Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: It's a bunch of neoconservatives masquerading as liberals, and drawing liberals in and trashing them.

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 #1350
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1351
Someone else?
It's the same clueless chap who has been spouting the same crackpot theory for the last seven years or so.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1352
So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.
An achievement you must be and should be rightly proud of. I only came across Blackbird in this thread a few months ago when Heinz  managed initially to reinforce my initial reaction that this was as possible as perpetual motion. The video of Blackbird performing downwind (plus someone pointing out that the propellor was turning against the wind) was what helped me see how wind power could be transferred to cart propulsion.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1353
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.


This can be settled very easily. Look at a HFR video of the cart advancing on the belt.  You do not have the guts or the integrity to do that.

I gave you two experiments to do and two predictions. Stop pretending you didn't see that.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1354

I gave you a detailed answer. The thrust will be lower in the updraft than in still air, and I explained why that is so.

If you think the helicopter will move upwards at 10 m/s with the wind, you are wrong.
I do think the helicopter will rise in a rising air current and your explanation as to why you disagree makes no sense.

Quote
It may stay where it is, it may descend or it may rise depending on the difference between the reduction in thrust and the increased aerodynamic force.
Nonsense. the helicopter will rise in rising air, stay at the position (relative to the building) in still air* and sink if the air current is descending.

Quote
If you think you can say what will happen, you are already wrong.

And, since this has nothing to do with the cart, that is the last time I respond to you.
Ah, but it does. Element 2 is to rotate 90 degrees, the building becomes a salt flat and I substitute a modified Blackbird for the helicopter.

ETA*

Well then, you have found a home in the Cargo Cult, because your understanding of physics is every bit as poor as the rest of the cult monkeys.
In level (horizontal) flight, if the airmass moves at 10 m/sec with respect to the ground, an aircraft's ground speed will be changed by 10 m/sec also, because it moves within and respect to, the airmass. One way to understand this is no work is done by the airmass on the aircraft in moving it horizontally.
That is Physics 101.

But, what you are talking about is a vertical updraft, and in this case, there must be work done on the helicopter to lift it against the force of gravity. There is no justification at all for your assumption that a vertical updraft of 10 m/sec will cause the helicopter to rise at 10 m/sec. A helicopter is not a neutrally buoyant object!

You would need to show that the lifting force, from the rising air mass, on the helicopter is great enough to do work against the force of gravity to lift the helicopter, and there is no way for you to show that without doing the math, which you have not done. You have simple-mindedly and wrongly assumed it to be so.
In fact, if you were to try and understand how a propeller works, you might understand that the updraft can actually reduce the propeller thrust, as it may result in reverse flow through the disk. It can also cause a more turbulent flow, and work against the rotation of the propeller, all of which reduces thrust.
As I said, the updraft might have no net effect, or it may increase lift, or it may decrease lift. There is no simple way of knowing without a detailed analysis and probably an experiment.
The reason none of this makes sense to you is simply that you don't know the physics involved, and rather than try to learn, you would rather make stupid assumptions; making you just another brain-dead follower of the cargo cult.



Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1355
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.


This can be settled very easily. Look at a HFR video of the cart advancing on the belt.  You do not have the guts or the integrity to do that.

I gave you two experiments to do and two predictions. Stop pretending you didn't see that.


Heh. Seems like a lot of effort to be a physics Poe, but, did you actually read the post you just quoted?
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 #1356
If it were to have continuous traction, it could never advance and P= FV is all you need to know to understand that.
Yes, your favourite equation.  Except that you don't even know how to apply it properly.

It does not have the implications that you want it to have.

Fuck you too. Look at a HFR video or stfu.
Hahaha, shut up yourself.  "no u" in other words.  :)


You have a cart and a treadmill and no excuse for not looking at a HFR video.

Oh, you have ONE excuse, you are scared shitless of what you will see.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1357
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.


This can be settled very easily. Look at a HFR video of the cart advancing on the belt.  You do not have the guts or the integrity to do that.

I gave you two experiments to do and two predictions. Stop pretending you didn't see that.


Heh. Seems like a lot of effort to be a physics Poe, but, did you actually read the post you just quoted?

Did you read it? Do you see anything about a HFR video in there? Do tell!

If spork was confident his bullshit was correct he would make the HFR video to prove me wrong.  He knows I am right.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1358
So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.
An achievement you must be and should be rightly proud of. I only came across Blackbird in this thread a few months ago when Heinz  managed initially to reinforce my initial reaction that this was as possible as perpetual motion. The video of Blackbird performing downwind (plus someone pointing out that the propellor was turning against the wind) was what helped me see how wind power could be transferred to cart propulsion.

Nobody in their right mind doubts that wind power can be transferred to cart propulsion! If that is what you think the issue is here, you really are brain dead.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1359
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.


This can be settled very easily. Look at a HFR video of the cart advancing on the belt.  You do not have the guts or the integrity to do that.

I gave you two experiments to do and two predictions. Stop pretending you didn't see that.


Heh. Seems like a lot of effort to be a physics Poe, but, did you actually read the post you just quoted?

Did you read it? Do you see anything about a HFR video in there? Do tell!

If spork was confident his bullshit was correct he would make the HFR video to prove me wrong.  He knows I am right.
he already proved you wrong with Blackbird you dumbass.
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 #1360
Quick summary...

Something like 8 or 9 years ago a ton of people told me my silly idea was wrong and couldn't possibly work.  It was up to me to prove it would.  I couldn't very well expect them to prove what they thought was insane.  So JB and I made some little carts and took video of them on a treadmill.  People had concerns about strings, magnets, wind in the room...  So we made a bunch of videos trying to illustrate that there was no funny business.  But there were still questions.  The whole thing was under our control.  There was no disinterested 3rd party.  What if Galilean relativity didn't hold true in my living room?

So we built the manned vehicle, worked with NALSA to get them to define a new record category, and we set upwind and downwind records with this thing on the playa.

Now someone else has a crazy ass theory.  And here's what he's done... he whines and bitches that we won't prove his crazy ass theory.  All it takes is a treadmill, a $40 cart, and a video camera.  I'm guessing someone must not be that confident in their crazy-ass theory.


This can be settled very easily. Look at a HFR video of the cart advancing on the belt.  You do not have the guts or the integrity to do that.

I gave you two experiments to do and two predictions. Stop pretending you didn't see that.


Heh. Seems like a lot of effort to be a physics Poe, but, did you actually read the post you just quoted?

Did you read it? Do you see anything about a HFR video in there? Do tell!

If spork was confident his bullshit was correct he would make the HFR video to prove me wrong.  He knows I am right.
he already proved you wrong with Blackbird you dumbass.

All he proved is there are a lot of morons who believe in fairy tales.

If you think the outdoor runs were in any sense scientific, you are an idiot, dumbass.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1361
I remember the efforts to get the Mythbusters to resolve things.  I think most would agree even if they had, we would still observe a few die hard fuckheads insisting it is all a scam, and even the Mythbusters fell for it.  The brave cart people unintentionally also proved something else.
All he proved is there are a lot of morons who believe in fairy tales.
Actually, it seems there are very few morons who still believe.  And for some reason they all have an H in their name.
"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 #1362
If you think the outdoor runs were in any sense scientific, you are an idiot, dumbass.
Are you suggesting the Blackbird video is a fake? Seriously?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1363
If you think the outdoor runs were in any sense scientific, you are an idiot, dumbass.
Seriously?
That's a question that has come up for decade now.  Is the H mentality serious?  Or is it some incredibly dedicated trolling?

Based on what happened on the sguforum (spork knows of this), where a member went full Humber and could not be persuaded of logic or reason, I say it's a true belief.

But how can you ever know?
"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 #1364

I gave you a detailed answer. The thrust will be lower in the updraft than in still air, and I explained why that is so.

If you think the helicopter will move upwards at 10 m/s with the wind, you are wrong.
I do think the helicopter will rise in a rising air current and your explanation as to why you disagree makes no sense.

Quote
It may stay where it is, it may descend or it may rise depending on the difference between the reduction in thrust and the increased aerodynamic force.
Nonsense. the helicopter will rise in rising air, stay at the position (relative to the building) in still air* and sink if the air current is descending.

Quote
If you think you can say what will happen, you are already wrong.

And, since this has nothing to do with the cart, that is the last time I respond to you.
Ah, but it does. Element 2 is to rotate 90 degrees, the building becomes a salt flat and I substitute a modified Blackbird for the helicopter.

ETA*

Well then, you have found a home in the Cargo Cult, because your understanding of physics is every bit as poor as the rest of the cult monkeys.
In level (horizontal) flight, if the airmass moves at 10 m/sec with respect to the ground, an aircraft's ground speed will be changed by 10 m/sec also, because it moves within and respect to, the airmass. One way to understand this is no work is done by the airmass on the aircraft in moving it horizontally.
That is Physics 101.

But, what you are talking about is a vertical updraft, and in this case, there must be work done on the helicopter to lift it against the force of gravity. There is no justification at all for your assumption that a vertical updraft of 10 m/sec will cause the helicopter to rise at 10 m/sec. A helicopter is not a neutrally buoyant object!

You would need to show that the lifting force, from the rising air mass, on the helicopter is great enough to do work against the force of gravity to lift the helicopter, and there is no way for you to show that without doing the math, which you have not done. You have simple-mindedly and wrongly assumed it to be so.
In fact, if you were to try and understand how a propeller works, you might understand that the updraft can actually reduce the propeller thrust, as it may result in reverse flow through the disk. It can also cause a more turbulent flow, and work against the rotation of the propeller, all of which reduces thrust.
As I said, the updraft might have no net effect, or it may increase lift, or it may decrease lift. There is no simple way of knowing without a detailed analysis and probably an experiment.
The reason none of this makes sense to you is simply that you don't know the physics involved, and rather than try to learn, you would rather make stupid assumptions; making you just another brain-dead follower of the cargo cult.




You sure know how to be wrong Heinz, it may be your best skill. The problem is not precisely framed, in that there are some transients, but there is no doubt at all that the point Alan is making is correct, and that your rebuttal is bullshit.
To know this, we need only consider what happens to a powered aircraft turning in rising air. Just like when it is flying straight, upon entering the rising air, it will rise, with no increased engine power. A powered, turning aircraft's wing is doing exactly what the helicopter rotor blade is doing, precisely the principles apply for lift and drag. Indeed, if two aircraft are turning on the same radius at opposite sides of a circle, it even looks the same. You could put a beam between the wing tips and a seat  swiveled in the middle and it would actually BE a helicopter!
So, your own argument is, as usual, so internally inconsistent that you have just proven yourself wrong. Again.
  • Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 05:42:44 AM by semper

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1365
Well then, you have found a home in the Cargo Cult, because your understanding of physics is every bit as poor as the rest of the cult monkeys.
In level (horizontal) flight, if the airmass moves at 10 m/sec with respect to the ground, an aircraft's ground speed will be changed by 10 m/sec also, because it moves within and respect to, the airmass. One way to understand this is no work is done by the airmass on the aircraft in moving it horizontally. That is Physics 101.
OK, so you agree that an aircraft suspended in an airmass moving at some airspeed will have different groundspeed, depending on how that airmass is moving with respect to the ground.

Quote
But, what you are talking about is a vertical updraft, and in this case, there must be work done on the helicopter to lift it against the force of gravity. There is no justification at all for your assumption that a vertical updraft of 10 m/sec will cause the helicopter to rise at 10 m/sec. A helicopter is not a neutrally buoyant object!
Apologies for my simplistic approach but I can't seem to make it complicated.

Quote
You would need to show that the lifting force, from the rising air mass, on the helicopter is great enough to do work against the force of gravity to lift the helicopter, and there is no way for you to show that without doing the math, which you have not done. You have simple-mindedly and wrongly assumed it to be so.
I guess the question is first, does a helicopter use less power hovering (maintaining a fixed height wrt ground) in an updraft than in still air? I would have thought this was indisputable. If so, an additional force is needed for the acceleration. It seems obvious to me that that force is supplied by the wind.
Quote
In fact, if you were to try and understand how a propeller works, you might understand that the updraft can actually reduce the propeller thrust, as it may result in reverse flow through the disk. It can also cause a more turbulent flow, and work against the rotation of the propeller, all of which reduces thrust.
Quote
As I said, the updraft might have no net effect, or it may increase lift, or it may decrease lift. There is no simple way of knowing without a detailed analysis and probably an experiment.
There's something Sean Carroll  wrote about frames of references (in From Eternity to Here) that is ringing bells for me, I'm away from home so don't have the reference now.
Quote
The reason none of this makes sense to you is simply that you don't know the physics involved, and rather than try to learn, you would rather make stupid assumptions; making you just another brain-dead follower of the cargo cult.
I am not entirely ignorant of physics or math. It's a bit like the difference between playwrights and critics. Are you seriously suggesting that a helicopter will behave erratically in an updraft rather than regularly  and predictably?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1366


You sure know how to be wrong Heinz, it may be your best skill. The problem is not precisely framed, in that there are some transients, but there is no doubt at all that the point Alan is making is correct, and that your rebuttal is bullshit.
To know this, we need only consider what happens to a powered aircraft turning in rising air. Just like when it is flying straight, upon entering the rising air, it will rise, with no increased engine power. A powered, turning aircraft's wing is doing exactly what the helicopter rotor blade is doing, precisely the principles apply for lift and drag. Indeed, if two aircraft are turning on the same radius at opposite sides of a circle, it even looks the same. You could put a beam between the wing tips and a seat  swiveled in the middle and it would actually BE a helicopter!
So, your own argument is, as usual, so internally inconsistent that you have just proven yourself wrong. Again.

Gliders climb by circling inside thermals. No power at all except from the wind. Thanks, Semper.  :)

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1367
And an autorotating helicopter (engine off) will climb in a thermal if  the thermal is strong enough.
Proved this over 60 years ago with a single rotor blade McCutcheon type model helicopter- found about three miles away.

Still got the old Charybdis  model in the loft somewhere, not flown for about 40 years.
No doubt H will say like the treadmill cart model, a model helicopter works differently to a full size helicopter- I'd like his exact explanation why- should be another giggle!
  • Last Edit: October 21, 2017, 11:30:22 AM by tobermoryphil

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1368
I was always tempted to gut one of my R/C helis and ridge soar it at our local hang gliding/paragliding site.  But never did do it.  After reading Heinz's treatment on the topic I now realize it'd never work.   :grin:

  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1369
If it were to have continuous traction, it could never advance and P= FV is all you need to know to understand that.
Yes, your favourite equation.  Except that you don't even know how to apply it properly.

It does not have the implications that you want it to have.

Fuck you too. Look at a HFR video or stfu.
Hahaha, shut up yourself.  "no u" in other words.  :)


You have a cart and a treadmill and no excuse for not looking at a HFR video.

Oh, you have ONE excuse, you are scared shitless of what you will see.
Actually Heinz, I don't own a HFR video camera and don't need one because from the beginning of this saga (2008 for me) I have first been a doubter, then needed a simple proof that it would work.  After I saw a cart go ddwfttw on a treadmill, I realized the simple necessary calculation that was needed to show this could work, on a treadmill or on the road in a wind.

I have laid out this calculation for you several times, on the zombie forum and at least once here.  I think you have just ignored it.

It is this simple.  Say there is a steady wind over the ground at 10 mph.  A cart traveling with the wind, at wind speed, can apply some resisting force at the wheels and get an energy input to the wheels, axle and propshaft, extracted from the kinetic energy of the cart.  We can calculate that rate of energy extraction based on cart speed and resisting force, which is called power.

Very simply, for the cart to advance beyond wind speed, the propeller, experiencing nil wind, must produce a thrust greater than the resisting force at the wheels.  That is all that's needed, very simple, but at first I thought it was nonsense.  Realizing this situation calls for what is usually called a "static thrust:" calculation, or "propeller in nil wind" calculation, it didn't take long to determine that a realistic propeller could be made that would achieve this with the power available in the example I gave.  From that link I gave you, it can be seen that the magnitude of this thrust for a given shaft power is ultimately dependent on the propeller diameter, which I backed up with an example of how a helicopter could hover and lift heavy objects with the very large propeller (rotor blades) whereas Windgrins' fixed wing airplane, given the same power, could not hover or climb vertically hanging from the prop.

So you see, I was first a doubter, then realized exactly what was needed for this to work, did the power/thrust calculations using the Jeff Lewis formula and found it feasible. I witnessed the reality with my own cart and the Blackbird videos.  What I did not anticipate early on was the extent by which windspeed could be exceeded.

I completely dispute the notion of the wheels slipping or oscillating, I told you before that my cart originally had nylon wheels that tended to slip.  When a put weight on the cart over the drive wheels, performance immediately improved.  When I glued the rubber bands to the wheels, that weight was no longer needed and it ran smoothly and quietly.

JB also proved that the prop was the source of the thrust in one of the videos.  He replaced the prop with an equivalent sized dummy prop that had no thrust capability (no properly formed blades, just a wooden beam) but had the needed rotational moment of inertia.  The cart ceased to function at all regardless of belt speed, if I recall.

So there you go, you are washed up and hung out to dry.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1370
The Black Knight will never admit defeat!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1371
Actually Heinz, I don't own a HFR video camera...

And of course it wouldn't matter if you did.  If your camera took 1000 fps at 12 Mpix/frame, we'd learn that it has to be higher resolution and higher frame rate.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1372
And of course it wouldn't matter if you did.  If your camera took 1000 fps at 12 Mpix/frame, we'd learn that it has to be higher resolution and higher frame rate.
That is so actually true it made me laugh
"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 #1373
What would it take to get me to do an experiment that was suggested by one of the H's?
A bet?  One that could not be weaseled out of?  With real money?  And a binding agreement and a neutral third party holding the money?


Am I close?
I'm guessing that it might be even simpler than that.  How about:  Asking nicely, while refraining from abuse?

Asking nicely while refraining from abuse would be a HUGE start.  A bet is certainly not necessary.

But what I would really want is a clearly defined test, and a predicted result.  That predicted result must determine the difference between our explanation and his.  And he'd have to admit that he would accept the results as meaning exactly that.

I had to force the H's to agree on a test spec before I would bother running their experiments.

I ran their tests and they hysterically proved them wrong in all their predictions compared to my predictions based on the conventional DDWFTTW theory.  They are all on YouTube for anyone to see now.

So, the H's resorted to nonsense like "their is no inertial reference frame the belt is not rotating in".  Harold is desperate to escape the fact that there is an inertial reference frame in which the top of the belt under the cart is not rotating but only translating.   Mostly because it obviously makes that a nonsense line of reasoning without any merit at all. 

Each time it's brought up, he tries to weasel word out of the obvious.   Nobody buys it but somehow he thinks he's scoring points instead of just looking stupidly recalcitrant.

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

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1374
Heinz,
If what you say above is true then your equations for the cart on the belt must include an angular velocity/momentum component.

Can you show me where this is included?



You know damn well that what I am saying is correct, there is no inertial reference frame in which the belt is not rotating! I don't need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial to explain how the cart operates. But, you and the rest of the Cargo Cult DO need to claim the belt is at rest in an inertial frame of reference in order to make your silly crackpot claim of how YOU THINK (or how you WANT to think) the cart operates, and then extrapolate that wrongness into your insane claim of ddwfttw.
So that's a "No." then?  You cannot show me how you incorporate angular velocity/momentum into your equations as you claim?

You cannot read what I wrote? I didn't say I could not, I said I do not need to use the fact that the belt is non-inertial.

But YOU need to claim the belt is inertial when it clearly isn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The part of the belt that is in contact with the cart is inertial. That is all that matters.

Sloppy language like this is what allows Heinz the wiggle room he needs.

The belt is not inertial. 

The belt is stationary in a specific inertial reference frame (vibrations excepted).  So the correct terminology is that the cart is operating on a stationary surface within a specific inertial reference frame (that one moving co-linearly with the upper working surface of the belt).  Since the belt surface is stationary in that frame, it isn't transferring any rotational or net translational energy to the cart (wrt to that frame of reference) simply because it has no motion in that frame.  Worst case it is transferring a minor amount of vibrational energy into the cart.

Most people intrinsically understand the concept but it becomes very clear if a rigorous statement and explanation is made.

Which is why this entire goofy chain of wrong isn't worth going on about. But Heinz will continue to look for holes into which he will attempt to escape.

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