Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: it's a huge effort for questionable return

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 15346 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1900
Maybe we could get by with a Phantom V2511.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7x1Hu29Wc

Or maybe two using a beam splitter, that would give 2 million fps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lItG7LdKO5A

I won't settle for anything less.


  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1901
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).

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1902
Quote from: HH
The power available at the propeller is always less than the power collected at the wheels, due to transmission losses.

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

He's trying to say

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

Yes, that is what I am saying and I have made it clear from the beginning that when I refer to the velocity of the cart, on the treadmill, the V that I use is the velocity of the cart with respect to the belt, in the reference frame where the belt is momentarily at rest. (The belt can only be momentarily at rest in any inertial reference frame since the belt is rotating and it is undergoing proper acceleration in any inertial reference frame)

So then:
(1)   Pwheels = Fbrake x Vcart where Vcart is as defined above
(2)   Pprop = Fthrust x Vcart
(3)   Pprop < Pwheels due to transmission losses from the wheels to the propeller.
(4)   Fthrust x Vcart < Fbrake x Vcart
(5)   Fthrust < Fbrake by cancelling out Vcart


Since F thrust is less than F brake, as long as traction is maintained, the cart cannot advance on the belt. The ONLY way the cart moves up the belt is by periodic loss of traction.

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

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

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

No, we don't "go" with the rest frame of the ground under the treadmill as that frame is not especially useful since the cart is on the belt and driven by the belt. However, if you insist on going with that frame, your assertion that
ω = (v + vo) / r makes absolutely no sense since it is impossible for the belt to turn the wheels any faster than ω = v / r!
I would like you to cite ONE instance where a belt drives a wheel faster than ω = v / r where v is the belt speed!
CITE your sources and explain the physics involved!


The FACT is, when the cart advances on the belt, that is evidence that the wheels must be slipping, since  it is impossible for the wheels to be turned faster than ω = v /r by the belt. There would need to be an external source of energy to push the cart up the belt, and despite your fanciful crackpot claim of a tailwind on the treadmill, there is no such external source of energy.

In fact, what happens when the cart advances is the wheels lose traction and ω < v /r as a High Frame Rate video will absolutely confirm. And that HFR video will happen, sooner or later.


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

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

Your claim of a tailwind is crackpottery and  laughable! A tailwind, when the cart is operating in still air and supposedly extracting energy from the still air?

You are absolutely out of your mind and desperately clinging to your crackpot claim.

And you call my claim that the wheels are slipping, bogus! What a laugh!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1903
It is certainly a laugh, Heinz.
Keep it going; you might notch up another seven years of amusing us.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1904
Three simple questions, Hopalong:
1: An ant is clinging to the treadmill surface. Does he notice a wind?
2: If he holds up a little toy windmill, will it rotate?
3: Is the energy causing that rotation coming from the still air in the room?
 
  • Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 10:06:30 AM by tobermoryphil

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1905
Three simple questions, Hopalong:
1: An ant is clinging to the treadmill surface. Does he notice a wind?
2: If he holds up a little toy windmill, will it rotate?
3: Is the energy causing that rotation coming from the still air in the room?

Our resident laughingstock will not answer these questions. He has ignored them for 10 years. As I have said many times, thinking about how large a TM would have to be before you could not tell you were on one terrifies our nitwit Hyev more than any other cog dis inducing issue. As you say we sure should thank him for all the laughs over the years; it is Thanksgiving in the US today.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1906
Yes, that is what I am saying and I have made it clear from the beginning that when I refer to the velocity of the cart, on the treadmill, the V that I use is the velocity of the cart with respect to the belt, in the reference frame where the belt is momentarily at rest. (The belt can only be momentarily at rest in any inertial reference frame since the belt is rotating and it is undergoing proper acceleration in any inertial reference frame)
There is no reference frame in which the belt as a whole is at rest, even momentarily.  Perhaps you mean the frame in which the upper surface of the belt is at rest.  (And it's more than just "momentary".)
Quote from: HH
No, we don't "go" with the rest frame of the ground under the treadmill as that frame is not especially useful since the cart is on the belt and driven by the belt.
I never claimed that this choice of frame was "especially useful".  You can use any frame you like, as long as you use it consistently.  (That's something you haven't yet learned how to do.)  I picked this frame because you claim repeatedly that there is no wind (in the treadmill scenario), and this is the one frame where that claim is true.  I picked this frame in order to try to agree with you as far as possible.
Quote from: HH
However, if you insist on going with that frame, your assertion that
ω = (v + vo) / r makes absolutely no sense since it is impossible for the belt to turn the wheels any faster than ω = v / r!
I would like you to cite ONE instance where a belt drives a wheel faster than ω = v / r where v is the belt speed!
CITE your sources and explain the physics involved!
Calm yourself down, and wipe the rabid foam off your face.  Jeez.

Remember:  v is the velocity of the cart in the frame we happen to be working in.  In this case, the rest frame of the room.  v0 is the belt speed (relative to the room).

If we were working in the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, and the cart were going at a velocity v' in that frame, then we'd have ω = v'/r, as a simple matter of geometry.  But (a) we're working instead in the rest frame of the room, where v = v' - v0 by a simple Galilean transformation; and (b) the angular velocity ω is the same in every inertial frame.  It follows, trivially, that ω = (v + v0)/r.

In other words, v + v0 is the "belt speed" relative to the cart.  So it should be obvious that ω = (v + v0)/r.
Quote from: HH
The FACT is, when the cart advances on the belt, that is evidence that the wheels must be slipping,
There you go again, using the word "FACT" in all capital letters, to refer to something completely unsupported.
Quote from: HH
since  it is impossible for the wheels to be turned faster than ω = v /r by the belt.
By this reasoning, if the cart is held in place with v = 0, then the belt can't turn the wheels at all.  Think before you type.
Quote from: HH
There would need to be an external source of energy to push the cart up the belt,
You're assuming your conclusion again.  Circular reasoning.
Quote from: HH
and despite your fanciful crackpot claim of a tailwind on the treadmill,
No, at this point we're working in the rest frame of the room, so there is no wind.
Quote from: HH
Quote from: Brother Daniel
On the other hand, if we go with the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, then (3) is wrong, because the cart can harvest energy from the resulting tailwind.

Either way, his argument is bogus.  But that won't stop him from repeating it over and over.
Your claim of a tailwind is crackpottery and  laughable! A tailwind, when the cart is operating in still air and supposedly extracting energy from the still air?
The belt is moving relative to the air.  It follows that the air is moving relative to the belt.  In other words, the air is moving, according to the reference frame in which the upper surface of the belt is stationary.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Since you insist on describing the air as "still", maybe we should stick with the rest frame of the room.  In that case, there's no scary wind to frighten poor widdle Heinz.  But also in that case, we have Pwheels = FB (v + v0), as explained above.  So again, even with Pprop < Pwheels, we can easily have FT > FB.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1907

There is no reference frame in which the belt as a whole is at rest, even momentarily.  Perhaps you mean the frame in which the upper surface of the belt is at rest.  (And it's more than just "momentary".)

I am glad you are finally admitting that there is no inertial frame where the entire belt is at rest, because it is always rotating! Very good! You are learning something!

And, I was referring to only the top of the belt and if you put a mark on the top of the belt, it can only be at rest momentarily, in any inertial frame, before it goes around the rollers. If you cannot understand that, or you understand that but yet deny it, I actually feel sorry for you.


Quote from: HH
No, we don't "go" with the rest frame of the ground under the treadmill as that frame is not especially useful since the cart is on the belt and driven by the belt.
I never claimed that this choice of frame was "especially useful".  You can use any frame you like, as long as you use it consistently.  (That's something you haven't yet learned how to do.) 

Bullshit. I said you CAN use that frame, if you insist on it, but it is more convenient to use the frame that was using.


I picked this frame because you claim repeatedly that there is no wind (in the treadmill scenario), and this is the one frame where that claim is true.  I picked this frame in order to try to agree with you as far as possible.

More bullshit. You are by far the most disagreeable person posting here.
There is no wind ON THE CART in the treadmill scenario. If you want to take the juvenile argument that Toby and the boys take about the ant that is riding on the belt, that ant does experience a wind. But, the cart is not riding that way, it is "hovering" in cargo cult parlance, and it never has any tailwind on it. You can twist that any way you like, but you will still come out as a desperate crackpot.

Quote from: HH
However, if you insist on going with that frame, your assertion that
ω = (v + vo) / r makes absolutely no sense since it is impossible for the belt to turn the wheels any faster than ω = v / r!
I would like you to cite ONE instance where a belt drives a wheel faster than ω = v / r where v is the belt speed!
CITE your sources and explain the physics involved!
Calm yourself down, and wipe the rabid foam off your face.  Jeez.

Remember:  v is the velocity of the cart in the frame we happen to be working in.  In this case, the rest frame of the room.  v0 is the belt speed (relative to the room).

If we were working in the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, and the cart were going at a velocity v' in that frame, then we'd have ω = v'/r, as a simple matter of geometry.  But (a) we're working instead in the rest frame of the room, where v = v' - v0 by a simple Galilean transformation; and (b) the angular velocity ω is the same in every inertial frame.  It follows, trivially, that ω = (v + v0)/r.

In other words, v + v0 is the "belt speed" relative to the cart.  So it should be obvious that ω = (v + v0)/r.

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.


Quote from: HH
The FACT is, when the cart advances on the belt, that is evidence that the wheels must be slipping,
There you go again, using the word "FACT" in all capital letters, to refer to something completely unsupported.
Quote from: HH
since  it is impossible for the wheels to be turned faster than ω = v /r by the belt.
By this reasoning, if the cart is held in place with v = 0, then the belt can't turn the wheels at all.  Think before you type.

Ha Ha! That is exactly right! If you hold the cart down on the belt, so that it travels with the belt at belt speed, so that V = 0, the wheels will not be turning! It will travel on the belt the same as a brick! Think before you type, indeed!

The belt is moving relative to the air.  It follows that the air is moving relative to the belt.  In other words, the air is moving, according to the reference frame in which the upper surface of the belt is stationary.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the cart is not travelling with the belt, but hovering in still air? IT does not matter there is a "wind" relative to the BELT! What matters is there is NO "wind" relative to the CART!


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1908
Yep; the cart is experiencing still air,  whilst running at speed over a surface.
Exactly like the full size Blackbird running downwind at wind speed.
In both cases, there is relative movement between the air and a surface.
Something your tiny brain is unable to grasp after 10 years or so.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1909
There is no reference frame in which the belt as a whole is at rest, even momentarily.  Perhaps you mean the frame in which the upper surface of the belt is at rest.  (And it's more than just "momentary".)


Yeah - but you've gotta love the fact that heinz thinks moving objects are stationary if you look at them briefly enough.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1910
"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 #1911
There is no reference frame in which the belt as a whole is at rest, even momentarily.  Perhaps you mean the frame in which the upper surface of the belt is at rest.  (And it's more than just "momentary".)


Yeah - but you've gotta love the fact that heinz thinks moving objects are stationary if you look at them briefly enough.


 I said the belt surface is momentarily at rest in any inertial frame. That is similar to looking at a rotating object with a timing light, where the illusion of being stationary is created by the short duration of the light pulse.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Bmcqis0rk

But, since you are a dishonest crackpot, you must try to twist even that simple explanation around in a way that you think works in your favor, but it isn't working out that way for you is it?

Hey sporky, since you have admitted you have a couple of high frame rate cameras, have you ever indulged your keen desire for scientific correctness and taken a look at your cart on the treadmill in HFR? No? I thought not! And I do not wonder why; I know why . . . .you are scared shitless of what you will see . . . .wheels sliding along the belt with periodic loss of traction . . .and your fantasy world will implode along with your empty head.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1912
Dream on, Hopalong.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1913

 I said the belt surface is momentarily at rest in any inertial frame. That is similar to looking at a rotating object with a timing light, where the illusion of being stationary is created by the short duration of the light pulse.


Have I got this right? In HeinzFizik, any reference frame is inertial if it 'looks' stationary for a 'moment' with respect to the ground. Although it is an 'illusion', that a point on a rotating circumference is stationary, any necessary calculation can proceed while ever the light pulse is 'short duration'.

It would seem then to make sense Heinz, that the linear motion part of the treadmill belt is not rotating provided that the light pulse is of sufficient duration. For example,  a white marker spot is painted on the belt, it translates in a straight line while ever not in contact with the rollers. This can only be shown to be true by using strobe light to illuminate the spot as it proceeds between rollers. Hence while it is rotating periodically it is also translating on a straight line periodically.

HeinzFizik dictates that because the straight part of the belt only appears to be at constant velocity due to the effect of lighting, no action of forces on that part of the belt can be considered using it as an inertial frame of reference.

This is surely why Heinz is so convinced that a high speed camera will detect rotation of the belt at the wheel interface causing periodic traction loss.

I really am looking forward to the HFR video of Spork, Heinz and the cart.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1914
I am glad you are finally admitting that there is no inertial frame where the entire belt is at rest,
"Finally admitting"?  WTF?  That has clearly been my (and indeed everyone's) position all along.  Do you have no honesty at all?
Quote from: HH
because it is always rotating!
*sigh*.  You still don't know what "rotating" means to a physicist.
Quote from: HH
Very good! You are learning something!
I'm learning that you are both stupider and more dishonest than I previously recognized.
Quote from: HH
And, I was referring to only the top of the belt and if you put a mark on the top of the belt, it can only be at rest momentarily, in any inertial frame, before it goes around the rollers.
It can be at rest for a substantial fraction of a second.  Let's add "momentarily" to the ever-growing list of terminology that you don't understand.
Quote from: HH
I never claimed that this choice of frame was "especially useful".  You can use any frame you like, as long as you use it consistently.  (That's something you haven't yet learned how to do.)
Bullshit. I said you CAN use that frame, if you insist on it, but it is more convenient to use the frame that was using.
How does this respond in any way to what I said?
Quote from: HH
You are by far the most disagreeable person posting here.
Awww, you flatter me.
Quote from: HH
There is no wind ON THE CART in the treadmill scenario. If you want to take the juvenile argument that Toby and the boys take about the ant that is riding on the belt, that ant does experience a wind. But, the cart is not riding that way, it is "hovering" in cargo cult parlance, and it never has any tailwind on it.
By saying "there is no wind ON THE CART" I assume you mean "there is no wind in the (momentary) rest frame of the cart", which is true as long as the cart is "hovering".  (I wasn't assuming that it was "hovering".  I kept the cart's velocity as a variable, so it could be hovering, or advancing, or falling back.)

More to the point, though, you often argue as if there is no wind at all in the treadmill scenario.  And that is why I picked the rest frame of the room, so that there would indeed be no wind.

Also, it doesn't matter whether there is wind "ON THE CART" (in the sense in which you are apparently using that phrase).  More on this later.
Quote from: HH
Remember:  v is the velocity of the cart in the frame we happen to be working in.  In this case, the rest frame of the room.  v0 is the belt speed (relative to the room).

If we were working in the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, and the cart were going at a velocity v' in that frame, then we'd have ω = v'/r, as a simple matter of geometry.  But (a) we're working instead in the rest frame of the room, where v = v' - v0 by a simple Galilean transformation; and (b) the angular velocity ω is the same in every inertial frame.  It follows, trivially, that ω = (v + v0)/r.

In other words, v + v0 is the "belt speed" relative to the cart.  So it should be obvious that ω = (v + v0)/r.
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.
I completely supported it.  Apparently you didn't read the post to which you responded.  So I've kept the relevant parts in the quote box above.  Try reading it again.  Actually reading, not just skimming.

I'm using "v" to refer to the velocity of the cart in the frame we happen to be working in.  In this case, that frame is the rest frame of the room.  If we take the belt speed relative to the wheel, and divide by r, we get the (non-slipping) angular velocity of the wheel.  But that belt speed relative to the wheel is exactly v + v0.

Again, you're blindly applying a formula (in this case ω = v/r) without thinking about which quantities go into that formula!  The "v" that goes into your formula IS what I'm calling "v + v0".
Quote from: HH
Quote from: HH
since  it is impossible for the wheels to be turned faster than ω = v /r by the belt.
By this reasoning, if the cart is held in place with v = 0, then the belt can't turn the wheels at all.  Think before you type.
Ha Ha! That is exactly right! If you hold the cart down on the belt, so that it travels with the belt at belt speed, so that V = 0, the wheels will not be turning! It will travel on the belt the same as a brick!
Remember, at this point in the conversation, we're still working in the rest frame of the room.  So v = 0 means that the cart is not moving relative to the room.  (It's "hovering", if you want to use that term.)  So at v = 0, that means that the wheels are (quite obviously) turning at ω = v0/r.  (If the cart were travelling with the belt at belt speed, we would have v = -v0 instead.)
Quote from: HH
Think before you type, indeed!
Indeed.
Quote from: HH
The belt is moving relative to the air.  It follows that the air is moving relative to the belt.  In other words, the air is moving, according to the reference frame in which the upper surface of the belt is stationary.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the cart is not travelling with the belt, but hovering in still air? IT does not matter there is a "wind" relative to the BELT! What matters is there is NO "wind" relative to the CART!
Follow the context.  I was (clearly, explicitly) talking about the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt - you know, the frame in which you CLAIM to prefer to work.  I was not talking about the (momentary) rest frame of the cart.  Do try to keep up.

Whatever frame we do our analysis in, if there's wind, that wind is potentially a source of energy.  In the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, there's wind, and there's no reason why the cart can't harvest some of that energy.

Since you want to assume that the cart is "hovering", the rest frame of the cart is the rest frame of the room.  In that frame, I agree that there is no wind.

Whatever frame you pick, you have to do your analysis consistently in that frame.  That's something extremely basic that you still haven't learned.  Throughout this conversation, whenever we pick a frame, you make claims that apply only to a different frame.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1915
Yeah - but you've gotta love the fact that heinz thinks moving objects are stationary if you look at them briefly enough.
To be fair, that's not how I read his post -- until after he responded to yours!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1916
Hey tiny sporky, ("Chief Scientist") since you have admitted you have a couple of high frame rate cameras, have you ever indulged your keen desire for scientific correctness and integrity, and taken a look at your cart on the treadmill in HFR? No? I thought not! And I do not wonder why; I know why . . . .you are scared shitless of what you will see . . . .wheels sliding along the belt with periodic loss of traction . . .and your fantasy world will implode along with your empty head.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1917
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.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1918


Whatever frame we do our analysis in, if there's wind, that wind is potentially a source of energy.  In the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, there's wind, and there's no reason why the cart can't harvest some of that energy.

There is a VERY good reason why the cart cannot harvest any of that "wind" energy, and you have just given that reason yourself, just below:

Since you want to assume that the cart is "hovering", the rest frame of the cart is the rest frame of the room.  In that frame, I agree that there is no wind.

There you go, you dumbass! The cart is STARTED out by being held on the belt and it is released in hovering mode! Therefore, by your own admission, there is never any wind on the cart and NO wind energy to harvest. All you need to do is read your own posts and try to be consistent with your arguments.

  • Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 06:38:39 AM by Heinz Hershold

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1919
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.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1920
Whatever frame we do our analysis in, if there's wind, that wind is potentially a source of energy.  In the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, there's wind, and there's no reason why the cart can't harvest some of that energy.
There is a VERY good reason why the cart cannot harvest any of that "wind" energy, and you have just given that reason yourself, just below:
Since you want to assume that the cart is "hovering", the rest frame of the cart is the rest frame of the room.  In that frame, I agree that there is no wind.
There you go, you dumbass! The cart is STARTED out by being held on the belt and it is released in hovering mode! Therefore, by your own admission, there is never any wind on the cart and NO wind energy to harvest.
First, your "therefore" doesn't follow at all.  Second, you're (again) using a claim that applies to one frame in order to make an argument for what happens in a different frame.  You're not being even remotely consistent.

In the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt, there is wind.  And there is no reason why the wind energy cannot be harvested.  You say "the cart is STARTED out by being held on the belt and it is released in hovering mode", but you have not shown that this has any relevance.  Nor have you shown that there is any relevance in the fact that another frame exists in which there is no wind.
Quote from: HH
All you need to do is read your own posts and try to be consistent with your arguments.
I've been doing that.  When will you start?
  • Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 10:51:04 AM by Brother Daniel

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1921
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.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1922
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.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1923
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.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1924
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.
  • Last Edit: November 24, 2017, 11:01:55 AM by semper