourage you to do your own and play around with it.  When you present your findings, it won't be long before Heinz is telling you that you are part of the CULT! :cheer:

Windgrins :grin:



Oh, you slimy belly crawling piece of shit!

I didn't see the bolded part before!

So! After arguing for years that the cart on the treadmill remains fully tracted to the belt, Now that you are sure the HFR video will actually show the cart losing traction, you are claiming "it will still work"

So! do you think the cart in the wind will "still work" when it loses traction?

Come on, WG! Keep making excuses even before the HFR video is made.

Exactly the type of DISHONEST shit I was expecting from the Cargo Cult

Again, work on your logic.  From the earliest days, (and you can check this yourself in the zombie forum), it was agreed that a cart losing traction would probably work just fine up to a point.  It just would not work as efficiently as if it maintains traction.  There is nothing inconsistent about that.

What your contention is is that it has to lose traction to work. And we say "nay-nay", if it doesn't lose traction, it works best.  The more traction it loses, the less well it works compared to a cart that doesn't lose traction until it loses so much traction that it doesn't work at all.

So bring on your HFC video with the cart maintaining full traction, and the cart will work fine assuming it works at all.  In fact, it will work best when it doesn't break traction, which would falsify your hypothesis. :yes:

Science and logic just doesn't seem to be your thing. :no:

PS, your nasty name calling stuff doesn't help your case.

Windgrins :grin:




I will say, as I've said in the past, that showing that the cart periodically breaks traction due to vibration does not in any way negate the demonstration that the cart goes DDWFTTW. If it advances on the treadmill, it goes DDWFTTW. If it is established that it has to break traction in order to work (you's have to be as ignorant of basic physics as Heinz to believe this), then making it break traction would also serve to make the cart work outdoors in the "real" wind.

Of course, a vibratory conveyor doesn't actually work like the cart on the treadmill (even if the vibration is really happening). Vibratory conveyors are not used to move objects that have their own source of propulsion. They are used to reduce friction so that an external force (gravity or a stationary fan) will propel objects that would otherwise have too much friction to be moved by that external force. Since traction by the wheel is necessary to drive the propeller, interrupting that traction periodically can only reduce the efficiency.

Another curious thing is Heinz' contention that the source of the vibration is "holding the cart down" on the belt to start it. First of all, it's not necessary to put any downward force on the cart to start it. It is necessary, absent a sufficiently long treadmill to allow self-starting, to hold the cart stationary until the prop comes up to speed, but the carts own weight provides sufficient traction so that one does not need to push down on it at all. Also, any vibration from this source would damp out in a few seconds. For it to continue indefinitely would in fact be a case of perpetual motion. Of course, there are other potential sources of vibration, in the mechanism of either the treadmill or the cart, but it is an amazing stretch to believe that these are operating on every cart and every treadmill tested. In short, Heinz' conjecture just doesn't hold water.
Quote
HH:

You lying sack of shit.

But, sadly, you are all INSANE and DISHONEST LIARS.

Oh, you slimy belly crawling piece of shit!

Exactly the type of DISHONEST shit I was expecting from the Cargo Cult
How can anyone not love this guy?
 :hug:
Peez

I don't know. humber was the one who was truly creative with his insults. Even when I was the target, I found them infuriating and hysterically funny at the same time. Heinz (and all his earlier incarnations) is just plain nasty. With humber, I was never quite certain whether he believed his bullshit or he was an extremly clever troll. It was hard to believe he could be so wrong about everything without trying, and knowing  it was wrong. Heinz I'm pretty sure really is that stupid and ignorant. He seems to know just enough physics, math and geometry to put together an argument, but get something critical wrong. I suspect that he works the problem correctly, gets an answer he doesn't like, then finds something to "fix" so it supports his preconceived ideas, but is no longer correct.
14
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I would think the shoelaces would prevent the cart from jumping off the belt or losing traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMRviy-5zY

No, not taut enough. To lose traction, the cart doesn't "jump off the belt". It is a matter of millimeters, that is all it takes since the cart barely makes any traction in the first place.
As soon as the cart moves forward, the laces become slack anyway and then you can actually see them oscillate as the cart oscillates on the belt.

I can't say I actually follow your reasoning. If I'm driving my car and loose traction on ice or sand or going up hill whatever, the car will go slower, sideways, backwards, anything but forward FASTER, but this is an unusual car, driven in an unusual way under unusual circumstances so I am curious. You may have a point. I have difficulty understanding how the thing works at all. I'll see what I can do. I'd like to do a few experiments myself but for other reasons.

Tom,  one has to be very careful here because there is a grain of truth in Heinz's hypothesis.  If the cart breaks traction, it TEMPORARILY has no retarding force from the wheels and the inertia of the drivetrain will keep the prop turning which will produce thrust.  So surprising for many, the cart will momentarily accelerate when it does break traction from the unopposed prop thrust.  But, the energy stored in the prop will quickly dissipate and the drivetrain will slow and when it does touch back down, the retarding force will be greater than the prop force and it will slow.  This cycle is overall lossy so it won't climb the belt at Vminhover if the cart loses traction.  So the cart losing traction will lose ground at Vminhover compared to the same cart not losing traction at its Vminhover .

However, a cart losing traction when the TM runs above Vminhover may still actually work, just not nearly as efficiently as a cart with full traction.  Cart's with full traction have the slowest Vminhover speed and accelerate better at higher speeds which you can prove to yourself by building your own functioning ddwfttw cart per the instructions.

We strongly encourage you to do your own and play around with it.  When you present your findings, it won't be long before Heinz is telling you that you are part of the CULT! :cheer:

Windgrins :grin:



Oh, you slimy belly crawling piece of shit!

I didn't see the bolded part before!

So! After arguing for years that the cart on the treadmill remains fully tracted to the belt, Now that you are sure the HFR video will actually show the cart losing traction, you are claiming "it will still work"

So! do you think the cart in the wind will "still work" when it loses traction?

Come on, WG! Keep making excuses even before the HFR video is made.

Exactly the type of DISHONEST shit I was expecting from the Cargo Cult

Again, work on your logic.  From the earliest days, (and you can check this yourself in the zombie forum), it was agreed that a cart losing traction would probably work just fine up to a point.  It just would not work as efficiently as if it maintains traction.  There is nothing inconsistent about that.

What your contention is is that it has to lose traction to work. And we say "nay-nay", if it doesn't lose traction, it works best.  The more traction it loses, the less well it works compared to a cart that doesn't lose traction until it loses so much traction that it doesn't work at all.

So bring on your HFC video with the cart maintaining full traction, and the cart will work fine assuming it works at all.  In fact, it will work best when it doesn't break traction, which would falsify your hypothesis. :yes:

Science and logic just doesn't seem to be your thing. :no:

PS, your nasty name calling stuff doesn't help your case.

Windgrins :grin:




I will say, as I've said in the past, that showing that the cart periodically breaks traction due to vibration does not in any way negate the demonstration that the cart goes DDWFTTW. If it advances on the treadmill, it goes DDWFTTW. If it is established that it has to break traction in order to work (you'd have to be as ignorant of basic physics as Heinz to believe this), then making it break traction would also serve to make the cart work outdoors in the "real" wind.

Of course, a vibratory conveyor doesn't actually work like the cart on the treadmill (even if the vibration is really happening). Vibratory conveyors are not used to move objects that have their own source of propulsion. They are used to reduce friction so that an external force (gravity or a stationary fan) will propel objects that would otherwise have too much friction to be moved by that external force. Since traction by the wheel is necessary to drive the propeller, interrupting that traction periodically can only reduce the efficiency.

Another curious thing is Henz' contention that the source of the vibration is "holding the cart down" on the belt to start it. First of all, it's not necessary to put any downward force on the cart to start it. It is necessary, absent a sufficiently long treadmill to allow self-starting, to hold the cart stationary until the prop comes up to speed, but the carts own weight provides sufficient traction so that one does not need to push down on it at all. Also, any vibration from this source would damp out in a few seconds. For it to continue indefinitely would in fact be a case of perpetual motion. Of course, there are other potential sources of vibration, in the mechanism of either the treadmill or the cart, but it is an amazing stretch to believe that these are operating on every cart and every treadmill tested. In short, Heinz' conjecture just doesn't hold water.
15
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
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.
Well, let's separate out the questions a little bit more.

Consider the following four claims.

(A) Going ddwfttw, in fact, works.
(B) Going ddwfttw should work, given established physics.
(C) The arguments raised so far against ddwfttw are all bogus.
(D) In particular, Heinz Hershold doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

These claims are all different, in principle.  I've arranged them in increasing order of certainty.  I confess to having what you'd call "utter certainty" about D.  There's really no room for doubt there.

Your logic sucks, as usual but you gave yourself a way out.
If you are utterly certain about D, and the choices are arranged in order of certainty, then, you are at least somewhat uncertain about A, B & C which means you cannot be utterly certain about D.

Anyway, when the HFR video shows the cart advancing on the belt EXACTLY as I have described, with periodic loss of traction, you can always say that you were uncertain about it all along.

Actually, claim D is in no way dependent on A, B and C. Your work on this forum provides irrefutable support for D, such that it stand alone even in the extremely  unlikely event that you are right (by sheer dumb luck) about DDWFTTW being impossible.
16
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

In most circumstances loosing traction would cause something to falter or fail. How does loosing traction, theoretically or whatever, allow the cart to stay on the treadmill, if i understand the argument behind that correctly, which I'm pretty sure I don't, or I wouldn't be asking.

If this has already been explained, a link back would suffice and would be much appreciated.

I'm guessing maybe the idea is the cart is being held "motionless" to start with so being off the treadmill allows it to stay in one place rather than being carried down and off the end of the treadmill? Just guessing.

Of course, all of the Cargo Cult understands what my argument is, but all are scared shitless to say that they understand it.

Brother Daniel will deny it, but he understands that a loss of traction will result in the cart surging forward on the belt.
See this post: http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,24.msg120302.html#msg120302

QUOTE (Brother Daniel):
Hey Heinz.

Let v denote the velocity of the cart relative to the treadmill surface, and let ω denote the angular velocity of the cart's wheels.

As long as traction is maintained, we have v = r ω.

If traction is lost, we'd have v > r ω.  (It can't be "<", because that would be opposite from the way the treadmill is pulling on the wheels).

As you say, there'd be a little surge in the velocity, because of the loss of (some of) the braking force.

Meanwhile, ω would drop off, increasing the difference between v and r ω.

In order for traction to be regained, eventually we'd have to have v = r ω again.  You've suggested that they could match up again in only 5 ms or so (although you've never supported that figure with anything).  It's not clear to me that they could ever match up again at all, let alone in only 5 ms.  Rather, ω will decay more quickly than v will, so the inequality v > r ω would be maintained.

Just another problem with your "cyclic" hypothesis (over and above the little problem of having no evidence for it).
UNQUOTE

He is wrong about  ω decaying more quickly because he is forgetting that energy is stored in the spinning propeller.

What you have on the belt is a simple case of opposing forces, the braking force at the wheels created by harvesting power from the belt versus the thrust force from the propeller spinning in the air.

Power is harvested at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity
And power is used at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity

There is always transmission loss between the wheels and the propeller, so it is OBVIOUS from the above relationship that the thrust force is always LESS than the braking force.

Example: the belt is moving at 4 m/s and the wheels harvest 3 Watts of power. Transmission efficiency is 90% (a High number), so there is 2.7 Watts of power available at the propeller to push the cart at 4 m/s on the belt.

Braking Force = 3 Watt / 4 m/s = 0.75 N

Thrust Force = 2.7 Watt / 4 ms = 0.675 N


Thrust is less than brake force and the cart cannot advance as long as the wheels maintain traction!
This is the same result I obtained earlier using a much more detailed calculation of propeller thrust!

Ask yourself what happens if the wheels slip and lose traction?

The braking force will drop off almost instantly towards zero, but the propeller has stored kinetic energy and the thrust CANNOT drop off instantly.

The result is the thrust will exceed braking force during the slip and the cart will advance during the slip.
All the cart needs to do is regain some traction periodically to recover the tiny amount of energy lost during the slips and the cart will advance on the belt indefinitely.

This process of losing traction is almost identical to the process used by all sorts of vibrational conveyors that also use air flow to move many things very efficiently from place to place.

There is nothing magical about this and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "going faster than the wind directly downwind" that is a complete fantasy and a fabrication.



I see. By storing kinetic energy when it's being intermittently driven, the prop can perform better than when it's being continuously driven. Heinz, I just realized that it is you who believes in a thermodynamically impossible perpetual motion machine.

Also. If the cart is advancing on the belt, it is, in fact going DDWFTTW, regardless of the mechanism. So for the Blackbird, or any other cart outdoors in a natural wind, it should work just fine on a bumpy surface, but won't work on a smooth one.
17
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I argue for the sake of the integrity of correct science.
If you really cared about "the integrity of correct science", you would take the time to learn some of it.
Quote from: HH
When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.
Did you not read my earlier response?  The "potential losses" that were not explicitly modelled were all covered by your "transmission efficiency" value.  And the resulting force differential will grow rapidly with increasing treadmill speed.  In any case, 0.04 N is plenty for these tiny treadmill carts.

In the real world, you'd only need FT > FB in order for the cart to advance.  If we decide that a differential of 0.04 N isn't good enough (based on Heinz's gut feeling), then we could add a "Heinz fudge factor" and say that we need FT > FB + FHFF, where FHFF has a value that is somewhat greater than 0.04 N.  But then we'd have cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 N or so, and Heinz would complain that that is too small.  So we'd have to add a second fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 2 FHFF.  And then we'd have other cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 or so, and Heinz would complain that that's too small.  So we'd add a third fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 3 FHFF.  And so on ad infinitum.  So no matter how big the thrust is, Heinz will say that it's not good enough, because of his gut feeling.

Fortunately, physics doesn't depend on Heinz's gut feeling.
Quote from: HH
First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air!
So you're denying Newton's 2nd Law again?  I should check my bingo card and see if I have a complete row.
Quote from: HH
If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value.
No, it doesn't drop "sharply".  And you just spent most of your post arguing that it actually rises in some cases.
Quote from: HH
At static conditions the propeller can barely reach 50% of the calculated ideal thrust value, yet, these crackpots entirely depend on a high static thrust value to make the cart "work" ...!
No, I accepted (for the sake of argument) the figures you provided for the 16x8 prop, with its FOM of only 45%, and that was good enough to make the cart work.  So your claim here, that we're assuming near-ideal static thrust, is simply false.
Quote from: HH
If you don't think it is pmm, then consider what would happen IF the thrust was really greater than the braking force on the treadmill; you could just push the cart on the ground and the same positive thrust would make it go forever.
No, this doesn't follow at all.  if you push the cart on the ground (when there is no wind), you'd be departing from static thrust conditions (by creating a relative headwind), so it wouldn't be "the same positive thrust".
Quote from: HH
If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered. It is because the HFR will show the wheels are losing traction in a periodic way and that is how the cart advances on the belt. It is an oscillator and has NOTHING to do with going faster than any imaginary wind.
You have yet to provide a coherent argument (let alone a convincing one) for your "cyclic" hypothesis.  If the cart loses traction, that would merely make it less efficient.

You know, I love the way Heinz pulls some numbers out of his ass, uses them to calculate a value that is positive, when it needs to be negative to support his assertions, then claims that it does support his assertions because it isn't positive enough.
18
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Why is it that when Heinz thinks he's shooting fish in a barrel he's actually shooting his foot?
Does he wear barrel shaped shoes?
Maybe he's real poor and wears a barrel, lucky he hasn't shot off any other appendages then.   :eek:
Why is it that when Heinz thinks he's shooting fish in a barrel he's actually shooting his foot?
Does he wear barrel shaped shoes?
Maybe he's real poor and wears a barrel, lucky he hasn't shot off any other appendages then.   :eek:

Maybe he wears a barrel and also wears fish shaped shoes. We don't actually know that he hasn't shot off any other appendages. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that he has.
19
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
If the cart loses traction, that would merely make it less efficient.

This has been pointed out to Pr0/0fPangl=0ss/Harold/Yevgeni/Heinz and humber many, many times for many years. The fact that they (I'm assuming humber is a different person) think that losing traction somehow makes it work when it otherwise wouldn't simply demonstrates their utter failure to understand how the whole thing works.

One more time for the hidiots. It's not perpetual motion; it's just a slightly unconventional method of harvesting wind energy.
20
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
It has been clear all along that Heinz is quite incompetent.  But what I'm only belatedly realizing (maybe the rest of you figured it out long ago) is how unhinged he is.  It's very hard to read his last response to cold one as anything but psychotic.

What has always fascinated me is the epic scope of the Heinz's failure.  Stuff gets exaggerated all the time on the internet but in this case I believe it is a fact to say that they are among the biggest fails in the history of civilization. I have over 18 million words the H's have written (the King James bible has 750k) in my own database and over 90000 posts. I used to post a bunch of statistics about the time he and the other Hidiot have spent on this endeavor with not a single convert or any other indication of any sort of success or progress in convincing someone, anyone of their correctness. Instead there have been instance after instance of there nonsensical arguments prompting someone initially skeptical to educate themselves and gain understanding of the ddwfttw cart's function. Donald Simanek would be a prime example of this opposite effect. It is profoundly sad but definitely, at least to me, fascinating at the same time.

It is truly amazing how much effort the h's have wasted on something that is both so wrong, and so trivial. Even if the silly thing is a complete fraud (note to Heinz. This is a hypothetical, I am by no means suggesting that I believe it's a fraud), so fucking what? It's not like a quack cancer cure, where people are dying because they use the cure instead of getting treatment that might actually work. A few internet physics geeks have been taken in my a con. The vast majority of people either don't know about it, or don't give a fuck.


Yes, I know. I have thought the same thing myself, (So What) many times. Why waste my time arguing with a Cargo Cult when there is zero chance of getting any of them to change their minds?

The answer is, I don't argue for the sake of the Cargo Cult, I argue for the sake of the integrity of correct science.

When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.

First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air! If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value. This is a well-established fact and to see people ignoring this to claim what is in effect perpetual motion, is something that should be fought against.

What does Martin Hepperle think of static thrust:

QUOTE
The thrust of a propeller is not constant for different flight speeds. Reducing the inflow velocity generally increases the thrust. A reduction of the aircraft speed down to zero tends to increase the thrust even further, but often a rapid loss of thrust can be observed in this regime.

That is why the static thrust of a propeller is not such a terribly important number for a propeller - the picture of a propeller, working under static conditions can be distorted and blurred.

As long as an aircraft does not move, its propeller operates under static conditions. There is no air moving towards the propeller due to the flight speed, the propeller creates its own inflow instead. A propeller, with its chord and twist distribution designed for the operating point under flight conditions, does not perform very well under static conditions.
As opposed to a larger helicopter rotor, the flow around the relatively small propeller is heavily distorted and even may be partially separated. From the momentum theory of propellers we learn, that the efficiency at lower speeds is strongly dependent on the power loading (power per disk area), and this ratio for a propeller is much higher than that for a helicopter rotor. We are able to achieve about 80-90% of the thrust, as predicted by momentum theory for the design point, but we can reach only 50% or less of the predicted ideal thrust under static conditions.
UNQUOTE


Yes, you read that right. At static conditions the propeller can barely reach 50% of the calculated ideal thrust value, yet, these crackpots entirely depend on a high static thrust value to make the cart "work" even though static thrust cannot move the cart, only the air!

Maybe you are content to let this "harmless" HOAX perpetuate, but I am not. Yes, I do give a fuck. Oh, I don't spend nearly as much time on this as people think, but I do think my time is well spent as the only voice of reason left against a perpetual motion claim.

If you don't think it is pmm, then consider what would happen IF the thrust was really greater than the braking force on the treadmill; you could just push the cart on the ground and the same positive thrust would make it go forever. THAT is the truth that these crackpots avoid by saying there is a "wind" on the treadmill when the cart is operating in still air.

These guys are full of shit and I will brave the insults to make my voice heard.

If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered. It is because the HFR will show the wheels are losing traction in a periodic way and that is how the cart advances on the belt. It is an oscillator and has NOTHING to do with going faster than any imaginary wind.

Eventually, the truth will win out. It always does. Maybe some mechanical engineering students will make the HFR video just to satisfy their own curiosity and then the Cult will have nowhere to hide.

Time will tell.








When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.
Nonsense.  As light as the little DDWFTTW model is, one gram of unbalanced force will cause it to move.

First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air! If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value.
Nonsense.  You can easily see from the thrust vs. airspeed plots on Jeff Lewis' page that the thrust drop off is negligible for the initial increase in airspeed.

I hate to be pedantic, but an unbalanced force of any value will cause a mass of any value to accelerate. Now as a practical matter the effect of, say 1 newton on the earth is going to be so small as not to be measurable. Also, no net force is needed to maintain a constant velocity. (I'm sure I don't actually need to explain that to anybody but Heinz). Friction of course  complicates matters in the real world.

The fact that Heinz, the Defender of True Physics, converts newtons to "grams force" (shudder) and then argues that "only 4 grams" for a cart that ways maybe 50 grams (Wild ass guess: feel free to correct me.) isn't enough to move it is laughable.

ETA: It looks like Heinz may be as confuse about the distinction between force and mass as he is about the distinction between energy and power.
21
Science / Re: Flowers for Algernon

So, they're going to try to take over the world?
22
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
It has been clear all along that Heinz is quite incompetent.  But what I'm only belatedly realizing (maybe the rest of you figured it out long ago) is how unhinged he is.  It's very hard to read his last response to cold one as anything but psychotic.

What has always fascinated me is the epic scope of the Heinz's failure.  Stuff gets exaggerated all the time on the internet but in this case I believe it is a fact to say that they are among the biggest fails in the history of civilization. I have over 18 million words the H's have written (the King James bible has 750k) in my own database and over 90000 posts. I used to post a bunch of statistics about the time he and the other Hidiot have spent on this endeavor with not a single convert or any other indication of any sort of success or progress in convincing someone, anyone of their correctness. Instead there have been instance after instance of there nonsensical arguments prompting someone initially skeptical to educate themselves and gain understanding of the ddwfttw cart's function. Donald Simanek would be a prime example of this opposite effect. It is profoundly sad but definitely, at least to me, fascinating at the same time.

It is truly amazing how much effort the h's have wasted on something that is both so wrong, and so trivial. Even if the silly thing is a complete fraud (note to Heinz. This is a hypothetical, I am by no means suggesting that I believe it's a fraud), so fucking what? It's not like a quack cancer cure, where people are dying because they use the cure instead of getting treatment that might actually work. A few internet physics geeks have been taken in my a con. The vast majority of people either don't know about it, or don't give a fuck.
23
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Someone send this guy a DDWFTTW cart!  I bet Spork will sell him one, if he has any left.
I'm pretty sure I offered one to one or more of the h's (if there are in fact more than one) when I made up 10 or so.  No takers.  As you will probably recall, I made a set of three videos showing exactly how to make them, where to buy parts, part numbers, prices, etc.  Turns out a number of high school kids were able to follow this and make their own with absolutely no help from me.  But apparently I didn't make it simple enough for the h's.


Personally I suspect the h's (however many of them there actually are) would have a hard time assembling a cardboard box.
24
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Heinz- you have a theory- why are you unable to arrange a video of  a cart of your own on a treadmill?
No guts?
Do you really expect others to do the work for you?
If you are so convinced, get off your ass and do it! Surely not impossible for a chap of your intellect?

We look forward in eager anticipation to seeing your convincing video.  :clap:

Well, if he does his own experiment and it fails to produce the results he expects, he hasn't a leg to stand on. If one of the "crackpot carteers" does the experiment, he can claim that they did it wrong or deliberately faked it.

He certainly seems oblivious to how pathetic he makes himself look by incessantly whining that nobody will do the experiment to prove his claim.
25
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I've kind of gone from leaning towards "dedicated troll" to leaning towards "fundamental misunderstanding" in my evaluation of Heinz with his recent posts. The fact that he's referring to the cart being "in" a certain reference frame, as if it's a room, suggests to me that he really doesn't get the basic concepts of Galilean relativity. And the fact that he's convinced that he does get it guarantees he never will.

You never dared to answer my questions:

In what inertial frame is the treadmill belt NOT rotating?
This has been answered many times. There are many inertial reference frames in which part of the belt is not rotating. In fact, there are no inertial reference frames in which all of the belt is rotating. For the purposes of the experiment, the only relevant part of the belt is the part in contact with the cart's wheels at any given time. This part of the belt is always stationary in a comoving inertial reference frame.

That is pure Bullshit. You have NOT answered the questions!
I answered the first one. The rest were nonsense, since the belt is not rotating.

The belt goes around rollers and repeats over and over again, but it is not rotating?

Do you LIE all of the time or just when you are pushed into a corner?

Do you believe the Earth is rotating?


When the friendly policeman asks what speed you were doing do you reply using the reference frame wrt the ground or the reference frame wrt the sun? Mars? Andromeda?
I choose a reference frame in which my car is going at or below the speed limit, of course.