Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • I read your posts. I read every post on Tr. You would be surprised how often someone lets it slip where they live or who their loved ones are.

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 13400 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #875
Wow, Heinz is back! Fun!

I see he still hasn't learned that kinetic energy is frame dependent. What a shock.

Heinz, have you learned yet that the blades of a propeller spin? In other words, that they do not move in a straight line?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #876
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.

  • Fenrir
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #877
...There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.

Wanna bet?
It's what plants crave.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #878
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works. First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #879
energy that was stored in the propeller when the cargo cult moron was holding the cart on the moving belt
We don't need another cart thread.

You don't know what you need. How many "tides" threads have you tried, and FAILED at?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #880
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.
Really? At least BD had the good sense to act as if he didn't even see what I wrote, or was blinded by cog dis.

You, on the other hand, respond as an idiot should.

So, do you believe the tablecloth trick will not work in a vacuum?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you understand that a tablecloth has more than zero friction?

Do you understand that INERTIA can overcome friction?

I doubt that you do!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #881
...There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.

Wanna bet?

Do YOU?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #882
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #883
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.
Really? At least BD had the good sense to act as if he didn't even see what I wrote, or was blinded by cog dis.

You, on the other hand, respond as an idiot should.

So, do you believe the tablecloth trick will not work in a vacuum?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you understand that a tablecloth has more than zero friction?

Do you understand that INERTIA can overcome friction?

I doubt that you do!
Do you understand that the tablecloth trick depends on low-friction surfaces, heavy objects, and a very small amount of time for them to interact? You're talking about rubber-on-rubber, a very lightweight cart, and an indefinite amount of time. The cart would definitely move.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #884
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.
Really? At least BD had the good sense to act as if he didn't even see what I wrote, or was blinded by cog dis.

You, on the other hand, respond as an idiot should.

So, do you believe the tablecloth trick will not work in a vacuum?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you understand that a tablecloth has more than zero friction?

Do you understand that INERTIA can overcome friction?

I doubt that you do!
Do you understand that the tablecloth trick depends on low-friction surfaces, heavy objects, and a very small amount of time for them to interact? You're talking about rubber-on-rubber, a very lightweight cart, and an indefinite amount of time. The cart would definitely move.

No it would not move as long as inertia is greater than friction. Prove that is wrong.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #885
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #886
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.

Until you show how this is in any way related to the wind-powered cart, there is no point in discussing it and no loss if you get lost.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #887
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.

Until you show how this is in any way related to the wind-powered cart, there is no point in discussing it and no loss if you get lost.

Fair enough.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #888
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.
Really? At least BD had the good sense to act as if he didn't even see what I wrote, or was blinded by cog dis.

You, on the other hand, respond as an idiot should.

So, do you believe the tablecloth trick will not work in a vacuum?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you understand that a tablecloth has more than zero friction?

Do you understand that INERTIA can overcome friction?

I doubt that you do!
Do you understand that the tablecloth trick depends on low-friction surfaces, heavy objects, and a very small amount of time for them to interact? You're talking about rubber-on-rubber, a very lightweight cart, and an indefinite amount of time. The cart would definitely move.

No it would not move as long as inertia is greater than friction. Prove that is wrong.
Inertia isn't a force. What you're talking about is inertial mass, i.e., gravitational mass. And these are very lightweight carts. Any practical amount of friction from a rubber belt surface on rubber wheels would be enough to overcome it.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #889
No it would not move as long as inertia is greater than friction. Prove that is wrong.
"Greater than" only makes sense when comparing quantities with the same dimensionality.  That's preschool-level stuff you're failing to understand here.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #890
 :stareicide:
"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 🔭

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #891
No it would not move as long as inertia is greater than friction. Prove that is wrong.
"Greater than" only makes sense when comparing quantities with the same dimensionality.  That's preschool-level stuff you're failing to understand here.

Just more Bullshit, word play and dishonest deflection from BD and BTB.
Definitions:
Inertia: Tendency for an object to retain it's state of motion
Force: Tends to change the object's state of motion.

Retain and Change don't have same meaning, so no inertia and force are not same and I never said they were.

But they do act in opposition to one another. If the force can overcome the inertia, the object will move.
If not, the object stays where it is.

In the tablecloth trick, the frictional force does not overcome the inertia of the objects on the tablecloth.
As I said, the inertia overcomes the frictional force.
On the belt, the belt speed is chosen so that the frictional force at the wheels cannot overcome the inertia of the cart.

Something further for you to consider:
If the cart can hold or advance at a belt speed of 5 m/s, why is it that it cannot do this at 3 m/s?
According to the cargo cult, the thrust is greater than the drag. But P = FxV. If it works at 5 m/s why not at 3 m/s?

The only explanation is the belt speed is run up to the point where the wheels are losing traction and spinning while sliding, so that the frictional drag cannot overcome the cart's inertia at that speed.

You have been taken in by a childish notion and now you cannot admit it.




Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #892
Well, I'm only a very occasional poster here so apologies for contributing to a derail.  I'm happy to continue a discussion with Heinz in the appropriate thread or start one if that's the etiquette.  If there's no interest, perhaps not even from Heinz., no problem.

The last time we interacted, you did not demonstrate any ability in Physics at all and you freely admitted you cannot "do the math". So, what do you think you can contribute this time around?
Quite simply, I don't think it requires other than a basic understanding of Newtonian physics and no math to arrive at the possibility of travel downwind faster than the wind.

Even Newtonian Physics involves some math, which you were unwilling or unable to do.

If you'd allow me a little rope we could see if that works.
Sure. I will allow you enough rope to hang yourself.

First do you agree that a helicopter in an updraft requires less power to maintain itself in a hover than in still air? If you disagree, then any further input from me would indeed be a waste of time.

Any further input from you on this point would indeed be a waste of time as your question is not relevant to something going faster than the wind POWERED BY THE WIND directly downwind, which a helicopter is not.


Remember I walked into the old threads completely innocent of the idea and experiments and my first reaction was it was a hoax.  You're right that knowing Pingu was an important element in persuading me to make an effort to understand but I got there myself in the end.

Cut the crap. You were led by the nose into this by Pingu and you dared not come to any conclusion that was not in agreement with hers, regardless of what you supposedly understand about Physics.


So!

Do you agree about the helicopter? I you disagree, there's no more to be said.

Until you show how this is in any way related to the wind-powered cart, there is no point in discussing it and no loss if you get lost.

Fair enough.
To be fair to you, IF you can show how your helicopter scenario is relevant, I will reconsider discussing it.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #893
Hey, Heinz, why didn't this cart work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qi5sQ6fIjc

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #894
You don't seem to realize that it is entirely possible to have the cart on a moving belt, hold a position with respect to the stationary ground, even in a vacuum! All you need to do is move the belt fast enough so that the wheels are losing traction and sliding while rolling on the belt.
Hahaha, what the fuck? The only way that would be true is if there is no friction at all between the belt and the wheels. Any friction whatsoever would make the cart move down the belt in that scenario. You have to be joking with this. There is no way you could possibly be that ignorant about basic physics.
Really? At least BD had the good sense to act as if he didn't even see what I wrote, or was blinded by cog dis.

You, on the other hand, respond as an idiot should.

So, do you believe the tablecloth trick will not work in a vacuum?

Do you even understand the question?

Do you understand that a tablecloth has more than zero friction?

Do you understand that INERTIA can overcome friction?

I doubt that you do!
Inertia can overcome friction? What does that even mean? How is it different from unequal opposing forces and straightforward vector analysis?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #895
Also, like, in the tablecloth trick, the objects still move. They just don't have time to move very much because the tablecloth is removed quickly. If you had an indefinitely long tablecloth, the objects would keep moving.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #896
No it would not move as long as inertia is greater than friction. Prove that is wrong.
"Greater than" only makes sense when comparing quantities with the same dimensionality.  That's preschool-level stuff you're failing to understand here.
Just more Bullshit, word play and dishonest deflection from BD and BTB.
Definitions:
Inertia: Tendency for an object to retain it's state of motion
Force: Tends to change the object's state of motion.

Retain and Change don't have same meaning, so no inertia and force are not same and I never said they were.
It's amazing how hard you'll flail in order to try to cover up your preschool-level error.
Quote from: Heinz
But they do act in opposition to one another. If the force can overcome the inertia, the object will move.
If not, the object stays where it is.
Given any nonzero net force, the object will move.  It doesn't matter how much inertia it has.

That's Newton's 2nd Law:  Fnet = m a.

You can make the mass (i.e. the inertia) as large as you want, and the acceleration will still be nonzero, as long as the net force is nonzero.
Quote from: Heinz
In the tablecloth trick, the frictional force does not overcome the inertia of the objects on the tablecloth.
As I said, the inertia overcomes the frictional force.
Rubbish.  As Ben pointed out, the objects still move.  They don't move very far, because the frictional force between the tablecloth and the objects is only acting for a short time, and then the objects have to deal with the frictional force from the table itself, which quickly stops them from moving further.

This notion you have of inertia "overcoming" force, or vice-versa, may possibly make sense in some sort of ancient Aristotelian view of physics, but it was obsolete by Newton's time.  Get over it.
Quote from: Heinz
Something further for you to consider:
If the cart can hold or advance at a belt speed of 5 m/s, why is it that it cannot do this at 3 m/s?
Who says it can't?

But don't forget that there's friction in the internal workings of the cart, which wouldn't vary much with speed, while the thrust from the prop varies greatly with speed.  So it shouldn't be too surprising that there would be some minimum windspeed (or minimum belt speed), below which the cart wouldn't work.
Quote from: Heinz
The only explanation is the belt speed is run up to the point where the wheels are losing traction and spinning while sliding, so that the frictional drag cannot overcome the cart's inertia at that speed.
lol.  That's no explanation at all.  Pure flail.

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #897
I have at my fingertips one of these.



Mind you I'm sure there are hundreds of textbooks scanned and or available on line.

Good. Now, if you will only READ it, you will know the "cart" is total bullshit.
Hmm...  <Check the Index>  Frame Reference  pp. 64-65
<flip, flip, flip, ...>

Section 4.5  Inertial Reference Frames
The position or velocity of a particle has meaning only in relation to other bodies. When told the speed of a car, we all assume that it was measured relative to the road. The road is an example of a reference frame. A reference frame is something physical, such as a road, a train, a tabletop, or even the earth itself <or, maybe, a treadmill???? Hmmm....>

ETA:  Section 4.6  Relative Velocity
Hmmm ....

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #898
You have been taken in by a childish notion and now you cannot admit it.

Hey Hyeveinz how is your quest to get the AAPT to apologize going? And how about those Aeolus scammers, over 100% of WS now, are you on that?

  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #899
Also, like, in the tablecloth trick, the objects still move. They just don't have time to move very much because the tablecloth is removed quickly. If you had an indefinitely long tablecloth, the objects would keep moving.
If only the Mythbusters covered that.