Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: To me it is above all an honest site: honest fun, honest kindness (a lot of it, once you start looking), honest anger, honest stupidity, honest lunacy, honest hostility, honest viciousness. Honest brawls and meltdowns. Altogether a remarkably interesting - if sometimes downright disturbing - bunch of people speaking their minds.

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 - windgrins

1
Or, more likely, he thought that a test involving modern instrumentation (to measure the relevant speeds precisely) would provide more and better information than a mere popcorn test.
Actually I used streamers in several locations on the cart including well above the highest point of the prop and well off to both sides of the prop in our initial tests.  These definitively showed that we were going much faster than the wind directly downwind.  For the NALSA trials there was little point in demonstrating that again.  As you point out, modern instrumentation is what was called for there.

To be clear to anyone concerned, this whole concept really is no longer in question by anyone with reasonable knowledge and physics training (unless they think multiple people are in a grand collusion to be fraudulent for no obvious reason). 

The overwhelming theory and evidence proves it about as conclusively as it can be done.
The theory based on undisputed physics and aerodynamics theory and practice are completely consistent with the ability as well as consistent with the active models. 
Multiple physics and aerodynamics practitioners and professors validated the feasibility for suitably efficient mechanisms.
The concept was tested "in the wild" with precise instrumentation as well as some common sense tools (streamers, anemometers, etc).  The results were robust (nearly 3X windspeed) and measured by an independent measurement body.
It was validated on multiple treadmill platforms (equivalent of a wind tunnel for this type of device).
Precision force measurements (excess thrust generated) were taken at windspeed and the expected behavior was robust and demonstrated.  The expected phenomenon of Vminhover [minimal working windspeed for a particular device] was demonstrated and measured.  The increase of forward thrust at windspeed as a function of roughly the approximate square of the windspeed being proportional to the excess thrust force was demonstrated.
Untethered acceleration events were then compiled and were completely consistent with the excess thrust measurements.  Multiple control conditions were tested to ensure removal of questionable effects that may have impacted the experiments.
Independent testers were invited to replicate the results with full write ups of the methodologies and results.
Multiple independent testers validated the concept in this mode (treadmill) and in the wild.

The reality is that the concept has been proven/demonstrated in multiple ways with multiple independent methods that all were consistent with overall conventional physics and aerospace knowledge.

The only reason we are bothering with Heinz at this point is that the thread is a source of amusement.  At this point, garbage inputs are simply trolling or demonstrating obstinance and stupidity while beating severely dead and long ago smelly horses. :deadhorse:



Windgrins :grin:
2
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Quote
I don't know how long you have been laughing at our Hyevpropangloss but one of the more hilarious things about him was how much reverence he initially had for NALSA.

He was showing some reverence for MikeB too when he thought he was going to get a test that proved DDWFTTW is impossible, and quickly returned to childish and unfounded insults.

The fact that he was so excited to see the balloon test, and was treating MikeB with respect in anticipation of that test, suggests to me that he's actually that stupid rather than simply trolling.


Quote
Poor Haryevpan. I almost feel sorry for the nitwit.

If he was just a nitwit I might also, but he's also a gaping asshole - so not so much.


And don't forget that he bought Dr. Donald Simanek to the table as the physics champion who was going to shoot down DDWFTTW once and for all.  Once it was explained to him by Spork and others, Dr. Simanek wrote up an article about how it actually worked.  So Sybil had to disavow and try to discredit him also.

Link to Dr. Simanek's explanation

He and Humber attempted to be nice for a short time to me when I agreed to do their "definitive" experiments as agreed.  But when they all came out 100% in opposition to their predictions (which anyone can repeat with simple equipment to validate), he went on the warpath again calling me a moron! ;)

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, refused to correct arithmetic, physics, and math errors,  accused everyone involved were lying and faking results and experiments (even though everyone was shown how to do them and invited to replicate them) and at every minor defeat, changed personas to attempt to show more people didn't believe when it was just Sybil, in another personality.  So it's hard to have much sympathy.

Windgrins :grin:

3
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
We haven't seen humber in a while.  You suppose he finally died of stupidity?


He probably just sat down and quietly figured out that it actually works and couldn't bear to return.

Once Heinz figures out that he has been a total idiot all this time, who knows what will happen to him?

Windgrins :grin:
4
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Hard to say if we have multiple deniers.  Are harold, heinz, and humber more than a single troll?

Two I think.  Humber and Sybil (AKA Harold, Heinz, Profpangloss and some others if I remember correctly.)

Windgrins :grin:
5
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Would the deniers ever accept...
Let me stop you right there.  NO - the deniers will not accept *anything* if it implies the vehicle went DDWFTTW - not even if they accepted it before.  Not even if they themselves used it to prove it can't go DDWFTTW.
Definitely without a doubt true. Although I think we are down to a singular denier now.
Indeed. I was wondering why semper put that word in the plural form. Certainly it would be more interesting if there was a whole crowd of DDWFTTW deniers, but it seems that they are harder to come by than flat-earthers.

Well if you throw in the "fencewalker" Arpie, perhaps you come up with 1.5 deniers. 

On the other hand, the old crew of deniers have lost interest and moved on since they never managed get any traction in their typical anti-DDWFTTW rants.  Then realistically, there is a group that just never understood how it could work.  I call them unscientific gawkers.  Some of them believed and some didn't depending on which side they chose as "authorities".

Nice to hear from you, Michael C.

Windgrins :grin:
6
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind


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. 

$). 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.

6) 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.

&) 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.






The fundamental problem is that you are a simpleton.

There is no difference between the wheels rolling over the belt than if the belt was placed on the ground and the wheel rolled over that.  Your two diagrams and your idiot interpretation of them is the issue.  Any analysis of the wheel rolling over the belt material laid out on the ground and on the treadmill strike plate would be the exact same.

The cart would work on TM belt material laid out over the ground with a 10 mph wind just exactly like it would work with a TM with the same belt material set to 10 mph.

The difference you keep spouting off about is only in your head.  All of the rest of the BS you posted is noise.  (See BD's post above for details.)

Windgrins :grin:
7
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.


No magic, Harold.

The cart is equivalent to the cart.
The air is equivalent to the air.
The surface of the treadmill is equivalent to the ground (or any other inertial surface upon which the cart rolls with a 1G gravity vector orthogonal to it) .

They are all moving at their appropriate speeds with respect to each other and all the respective forces (gravity).  The gravity vector is in the correct direction.  As long as the treadmill belt speed is inertial (unchanging), everything works out.  The two situations are equivalent.

Idiots don't understand this.  The rest do. 

I'll watch while you idiotically attempt to explain how they aren't equivalent again. ::)

Windgrins :grin:
8
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:


9
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)framexIn 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.

Nicely proving my point that you have no understanding of what that means but anyone who knows anything about physics does.

Windgrins :grin:
10
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.


Mike,

Be of good cheer.  What you did prove (once again) is what a flaming asshole Heinz is when he is allowed to express himself freely.  That miserable pudknocker is probably only here because no one wants to be around him in the real world.

Windgrins :grin:
11
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:
12
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.

Been there.  Done that.  Only the truly daft wouldn't understand the significance.

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

Windgrins :grin:
13
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

I have shown that CoE holds in any transformed reference frame. That is all I set out to do.


Actually that isn't what you showed at all (and you got the algebra wrong at that--see Brother Daniels comments).  Conservation of matter/energy is a fundamental and by definition it holds for all closed systems in all reference frames at all times.  That is an axiom of modern physics.

What doesn't hold is that the energies of one frame equals the energies measured in an any arbitrary other frame.  What does hold (in a closed system) is that the energy that you started with respect to an arbitrary reference frame is the same energy that you ended with respect to that same frame.  But the energy that you started with in one reference frame usually does not equal the energy of the objects (the frame dependent energies) in another reference frame.  There are energy sources that are frame independent and they remain the same, but not the frame dependent ones.

CoE definitely does not say that the energies in two different IRFs are equal to each other at all times.  What it does say is that the total energy in a closed system is a constant.  You stupidly argued for years that frame dependent energy was an absolute (some fixed value in all frames) no matter which frame it was measured from for frame dependent values.

Windgrins :grin:
14
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:
15
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
until a video can be produced showing a wind powered cart outrunning balloons, popcorn, or whatever for at least a half minute, I will remain open to the idea that Heinz and humber are right.

Great.  Because everyone here hangs there hat on whether you ever become convinced or not! ::)

16
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Heinz, since you haven't understood my simple question yet, I'll try to break it down into pieces for you.

I'm with Spork.  It won't help.  Stupidity only explains things to a certain depth.  After that you have to resort to active and malicious  ignoring of the obvious.  This is one that his ego truly can't deal with reality.

Windgrins  :grin:
17
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I can easily prove what I said numerically, but you are too stupid to understand it.

Yep.  My interpretation would be the same as Brother Daniels, Sporks, Cold Ones, etc. and 10,000 physics profs and all these other "stupid folk".  But since you can't seem to answer his simple questions about where the difference in energy comes from it seems that you are still lost in the "Energy is an absolute" wasteland instead of understanding the concept of frame dependent and frame independent variables and how they affect the energy equations and given that the frames have different numbers for energy, how the law of conservation of energy works.

It is very obvious from his questions where the numerical difference in energy from the two frames comes from for the start/end states but you can't ever seem to answer a question that is both obvious and illustrates that your understanding is grossly flawed.  When your answers get pushed into the "contradiction corner", your only recourse is to attempt to insult your way out or run away and change the subject when you return.  It's funny how so many here taking the test would pass it (amusingly if administered by Prof Donald Simak (your own original white knight that couldn't save you once the issue was explained to him coherently)) but you would flunk miserably.

You've screwed this up from day one.  And you never got much better.  You just continue to go down the "idiot trail" 

Windgrins :grin:
18
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind


Over the time interval of interest, the plane is gaining about 120 kJ of KE (in frame 3).  So there is some sort of physical process (in frame 3) that allows the plane to gain that much KE.  What is that process?

If you think something physical happens because you change reference frames in your head, you are nuts and should be in an institution. Maybe the asylum  that is holding spork has a cell for you too.




Quote from: HH
Any other "extra" KE you see is an artifact of the new frame and nothing else.

Are you seriously disputing that CoE holds in every inertial frame?

Where do you get that idea from? Nothing that I have said here implies that energy is not conserved in all reference frames. All that happens is an offset v is either added or subtracted to all of the velocities in the original frame, and the math is done exactly the same and with exactly the same result as the original frame. Changing frames has no effect on conservation of energy!


Over the time interval of interest, the plane is gaining about 120 kJ of KE (in frame 3).  So there is some sort of physical process (in frame 3) that allows the plane to gain that much KE.  What is that process?

If you think something physical happens because you change reference frames in your head, you are nuts and should be in an institution. Maybe the asylum  that is holding spork has a cell for you too.




Quote from: HH
Any other "extra" KE you see is an artifact of the new frame and nothing else.

Are you seriously disputing that CoE holds in every inertial frame?

Where do you get that idea from? Nothing that I have said here implies that energy is not conserved in all reference frames. All that happens is an offset v is either added or subtracted to all of the velocities in the original frame, and the math is done exactly the same and with exactly the same result as the original frame. Changing frames has no effect on conservation of energy!

Apparently Heinz, you have no idea what "conservation of energy" means numerically.  The results from different frames are numerically very very different in general.  The only "same result" is that energy is conserved which is a statement of the law.  None of the frame dependent quantities are going to be the same.  All of the frame independent quantities will be the same.    The only thing the law of conservation of energy states that in two different reference frames is that the total energy before the event is going to be the same as the energy after the event (in a closed system).  It most definitely does not say that the frame dependent energy quantities from the two reference frames will be the same values.  You've been lost in this concept from the early days which is why you continually screw up frame shifts for energy calculations numerically.

Windgrins :grin:
19
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Yeah BD, I notice you are too chickenshit to make any predictions about the balloons, just the same old ad-homs eh?


I'll make a prediction.  If the cart is shown to be going (let's say) 1.2X Windspeed (which should be no problem at all in a wind just a bit greater than Vminhover for the large cart), then the cart will trounce the balloons, popcorn, dust, smoke, and anything else drifting along in the wind the cart is operating in.  Note that for the experiment to be remotely valid, the height of the balloons need to be somewhere below the tips of the top prop arc to show anything with any validity due to gradient and the fact that one can always claim their is some shear as an invalidation.

PS, I'm just reading the thread so I don't know if this has already occurred or not.

Windgrins :grin:

Now that I've read the thread, I'm sorry the balloon demo didn't work. 

It's one of the reasons I was very careful to do the "cart on the treadmill" experiments myself instead of trying to let the idiots do them.

Spork is correct that getting a good experiment in the real world that clearly illustrates the point while removing any ambiguity of false explanations is very difficult.  The "Windgrin treadmill science" videos look a lot like child's play but there were indeed a lot of things to consider and get right even in the restricted environment of the Treadmill.

In general, Experimental science is tougher than it looks to the layperson!

Windgrins :grin:
20
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Yeah BD, I notice you are too chickenshit to make any predictions about the balloons, just the same old ad-homs eh?


I'll make a prediction.  If the cart is shown to be going (let's say) 1.2X Windspeed (which should be no problem at all in a wind just a bit greater than Vminhover for the large cart), then the cart will trounce the balloons, popcorn, dust, smoke, and anything else drifting along in the wind the cart is operating in.  Note that for the experiment to be remotely valid, the height of the balloons need to be somewhere below the tips of the top prop arc to show anything with any validity due to gradient and the fact that one can always claim their is some shear as an invalidation.

PS, I'm just reading the thread so I don't know if this has already occurred or not.

Windgrins :grin:
21
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Are you in favor of balloons being released on the 19th or are you against it?


What does it matter? Are you only going to do it if you get enough votes?

You will not even answer a simple question? It matters a great deal! If you do not want the balloon experiment it indicates you are afraid the result will falsify or at least not support the claim of ddwfttw and that you are not interested in a realistic test of your belief.
The cart has been tested. It works. If you want to test it again, go ahead. No one's stopping you.

The carts have never been tested against any wind-blown objects such as balloons going directly downwind and you know it. Oh, there is one exception! Somebody did test one of the carts against popcorn and the popcorn won easily! I think it was Iratant or something.

As far as I am aware I'm the only one that tested a valid proven DDWFTTW cart against popcorn on the TM.  In that case, the cart won easily.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keEQgYkyecI
22
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
It has been known since at least 1876 (Reynolds) that real objects can never contact at a point or a line because of deformation, and it is mainly deformation that accounts for rolling resistance.
Which means, of course, that both the wheel and the surface deform, whether the wheel is rolling, spinning, sliding, or not moving at all.

True. However I hope you can see from the illustrations that it is the belt that mainly deforms when in contact with the wheel and the wheel that mainly deforms when in contact with the road. That is clear evidence that the contact patches are not the same in both situations.

And, it is clearly two different situations so that the claimed Galilean Transform is bunk.


I suppose you can't fathom the concept that it is mainly the more deformable material (in both your diagrams) that deform?

I should give you a "like" for this post for best comedic idiocy of not understanding what is being illustrated.

Windgrins  :grin:
23
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I'm back in the US!  Things have changed since I left.  It seems we have the Russians helping us out with elections now!

And in spite of that, One can still go DDWFTTW!

 :grin: Windgrins
24
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Ok, no-one bought my Fluidized Bed theory of how ddwfttw really works. But now a new method has been leaked;
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2018/january/tractor-beam.html

Clearly a nice way to do it, and broadly vindicates the Hs vibration theory.

I was wondering why I had to play the stereo really loud to make the cart work at all on the TM! :eek:

Windgrins :grin:

25
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I'm down in Barbados.  One of the really well preserved Concordes is here.  They had regularly scheduled flights from the UK to Barbados and everyone here loved it (noise and all).

It reminded me of the fun we had with Heinz with the issue about losing and gaining weight in an airplane traveling at Mach 2-3.

Nice exhibition.

Web site:

http://www.barbadosconcorde.com/



Also had another great "Windgrins experience" on a 62' chartered cat.  The captain let me drive for about an hour while in a psuedo race with other boats

https://silvermoonbarbados.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiAnabTBRA6EiwAemvBd4Er1asA_gmdeJUfyY-TkU8P3K3fIskaDPkrfCcTeQeWsO0GcUJTFRoCvakQAvD_BwE

 

Meanwhile, the stock market seems to be able to get along just fine without me!

Life is good.

Wingrins :grin: