Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: give some hasty rationalization, launch into some tangentially related crap, and then when someone replies to the initial point, pretend that the real topic is your freshly squeezed-out nugget of rhetoric

Show Posts

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

Messages - Heinz Hershold

2

But Trump is just enforcing a Democrat policy!  :heinz

No. He is just enforcing the law. Where were you when Obama was doing the same thing?
lol

That's what I thought. So, the photos of the kids in cages, dated 2014, are false?
3

But Trump is just enforcing a Democrat policy!  :heinz

No. He is just enforcing the law. Where were you when Obama was doing the same thing?
4
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
\

How can you be a believer when you find all the evidence goes contrary to the claim?

Sorry this reply is so late, but it's complicated.

It really isn't, once you cut through all the bullshit.



My first reaction to this discussion back in '07, was that of course ddw.. was doable. For me it was just a question of leverage. With a large prop and a gear driving it once the wind started the cart moving, why not?

Of course as I would learn from humber and the C's, it was complicated. Still, your question was how I can remain a 'believer,' so here's my rationale.

As I've made clear, most of this is way over my head. However, wrt Windgrin's question about how many deniers I've seen in this debate, I only recall 5. I'm assuming Christoff (?) had 3. Whatever. This is among well over a hundred people who weighed in, so the consensus is overwhelming.

Questions in Physics are not settled by a consensus of opinion on discussion forums. I would be willing to accept a consensus of opinion expressed in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, this claim has been around for more than 10 years, that I am aware of, and never published in any such journal and I am confident it never will be, because it is bullshit.


But the one that cinched it for me was the AAPT that ended any slim doubts. I even got the guy in charge to send an email I posted here to confirm there were NO objections to the problem on page 11 regarding spork's cart.

I have looked into this and what I discovered is the AAPT had nothing to do with this claim at all. As far as I can determine, a question about ddwfttw only appeared on a single physics Olympiad test that was hosted and sponsored by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU); the very same DTU which had several advocates of ddwfttw on staff at the time. The AAPT only reproduced the DTU test paper after it had been administered by DTU. The question about ddwfttw has not been seen since that time, and I very much doubt it will ever be seen again.

This said, I still nurture some doubts about how a small cart prop, as used on the TM, could exceed WS. The Aeolus trials have just recently reached WS, and the prop-size difference is much smaller.

The Aeolus carts are upwind turbines and have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Theoretically, an upwind turbine cart can reach twice windspeed, but in practice, due to real world constraints, it seems that the limit is somewhere around windspeed. Going downwind, the theoretical limit is windspeed, and the practical limit is something less.


 Add to that I-Ratant's videos and none showing a cart outrunning the wind after all this time, it does still make an innumerate like me wonder.

I did see I-Ratants videos. Exactly what I would expect; the popcorn flew right past the cart. Quite funny!


So convince me. The fact all these posters who know far more about the physics in play than I do, makes me think I'm wrong about the TM carts, like MikeB's. And I hope on his next test he takes a bag of popcorn. Dummy I am, I need to SEE it to be sure.


If you still believe, despite the complete lack of evidence, I'm afraid there is no way to convince you otherwise.

We would all like to see it, to be sure, but it isn't ever going to happen! The crackpot, spork, had plenty of opportunity to test his cart against popcorn, or balloons but he must have realized such a test would reveal what a farce this is.
The treadmill has nothing at all to do with a wind-powered cart, as it is powered by a motorized belt that turns the wheels. The crackpots admit their "Galilean transform" isn't really a Galilean transform, but still insist it is good enough for them!

Use your own judgement, Arpie. You are dealing with a Cargo Cult here. Their claim has no justification in any peer-reviewed science, their "GT" is not a GT and you have seen exactly zero evidence of the cart going faster than the wind.
It really is time to give this the attention it deserves; that is, dump it in the shit can where it belongs.



5
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I don't understand how anyone who is aware of the NALSA certification can state that "it doesn't work".  We all KNOW it works with the diligence of NALSA and the almost 3x windspeed record.

You throw that acronym around as if it means something. Little nalsa is a sailing club not qualified to run a physics experiment.

Now, if the stated certification was that the BB achieved 1.1x windspeed, some doubts about gusts, lulls, measurement accuracy etc. may be credible.  At 2.8x windspeed, any skepticism is just for trolling purposes.

It was a 10 mph wind again wasn't it? Bull fucking shit! The wind was well over 25 mph and the cart barely cracked wind speed going at an angle to the wind.

I personally witnessed the BB rolling along at roughly 1.5x - 2x windspeed in a gentle wind that seemed to average around 10 mph.

You personally witnessed fuck all. Without the balloons, which you botched, you have no idea about the wind direction and velocity, especially at propeller hub height. It is only wishful "thinking" and confirmation bias that leads you to say that it was a "gentle breeze of 10 mph"

This is why you are a crackpot and not a scientist of any stripe.

In fact, none of you are scientists and this claim has zero scientific support as it has never been accepted for peer review by any respected scientific journal and never will be.

The only reason I post about it is to keep any readers aware that this is a farce and a scam, so no more people get taken in by it. I sure as hell have no hope of deprogramming you crackpots.

6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
listening to these fucktards, you might think the balloon test was a great success when in fact it was an abject failure.
Nobody said or even hinted that it was a "great success".  You seem to have a difficult time making a response without lying.

Learn how to read.
7
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
If Harold had been just confused and didn't understand it, one might have some sympathy.  But at every opportunity he became a flaming asshole with insults all around,
Nothing says "I are smarter than you" than constant insults.


So I noticed.
8
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
What we have here:



listening to these fucktards, you might think the balloon test was a great success when in fact it was an abject failure.

Just fucking amazing!
9


Hey, I pass by that sign every day on my way to work!



Heh, if Canada took over the world the first thing they would do is apologise.
Which would be so humbling for the rest of the world, they'd all commit suicide. Well, that and the fact Canada was able to defeat them all. Not that I suspect the Canadians of being wimps, but there just aren't that many of them and they are generally not that aggressive and they don't have much of an army or air force or navy.

We have our ways. Look how easily I took over TR. Not a shot fired.  :smug:

So that's where you canucks get all your crazy ideas.
10
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Regarding the Galilean equivalence question:  Of course there are differences between what we call a  "treadmill" and what we call a "road". 

Just listen to this crackpot!

"what we call a  "treadmill" and what we call a "road"."

That is comedy gold!

What a sophist!

LMAO
11
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hey Bozo, there is no validity for a magical "transform" from a cart on a treadmill to a cart out on a road in a wind. Cold One has admitted that, in this thread...

True, the GT of a cart advancing up a treadmill with stationary center-of-mass is not a cart going ddwfttw on a road outside. 

Instead, it is a cart going ddfwfttw while rolling on a stationary surface (the treadmill belt's top surface) in a perfectly or nearly perfectly steady wind. 

In other words, it's the most controlled and ideal demonstration that ddwfttw is possible you could ever wish for.

The belt top surface where it contacts the wheels is not in uniform linear motion and is never a stationary surface in any inertial reference frame. That shoots down your "theory".

You should stick to the fact that you agree to : "there is no validity for a magical "transform" from a cart on a treadmill to a cart out on a road in a wind" and not try to shoe horn in anything else.
12
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
According to MikeB, the cart could not even catch up to air-filled balloons that were released near to ground level,
No, MikeB said that the balloons blew off to one side.  He did not say that "the cart could not even catch up".

The balloon test failed in the sense that it proved nothing at all, and you're (dishonestly) trying to spin it into evidence against ddwfttw.  It shouldn't surprise me, given your extremely dishonest track record.

Bullshit. More Lies and excuses. He said he thought the cart was catching up but OMG the camera broke, or some horseshit.

That means the cart was behind and never caught up with the balloons.
Wrong dipstick.  What it means is that the BB got past the balloons before I could begin videoing.  After I dumped the balloons, my driver did not slow down immediately and pull to the side.  It was over before we could get in position for any shot, the BB had gone way past the balloons by the time we got back close to abreast of the BB.  That is why my next plan was to get to a better area of the lake bed, be sure to release balloons farther ahead of the BB to have a bit more time, and immediately remind the driver to pull aside and hit the brakes.  And I have explained why that second trial did not happen.

The camera was working fine, as you could have seen if you viewed my YouTube video taken a few minutes after the balloon drop.  And by golly, there is the BB going DDWFTTW in a gentle wind, as shown by my streamer as we drove alongside.

You are free to debate all of the "theory" you wish.  You are not free to re-interpret my words to make a statement you wish were true.

By golly, what a load of bullshit.

And, just for laughs, tell me again what I can and cannot say.
13
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Yes. It's pretty simple. The cart on a long still treadmill DDW would advance down the treadmill faster than the wind. The only real difference in transferring the cart from a treadmill surface to a road or dirt is friction. But as rubber treadmill belt probably has more friction than pavement it doesn't matter because the cart advances up the treadmill anyway making the friction irrelevant to the concept.

It is simple, but not in the way that you think.

The difference between the two situations ( cart on treadmill and cart out on a road in the wind) has nothing to do with the difference in friction between the two surfaces.

It has to do with the fact that a wheel must roll on a road, while a wheel must be turned by a belt, as on the treadmill.
I have gone over this in detail before, despite Bro Dan's dishonest claim  (lie) that I haven't.

I will take this step by step and if anyone here does not agree, let them speak up and clearly state their reasons.

1). The cart's wheels must be turned by the belt on the treadmill. The still air in the room isn't going to do anything and you would have to be insane to think that the treadmill belt is not turning the wheels and thusly turning the propeller to produce thrust.

2). Point contact between the belt and the wheels will not develop a force across the bottom of the wheel to turn it. Instead, the belt must wrap around a small arc of the wheel to develop the force to turn the wheel.

3). Now consider that the cart's wheels  have a circumference of 0.27 m and when turned by the belt, moving at 4.5 m/s,  they rotate at about 1000 rpm. Therefore, they have an angular velocity of 105 rad/sec. Since the section of belt that is turning the wheels has formed into an arc where it contacts the wheels, that section of belt also has an angular velocity of 105 rad/s. 

4). It is clear that the section of belt in contact with the wheels, and turning the wheels, is not in uniform linear motion. In Fact, that section of belt is moving in circular motion with an angular velocity of 105 rad/sec. When you crackpots say the belt is at rest in some inertial frame, you are only talking about the long flat expanse of belt that is not in any way in contact with the cart and cannot have any effect on the cart! The only part of the belt that matters to the cart is the small arcs at the bottom of the wheels, nothing else.

5) Since the small arc at the bottom of the wheels is not in uniform linear motion, but is in fact rotating, it is never at rest in any inertial reference frame! The belt that is driving the wheels on the treadmill is always rotating through an arc, never at rest in any inertial frame of reference, and always powering the cart on the treadmill in any inertial frame of reference.

6)  Your crackpot version of a GT, which is not a GT at all, is invalidated as are all your asinine assumptions that it is based on.

Conclusion
The cart on the treadmill is an entirely different situation from a cart on a road in a wind, and no relationship at all exists between the two completely different situations.

You will need to find some other evidence to support your crackpot claim, such as any wind-borne object being passed by the cart outside in the wind. But, of course, as simple as that experiment is to do, no such evidence has ever been seen, or recorded or presented because it does not exist and never will exist.



14
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
bump
aaaaaand bump!
Ok then, I've "answered to the math".  Will you answer my question now?  Or are you still afraid of it?

Afraid of what? The derivation that I posted is the only one that has any significance for the wind-powered cart.

Why the hell should I bother with a question about energy storage in a battery or fuel being burned when neither one of those has anything to do with the cart under discussion?

I showed you that changing reference frames has no effect on CoE, something that you were at least implying if not outright claiming.

I showed you that the energy calculation comes out exactly the same in different frames and that means the 10 kJ that you said comes from "something physical" is a load of horseshit. The 10 kJ is nothing but an artifact of changing frames!

When you multiply out all of the terms, as I showed you, there is no difference from one frame to another.

Your idea of "frame energy" is nothing but a crackpot claim, as is all of this ddw horseshit.
15
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
It should have been a piece of cake
says the guy who has never done a scientific experiment in his life.

It's one thing to decide (without any evidence) that Mike must be lying.  It's another thing entirely to lie blatantly about what Mike has said in this thread.  Go ahead and pretend you know what happened, but don't pretend that your invented narrative has any basis in Mike's words.

You are clearly in no position to lecture anyone about honesty.

Wow. You could be a journalist these days, BD. Are you in a position to lecture about honesty? While I agree Mike was honest in his reporting, it all sounded rather ambiguous to me. And again excuses and unverifiable observations are presented in place of the long awaited video.

I find it amusing some here keep bringing up the dust video and stringers as proof. Humber had a quite extensive response to both, as has Heinz. I see a lot of bias all around, and will remain slightly confused until I see the cart outrunning something. Had Mike used popcorn instead of balloons then for me the reservations would have vanished had his cart outrun it. Can't tell how often I've wished I Ratant had never deleted his tests. Heinz would love them, especially if he knew this cart was built by a VERY experienced model builder who expected opposite results. I know how he felt.

When I Ratant posted his first test on Youtube, with a link to it on JREF, I was blown away. He let his cart go first in a strong wind, and it was about 50 yards down the road when he released the the popcorn. I vividly recall thinking 'what a farce.' It will never catch up with such a big lead. Then, fast as the cart was moving in a 20 mph wind, the popcorn blew right past it. I was astounded.

I R did some 5 tests, plus 2 more on a different day but also with a strong wind. The results were the same. Like Mike, he had excuses and was still a believer. As am I, but as I said before, being a moron I can't trust my analysis. It will take a video of a cart outrunning actual wind to reassure me.

@windgrins: Please don't post your ludicrous video wrt the popcorn. Fool that I am, it really makes me wonder if you are as bright as I have long assumed. Would love to have a call with you where you could justify what to me seems like something Trump might buy from Miller. I've read your rationales in the past, and it still eludes me. Might you possibly be wrong??

How can you be a believer when you find all the evidence goes contrary to the claim?
16
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
@windgrins: Please don't post your ludicrous video wrt the popcorn. Fool that I am, it really makes me wonder if you are as bright as I have long assumed. Would love to have a call with you where you could justify what to me seems like something Trump might buy from Miller. I've read your rationales in the past, and it still eludes me. Might you possibly be wrong??

When you understand why the popcorn video on a treadmill is a valid representation of the cart, ground, wind, and popcorn all in correct relation to one another, you might just understand why the blackbird works.  Until then, I don't think I can help you out.  I'm all out of explanations for you.  Please don't equate anything I do with anything Donald Trump might do.

Windgrins :grin:


Hey Bozo, there is no validity for a magical "transform" from a cart on a treadmill to a cart out on a road in a wind. Cold One has admitted that, in this thread, and uncool comes close to admitting it but starts stammering and making conditional statements and can't quite bring himself to say it.
If you think a Galilean transform can be done between two completely different situations, then you don't understand the first thing about what a GT is. If you think otherwise, just cite one reference, just one physics book, to back up your claim.
The fact is, you cargo cult crackpots are the only people on the planet to claim a Galilean transform can be made from one situation to another. Everyone else knows a GT can only be done between different reference frames of one and the same situation only.
When you finally understand that there is absolutely no relationship between what happens on the treadmill, to what happens in a wind, on a road, then maybe you will stop believing in fairy tales. But I don't hold out any hope for you.



17
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
According to MikeB, the cart could not even catch up to air-filled balloons that were released near to ground level,
No, MikeB said that the balloons blew off to one side.  He did not say that "the cart could not even catch up".

The balloon test failed in the sense that it proved nothing at all, and you're (dishonestly) trying to spin it into evidence against ddwfttw.  It shouldn't surprise me, given your extremely dishonest track record.

Bullshit. More Lies and excuses. He said he thought the cart was catching up but OMG the camera broke, or some horseshit.

That means the cart was behind and never caught up with the balloons.

Remember, the balloons were at or near ground level and the propeller reaches about 20 feet into the air!
I suppose wind gradient is something else you choose to ignore or do not understand.

The cart was no where near wind speed the whole time!

This is a fucking FARCE and a SCAM.


I'm pretty sure none of that is anywhere close to what Mike said.

This is what he originally said:

Quote
The day is done and we had some success but also a disappointment.  The balloon release was somewhat a debacle due to circumstances so I have no video of it.  Due to the crowds and huge coned-off area for the top speed trials (think Bonneville Salt Flats) the BB was forced to stay near the side of the lakebed.  I had thought we were heading close to directly down wind but we were not, there was a crosswind component.  Tried my best to release the balloons in line and well ahead of the BB, only to see them tumbling off line as I was grabbing for the camera (was kind of a big deal to kick the rear hatch open and get it closed). 

Then he changed his story to say he thought the cart was catching up to the balloons.

Now, he clearly remembers the cart passed the balloons with ease!

Next, he will be remembering when the cart took off and flew!

This is why a video is needed but for some damn reason he just could not manage to take one.
18
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

Quote from: HH
and shows windgrins was talking out of his ass, as usual, when he said the result will not be the same in different frames.
That's not what he said.

Indeed.  What I did say, which Heinz can't seem to comprehend, is that COE holds true in all frames but the numeric value for any particular reference frame for all energy accounting will not be the same at the start as any other frame depending upon the circumstances.  It will however be the exact same for the SAME frame at the end of the experiment in a closed system (and for that matter at any point of time over the duration of the experiment in question).  That is COE in action. 

And any other frame with other values for the energy accounting will also transition and end with the same amount of energy they started with (closed system).  So the law of conservation of energy simply states that for any closed system U, the total energy E(U(t))= C [for any time t, C is a constant].  But it doesn't say that E1(U)frame1= Ex(U)framex In layman's language this just states, that the same experiment when viewed from different reference frames will have a different constant total energy for the closed system than it will when accounted for from a different frame.

Or in words, the total energy of a system does not have the same numerical value when frame switching, but the energy of the system remains a constant (when measured or accounted for in the same frame) throughout any arbitrary duration for closed systems.

This weird misconception that energy accounting has the same numerical values for all frames at any point in time for the same experiment has been the source of Heinz's "frame switching errors" for a long time.  He seems to think that in the middle of a problem that you can compute the energy in any convenient frame and without transforming, simply substitute the numerical value obtained for any other frame accounting.  It's either stupid and unintentionally ignorant or intentionally deceptive.

So between energy accounting errors when frame switching or creating a non-existent law of "Conservation of Force", he always seems to come up with a nonsense answer.  Again, it isn't obvious if this is totally intentional or just stupid.  He reworks the problem when it doesn't produce the correct answer by substituting one of the two errors at some point to come up with his wrong answer.  And one can usually trivially see that the error doesn't work for any third frame chosen to illustrate the error.

I've grown completely tired of chasing down Harold/Profpangloss/Heinz/Sybils continual errors but each time someone points it out he runs away and then comes back later and declares how he "proved it earlier" when each and every derivation has been shown to be flawed.

Windgrins :grin:

What a load of garbled doubletalk.
19
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hey Heinz: as I said earlier, and you agreed, the analysis you did was only of an elastic collision with no energy source (or sink). However, the Galilean transform can also be applied to a propeller-based airplane (as in Brother Daniel's question), which is neither an elastic collision nor lacking an energy source. Would you mind repeating your analysis for that plane?

When you're done (and when we agree on the analysis), there is a point I'd like to make. But it only makes sense once that analysis is done. Which is why I'm asking you to do the analysis - so that you don't have an automatic reason to distrust the analysis, because you did it yourself.

You do it.
20
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Yeah, there were a couple of brackets in the wrong place. I call that typos. To be expected when trying to write math using text mode. The math is actually correct.
lol.  No, it's not "to be expected", but keep making lame excuses for your sloppiness.
Quote from: HH
And it is not one narrow application, it is a general solution to a frame switch problem
You have no idea what a "general solution" would look like.  All you've done is analyze an elastic collision between two objects.  You even admitted that at one point.
Quote from: HH
and shows windgrins was talking out of his ass, as usual, when he said the result will not be the same in different frames.
That's not what he said.
Quote from: HH
A transformation from one frame to another has absolutely no effect on CoE.
YOU were the one who was making arguments that only make sense if you're trying to deny CoE.  So now you're trying to score points by (partially) proving what everyone else has been trying to tell you all along?
Quote from: HH
Here is the cleaned up version. If you find any more typos be sure and let me know loud and clear.
It's much better than before, but one of the brackets is still out of place.
"but one of the brackets is still out of place"

I left that one there just for you because I know how much it annoys you.
21
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
...
According to MikeB, the cart could not even catch up to air-filled balloons that were released near to ground level, even though the he says cart was not far off of being ddw. Of course, the crackpots have nothing but excuses for this total failure! If the cart was capable of exceeding wind speed, with the wind measured at propeller hub height, it should have been able to easily outrun these balloons at ground level, but it couldn't!
Hey asshat, don't put words in my mouth.  I told everyone, clearly, what the issues were with my one attempt.  And I will say it again.  You, who were not there at the lake bed, have no basis to twist my words.

1.  We were initially confined to the edge of the lake bed by cones and so were traveling a bit off of directly downwind.  Perceiving the BB was above windspeed (duh, by the streamer I attached to my car) I asked my driver to surge ahead of the BB and I released the balloons.  Driver forgot my prior instructions to then pull to the side and hit the brakes, to drop back aside the balloons.  I was distracted for a few seconds by a camera issue and then, in just a few moments, the BB had scooted right by the balloons as they drifted a bit to the side, across the cones, and the BB was not allowed to follow them.  In seconds I was out of time to salvage the attempt and we rode along side of the BB.  I videoed that and put it on YouTube, showing the BB cruising above windspeed in a gentle wind.

2.  Winds started to pick up and BB was going for another run.  I stated my intent to try the balloon drop again but this time waiting until we were well past the cones and the BB could directly follow the balloons.  I was in disbelief when my friend began to worry about safety of other motorcycle riders on the lake bed, imagining that someone would be "startled" by seeing a balloon rolling along and might have an accident.  He would not participate further.  I was quite angry and just started the drive home.

3.  Now I'm unhappy that I did not remain calm then and just tell my friend to stand aside as I handled the second run.  Even a single balloon could have served the purpose if I released it far enough ahead of BB, dropped back and videoed.  I believe the opportunity is lost forever as it's doubtful that Neil will ever make this outing again after they had satisfying runs at higher speeds after the first.

For what had better be the final time, I again state that the BB did not "fail to catch balloons".  The failure was in the details as I've described above.  You are not allowed to rephrase "what MikeB said" and I already told you that a week or two ago, 'Mr. Who Was Not There".

What is the matter, RP?  You cannot comprehend that NALSA is capable of tracking these issues with enough accuracy to answer any questions?  And by the way, you seem to say that Heinz is the brunt of insults or name calling?  What thread are you reading?  Heinz has been quite liberal (oooooh, that word!) with insults, more than holding his own.

For the record, the BB easily outran the balloons at the lake bed and I have explained why I don't have video.  Me, 'Mr. Who Was There" verifies the balloons were quickly left behind, and we obviously drove downwind above windspeed alongside the BB.


Cool story, asshat.
For what had better be the final time . .LOL

The fact is, the balloon test was a total failure.

It should have been a piece of cake to show the cart, which is claimed to be able to reach nearly 3 X wind speed, outrunning balloons released near ground level.

You are either very inept, or the cart did not outrun the balloons and you are very dishonest.

It seems as time goes by, your memory of the cart passing the balloons gets better and better, even though they were travelling in different directions! LOL

Without the video evidence, Your new story is bunk and nobody but the crackpots who already believe in this crap will take your word for it. You crackpots do not deserve to be trusted in the least as none of you have demonstrated the slightest amount of honesty and integrity. One evidence of this is your refusal to even look at a high frame rate video of the cart on the treadmill to see the loss of traction. That is being dishonest not only to everyone else, but most importantly, to yourself! That is the worst sort of dishonesty but you crackpots demonstrate that in spades.
22
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The only possible significance is that you are Bozo the clown.

The GT that is claimed is bogus, so there is no significance as far as physics is concerned.
23
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
As spork said some time ago:
You just keep bringing up the balloons and popcorn while ignoring the streamers and dust cloud.  If you want to talk about popcorn first tell us what you don't like about streamers and dust clouds.
For that matter, what's wrong with comparing the cart's speed as given by GPS data to the wind speed as given by an anemometer?

For that matter, just put a little cart on a level or inclined-up treadmill.  If it runs up it, you are done! ;)

Windgrins :grin:

Yeah, why don't you run along and do that. Drop some more popcorn on it while you are there, Bozo.

24
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
According to MikeB, the cart could not even catch up to air-filled balloons that were released near to ground level,
No, MikeB said that the balloons blew off to one side.  He did not say that "the cart could not even catch up".

The balloon test failed in the sense that it proved nothing at all, and you're (dishonestly) trying to spin it into evidence against ddwfttw.  It shouldn't surprise me, given your extremely dishonest track record.

Bullshit. More Lies and excuses. He said he thought the cart was catching up but OMG the camera broke, or some horseshit.

That means the cart was behind and never caught up with the balloons.

Remember, the balloons were at or near ground level and the propeller reaches about 20 feet into the air!
I suppose wind gradient is something else you choose to ignore or do not understand.

The cart was no where near wind speed the whole time!

This is a fucking FARCE and a SCAM.
25
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Answer to the math.
OK.

A few observations:

1.  Since you usually run away from any math I present, your demand that I "answer the math" is yet another display of your hypocrisy.

2.  As uncool points out, you have garbled your brackets.
It was ok up to here:
VPi ^2 + 2 VPi Vw = VPe^2 + 2 VPe Vw + (ma / Mp)  vae^2 + 2 (ma / Mp)  vae Vw
But then you said
Quote from: HH
(VPi ^2 = VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2) + 2Vw [(ma / Mp)( vae + VPe  - VPi )]
when you presumably meant to say
VPi ^2 = (VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2) + 2Vw [(ma / Mp) vae + VPe - Vpi].
It should be easy to see that you made a mistake, given that you then go on to say
Quote from: HH
But, I asked you to remember that: (ma / Mp) (vae  + VPe  - VPi ) = 0  derived above
(which is incorrect), when what you actually said earlier was quite different (and correct):
Quote from: HH
OR:  (ma / Mp) vae  + VPe  - VPi  = 0
Keep that last relation in mind going forward.
So it's hilarious that you keep insisting that you didn't make any mistakes, when your mistakes are glaringly obvious to anyone with basic kindergarten-level algebra.

3.  After correcting your errors, all you've shown is that, for one narrowly-defined problem, application of CoM and CoE in each of two frames gives answers that agree with each other.  So you've simply shown something that's trivial and obvious, and not disputed by anyone here.  It's a far cry from the more general statement that you claimed that you could prove.  And it doesn't do anything to help your silly anti-ddwfttw crusade.

4.  It's also amusing that the narrowly-defined problem you chose to present involves a mass of air being treated like a single object.  You object when uncool does the same, but you have no problem doing so yourself.  Hmmm.


Ok then, I've "answered to the math".  Will you answer my question now?  Or are you still afraid of it?

Yeah, there were a couple of brackets in the wrong place. I call that typos. To be expected when trying to write math using text mode. The math is actually correct.
And it is not one narrow application, it is a general solution to a frame switch problem and shows windgrins was talking out of his ass, as usual, when he said the result will not be the same in different frames.
The result is exactly the same.
A transformation from one frame to another has absolutely no effect on CoE.
Here is the cleaned up version. If you find any more typos be sure and let me know loud and clear.

According to Conservation of Momentum:
Mp VPi  + ma vai  = Mp VPe  + ma  vae
In the frame where the airmass is at rest, ( the "air" frame) vai  = 0
Then: VPi  = VPe  + (ma / Mp) vae 
OR:  (ma / Mp) ( vae )  + VPe  - VPi  = 0
Keep that last relation in mind going forward.

According to Conservation of Energy (dispensing with the 1/2 factors):
Mp VPi^2  + ma vai ^2 = Mp VPe^2  + ma  vae^2
I am still in the frame where the airmass is at rest so vai^2  = 0
Then:    VPi ^2 = VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2

Hopefully all the crackpots posting here can follow these very simple derivations without Too much difficulty.
Now, I will switch to a frame that is moving at some positive velocity Vw with respect to the original frame. I use Vw to represent a wind velocity added to the first frame, so that this second frame can be thought of as the ground frame, but any + or - V can be used to transform to another frame. No physical significance need be given to the velocity transform.
All that is required is to add the transform velocity Vw to all of the velocities in the original energy equation:
Mp (VPi + Vw)^2  + ma  Vw ^2 = Mp (VPe +Vw) ^2  + ma  (vae + Vw)^2
Then: (VPi + Vw)^2  + (ma / Mp)  Vw ^2 = (VPe +Vw) ^2  + (ma / Mp) (  vae + Vw)^2
Multiplying out:
VPi ^2 + 2 VPi Vw + Vw^2 +(ma / Mp)  Vw ^2 = VPe^2 + 2 VPe Vw + Vw^2 + (ma / Mp)  (vae^2 +2  vae Vw + Vw^2)
Cancelling like terms on both sides:
VPi ^2 + 2 VPi Vw = VPe^2 + 2 VPe Vw + (ma / Mp)  vae^2 + 2 (ma / Mp)  vae Vw
Then:
(VPi ^2 = VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2) + 2Vw [(ma / Mp)( vae )+ VPe  - VPi ]
But, I asked you to remember that: (ma / Mp) (vae ) + VPe  - VPi  = 0  derived above
So all we have is:
VPi ^2 = VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2
And that is exactly the same result we had in the original frame.
And reproduced here:
VPi ^2 = VPe ^2 + (ma / Mp) vae ^2

I have shown, without any doubt, that changing reference frames has No Effect on CoE as anyone with at least half a functioning brain would know. That leaves out BD, spork, windgrins and a whole host of other crackpots too numerous to mention, posting in this thread.