Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: beep boop

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
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
2
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:

3
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:
4
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)
I completely understand that a heat engine cannot do that as it runs on statistical principles.  The question becomes is there a way to selectively harness kinetic energy of individual molecules using another type of device such as described (conversion to electrical energy)?

No, for the same reason.  The second law applies to everything, so heat engine or no heat engine is irrelevant.

Quote
If you take a look at the referenced article, is what they are stating physically impossible?  It does seem like a violation of the 2nd law so I'm confused if there is a catch or not.

Hard to tell, but not necessarily.  It sounds like the motion of the graphene they're observing is non-thermal.  If so you might be able to extract work from it, but not indefinitely - it will eventually reach equilibrium and then you won't get any more work out of it (unless you "reset" it by doing work ON it).  In other words it might act like a kind of battery or compressed spring.

A diode in effect captures the electricity produced and it is drained away doing work so there is no charge buildup.  The graphene, like the flag, is being "waved" about by thermal energy in the environment.  Each time the matrix is deformed, supposedly they is a charge build up which is drained away.  The molecule gets jostled away and back again so the local environment cools but is replenished from the larger environment.  At least this is the way I understand what they are saying. 

Again, it's sort of like the drinking bird.  As long as the molecules are jiggling and moving charge around, they are producing organized energy.  So COE is definitely not violated.  The material isn't a gas so I don't know if that matters at all.  But one can think of the material as being waved around by sonic energy in the environment and potentially capturing that so its not clear why random thermal energy won't work. 

I'm not saying it will, I just haven't found the "catch" yet.

Windgrins :grin:
5
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)
Like a flapping flag, one can capture energy from wind by taking the energy of random motion and shaking an attached magnet next to a coil of wire.  This produces a current which can be rectified and used to do useful work.  The energy comes from the wind being slowed by the flag (no energy creation).  The books all balance because the energy of the closed system never increases.  But a type of randomness is used to do useful work.

Wind is not random motion.  It's the opposite - it's coherent motion of an air mass (relative to the earth).  That's why it can be used to generate energy.  The equilibrium state of the atmosphere has no wind.

The question is not of the wind, its of the random flapping of the flag.  The wind is the energy source like in the drinking bird scenario.  The flag combined with the circuit described is the way to convert wind energy to electricity.  Molecules clearly have kinetic energy and they can be slowed selectively with lasers as an example.  In that case, we have to use energy to accomplish the entropy decrease.

Quote
Can one do it on a thermal molecular level by capturing the energy of vibrating molecules and using it to do useful work?  I don't know the answer to that.

No, at least not if the vibrations are thermal.  Doing so would violate the second law and is impossible (or more precisely, incredibly unlikely).

I completely understand that a heat engine cannot do that as it runs on statistical principles.  The question becomes is there a way to selectively harness kinetic energy of individual molecules using another type of device such as described (conversion to electrical energy)?  They would certainly cool in the process and have to be reheated by the ambient thermal energy so no issue with COE.

If you take a look at the referenced article, is what they are stating physically impossible?  It does seem like a violation of the 2nd law so I'm confused if there is a catch or not.

Windgrins :grin:
6
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)

Of course such a scheme could never work.

Or could it?

No.  Any system without a source of external energy is never going to create more energy and the working of your system does that.

So no, it won't work continuously.  It will run down and exhaust itself and come to a constant temperature with the environment.  Just as the drinking bird stops working when it runs out of water to evaporate.

And no, I don't feel the need to explain the laws of thermodynamics to you.  They have lots of information on that in college and in textbooks.  Take a course.  Learn why not.  Or waste your time in attempting to violate the laws and become famous  (Just be sure to explain how you did it for consideration for a Nobel Prize with the Prize money).  Either way, no skin off my back.

Windgrins :grin:


In theory, as well as in fact I suppose, the drinking bird could be set next to an inexhaustible water source; river, lake, ocean, toilet bowl tank with a float valve whatever, so it doesn't run out of water. True or no?

What would the above depicted engine run on? What do you suppose it would eventually run out of? Cooling water? Add a water line and a float valve. Problem solved. Or what is it that is in short supply?

You say "Any system without a source of external energy is never going to create more energy..." but the engine has a source of external energy, the same as the bird has. Doesn't it?

Or what is the "system"?

Ambient heat comes from the sun shining on the atmosphere. That seems pretty external to me.

All good questions.  Allow me to help you state it more clearly and to state what won't occur:

1)  What will never occur is to take ambient energy and create more ambient energy than you started with. (COE).
2)  Can one take ambient thermal energy via some process of conversion and make it into useful energy by lowering the temperature of the environment which gets replenished from an outside source?  (Supposedly one cannot with a heat engine).

But like a flapping flag, one can capture energy from wind by taking the energy of random motion and shaking an attached magnet next to a coil of wire.   This produces a current which can be rectified and used to do useful work.  The energy comes from the wind being slowed by the flag (no energy creation).   The books all balance because the energy of the closed system never increases.  But a type of randomness is used to do useful work.

Can one do it on a thermal molecular level by capturing the energy of vibrating molecules and using it to do useful work?  I don't know the answer to that.

Windgrins :grin:
7
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)
Here's an interesting article about using ambient heat to make useful energy.

It's basically a "molecular thermal diode" which converts ambient heat to electricity.

Overall, no energy is created, but energy is converted from thermal noise to useful work if this actually works.  It isn't working by heat engine principles.  Is it a "Maxwell's Demon"?  Could these shifting voltages do actual work?  The reason it isn't perpetual motion is that it converts ambient energy to useful energy supposedly, thus cooling the environment.  But it would be startling nonetheless.

One can think of it (if it works, a little like solar panels which convert ambient sunlight to electricity).  They aren't PM but produce a relatively endless supply of high grade energy (until the sun dies).

>>>So long as the graphene's temperature allowed the atoms to shift around uncomfortably, it would continue to ripple and bend.
Place electrodes to either side of sections of this buckling graphene, and you'd have a tiny shifting voltage.
By Thibado's calculations, a single ten micron by ten micron piece of graphene could produce ten microwatts of power.
It mightn't sound impressive, but given you could fit more than 20,000 of these squares on the head of a pin, a small amount of graphene at room temperature could feasibly power something small like a wrist watch indefinitely<<<

https://futurism.com/physicists-found-loophole-graphene-unlock-clean-limitless-energy/

Windgrins :grin:
8
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)

Of course such a scheme could never work.

Or could it?

No.  Any system without a source of external energy is never going to create more energy and the working of your system does that.

So no, it won't work continuously.  It will run down and exhaust itself and come to a constant temperature with the environment.  Just as the drinking bird stops working when it runs out of water to evaporate.

And no, I don't feel the need to explain the laws of thermodynamics to you.  They have lots of information on that in college and in textbooks.  Take a course.  Learn why not.  Or waste your time in attempting to violate the laws and become famous  (Just be sure to explain how you did it for consideration for a Nobel Prize with the Prize money).  Either way, no skin off my back.

Windgrins :grin:
9
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

I'll be happy to shoot the video of that with the HFC while munching on a tasty piece of pepperoni and mushroom!

Windgrins :grin:

Do you ever make it out this way?  It'd be great to see you - even if you do put pepperoni on your pizza.

Now that I'm retired, I may well be able to get out to see you next year.  Lots of traveling coming up.  A month in Barbados in Jan.
I've got my glider commercial checkride coming up in 2 weeks.  Keep your fingers crossed for me.

You'll be the first one to know if I can make it out there and we'll get together to collude on your next "fool the internet" evil plan :devil3: .

Windgrins :grin:
10
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

 I can only conclude that Heinz really doesn't understand how wheels work.

Or pretty much anything at all as far as I can tell.

The idea that the wheel can't turn faster than the speed that it rolls over the belt while "hovering" has amused me for a long time.  Somehow, it escapes him that it can actually turn at a faster speed if it is rolling up the belt.

I wonder what he attributes the speed up in the prop speed to as it goes upbelt since it is directly geared to the wheels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQt9YHBKXqA

I can't remember if it was him or Humber that came up with that insane idea originally.

Windgrins :grin:


11
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
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.

Hey Spork,

Invite me when you do the Pizza experiment because
A)  I like pizza.
B) I want to see Heinz's empty head implode. :netrage:

I'll be happy to shoot the video of that with the HFC while munching on a tasty piece of pepperoni and mushroom!

Windgrins :grin:
12
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I'm learning that you (Heinz) are both stupider and more dishonest than I previously recognized.

Brother Daniel,

I never considered you slow but judging from this statement, it looks like you have some catching up to do! :grin:

Windgrins :grin:
13
Science / Re: Tesla's heat engine (split from DDWFTTW)
But somehow it accomplishes the useful task of concentrating the energy into a more useful form. 
Yes.  Apparently that has to do with decreasing the entropy of the gas such that it now becomes possible to exploit the energy that was in the gas prior to even compressing it.  I'm hoping someone (like PPNL) can confirm this understanding.

Quote
Uses some waste energy to do this seemingly familiar sort of thing.

But I don't think it does use the waste heat at all.  Of course it's possible that some of the waste heat will still be hanging around in the atmosphere to warm the gas back up after the experiment is over.  But I think it's actually using the heat that was in the gas prior to being compressed.

I don't think your assertion here is right and I think your intuition is correct.  A gas compressed above ambient can always do work by expanding into the ambient area of lower pressure.

Take a fixed volume of gas and compress it to a smaller volume.  Let's do this in space (zero absolute pressure) in an insulated container.  If it is heated in compressing it,  let's allow it to cool to its former temperature.  That compressed gas can always do work as it expands into space through a turbine or something.  The gas law simply tells us that a container of gas of a certain volume (the new volume after compression) and temperature has a certain amount of energy in that gas.  If the container was allowed to cool to near absolute zero, it would no longer have the ability to do work (because you have now removed all the KE of the gas by letting it cool to near absolute zero)  But a constrained volume of gas at a positive temperature (above absolute zero or Kelvin) does have the ability to do work by expanding into a region at a lower pressure.  And that amount of energy that it has (that you put part in by compressing it) is defined by the the volume, temperature K, and pressure.  Which defines the amount of work it can do by expanding into a region of lower pressure.

It seems that the issue is mixing some principles.   If you want to discuss, please be clear about the experiment with all the variables and values stated (pressure, temp, volume) before and after so we can keep track of what your are proposing.

Windgrins :grin: 
14
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
We can all be driving one of these soon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJcyeO0DR50

I think I would rather go with one of these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctx4YBEdOxo

Now that's traveling DDWFTTW (But powered by the Sun, not the wind unless of course you power it from a wind turbine in which case it is doing all of that).

Windgrins :grin:
15
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The belt is driving the wheels. The wheels drive the prop. The prop, apparently and in theory, and I would guess or assume in actuality, the prop creates the thrust that keeps the cart on the treadmill.
More precisely, the prop creates the thrust that drives the cart up the TM.  The wheels create the retarding force that pushes it back.  The cart moves in either direction depending upon which is larger at that point in time.

But if the prop acts as a flywheel, which obviously it does to some degree, how much of it's contribution is thrust and what percentage is flywheel?
  The flywheel aspect of the prop contributes nothing.  It only affects the acceleration of the cart.  If the prop plus the wheels, plus the drivetrain gears and shafts all weighed zero, the cart would work and actually work faster as long as the (weightless) prop is producing the same thrust.

So from that perspective, the flywheel aspects (angular inertia) of the drivetrain (including the prop)  don't contribute anything at all to the functioning.  One could easily test this by just adding weight to the prop or wheel rims.  The cart would accelerate slower but it would work the same.


I don't think it would be a violation of anything if a flywheel card climbed the treadmill without thrust from the prop as the treadmill would be the source of energy.
  Nope.  You are wrong.  Assuming the belt remains at the same speed,  without the slowing of the air with respect to the treadmill, there is no energy gained.  It doesn't matter where one says the energy comes from.  But it is required that the cart slows the air with respect to the belt surface for it to work.  Otherwise it is a violation of COE.

For the cart to work, one medium has to be slowed with respect to the other.  In the normal world (not TM world), the earth itself has very high inertia compared to the air.  So it is the part slowed very very very little compared to the air.  Which is why the TM belt has to remain at the same speed to pass the earth's inertia through to the system.

IMO the thrust from the prop appears to be negligable, if the cart practically stays on the treadmill with zero thrust.
  Nope.  Wrong.  The thrust is the only thing that makes it work.  The thrust for the small carts is indeed small but it is greater than the retarding force of the wheels.  This holds for larger carts also which have much higher overall thrust.

I think it would be interesting to se what would happen with zero drag from the prop and a more airodynamic flywheel in its place
  The cart would go down the TM but the acceleration would be slower.

At first I made the suggestion as a joke but now I think the experiment would be worth doing.

Have fun doing it and be sure to video it and show it to us.  I've already done it by taking the prop completely off (zero drag, zero thrust) so I know the answer.  The cart goes down the treadmill.  If you add a weighted smooth wheel to where the prop was, the results are the same, the cart goes down the treadmill.  If I still had the cart, I would video that and show it to you.  But the cart has long ago been sent back to Spork.  So if you want to see that, build or obtain your own cart and have fun.

Windgrins :grin:
16
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
It might be interesting to replace the prop with an actual flywheel.

That would eliminate all drag from the prop edge as there wouldn't be any edge.

Not trying to prove anything, I just think it might be interesting to see how long the cart could run on stored flywheel power alone.

It would depend upon the weight of the flywheel, the distribution of the mass in the flywheel, the bearings in the cart, the rolling resistance and the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle.  Obviously, the more mass, the more the mass is distributed to the rim, the better bearings, the lower rolling resistance, and the higher aerodynamic resistance (from behind) would allow it to run longer.

And of course, if it held its position, wouldn't it still be gaining energy from the treadmill?

It won't hold it's position in that configuration, it will always start downbelt.    And if the belt were really long it would eventually either come to a stop on the belt or come to a point where the tailwind is keeping it at a constant speed.  In either case, where the energy comes from depends upon the reference frame in which it is measured.

You may ask "how do you know this if you haven't done the experiment?". The answer is simple, that is how it would behave on a level surface with a tailwind if towed up to windspeed and released.  It was how we knew all the answers on any treadmill experiment.  We just had to imagine the same experiment in those conditions and the cart on the treadmill would replicate them because this is the galilean equivalent.  The latter description is more familiar to our advanced primate brains so they are easier to predict in general.

Because the Hidiots, in general, refused to believe the TM was the equivalent (which was one of their idiotic protestations), they had a difficult time predicting the outcomes of their own experiments and never got the answers right.

Windgrins :grin:




17
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Streamers seem to work OK in wind tunnels...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBif2U6nFec

Or they could be tricking us all this time.  And you can't test them with smoke either because that's just like dust! ::)

Windgrins :grin:
18
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I've explained my problem with the streamers and dust many times, not that I'd expect you to remember. Anyway, I don't need to search for it as Heinz basically presented the same issues I had, just yesterday.

Well I guess I'll ask you to remind me since...
1) I don't remember any explanation
2) I don't usually read Heinz's nonsense, and I'm not going to sift through it looking for what is supposed to serve as an explanation for why a streamer or dust cloud isn't as good (or better) than popcorn.
3) As a pilot and aerospace engineer I can't begin to imagine what's wrong with a streamer for indicating wind direction.

In the glider we consider the yaw string as the most important instrument in the aircraft.  Everything else one can eyeball or figure out from pitch attitude and sound as well as control feel.

So I can't figure out either what is wrong with streamers and suspended visible dust which is pretty definitive.  Before I would distrust the dust, I would long suspect hidden motors because if one is outrunning suspended dust, that pretty much settles it.

Amusingly, when I first looked at the BB videos, I suspected hidden motors because I didn't think it was possible either at the time due to all the wrong reasons.

But the TM test in my book is the most reliable test out there for ddwfttw behavior.  (and I know full well there was no hidden motors in the cart in all my videos!) :devil3:

Windgrins :grin:
19
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
My Icon is a picture of a somewhat more intuitive DDWFTTW vehicle.

It is a blimp which would normally travel at windspeed.  Lower a little electric generator to the surface which rolls very fast but with low drag.  It produces some drag but it sends electricity up to the blimp which drives a prop geared to produce thrust but with a higher force than the cart but with a lower power (due to losses).  It allows energy harvest between the media much like the cart.

Surprisingly this will go ddwfttw also although never tested.  It also will not work in a no wind condition.



Windgrins :grin:
20
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

 Also, can we prove beyond refute that anything 'can't work?' Beyond 'reason,' and perhaps physics, but also beyond any science?


Gödel's incompleteness theorems takes us into that realm:

Two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

However, if the simple physics and math here baffles you, you don't want to go down that road.

If you decide you do, I recommend Douglas Hofstadter's book:

Godel, Escher, Bach : An Eternal Golden Braid

Windgrins :grin:
21
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Windgrins actually did do one with a prop that produced no thrust at one point. I posted it earlier in the thread...
Hey, Heinz, why didn't this cart work?

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

Actually that cart with a dud prop stayed on the treadmill for a surprisingly long time. My prediction would have been for it to topple off the cart immediately, but it seemed to hang in there for a few moments before slowly loosing ground. I find that a bit surprising.

What if we use a similar stick but with less sideways wind resistance. (thinner or more sharp edged)

Perhaps there is some gyroscopic effect

I thought it would fly right off the treadmill like the popcorn.

There is angular momentum stored in the prop as was described earlier.  So it isn't going to slow all that quickly due to angular momentum.  Note that it was held to bring it up to belt speed for the illustration which is the equivalent of pulling the cart up to windspeed and then letting it coast.  The prop did have some aerodynamic drag which is what is slowing it down.  But it is also working against a "tailwind" when it starts going backwards. 
But to be very clear, no zero thrust cart is ever going to go up the treadmill.

If you used a sharp edged prop, it would still slow but the acceleration would be even slower due to less drag of the prop.  I didn't want to do that in the test because the viewer may have thought I cheated by putting a negative pitch on the blade.  The rectangular cross section blade clearly doesn't produce any thrust either way but it does have drag.  As Spork states, there is no obvious issue due to a gyroscopic effect.  Gyroscopic effect just causes turning (steering) if the prop shaft is slowed by some resistance.

Popcorn has little inertia so when it hits the belt, it is accelerated by the impact pretty clearly.  It actually slows because it does have a "tailwind" (since the camera is traveling at windspeed) unless it hits the belt again.  The belt is short but the popcorn would never come to a stop on the belt because of the wind.

Windgrins :grin:
22
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
As I understand it Heinz's current theory requires a prop producing thrust.  When the wheels lose traction, the prop thrust is still acting due to the inertia of the prop and drive train.  That's when it moves forward.

Correct.  In his theory, the prop has to produce thrust also as it isn't just the vibrations.  Its nonsense but that's his theory.  So indeed, the key to his theory is that the wheels have to lose traction.  Unfortunately in the real world, they don't. 

Very well tested with the digital camera over the wheels.  There was so much weight that there was clearly no "hopping" (as evidenced by the camera video) and no loss of traction.  And the cart did go up the TM, with just slower acceleration because it weighed quite a bit more due to the camera weight (which was probably as much as the cart itself but off the top of my head I just remember they were in the same ballpark.

So in reality, Heinz's vibration theory was falsified by several experiments:
1) Reversing the cart ( it still functioned but at a slightly lower efficiency due to the prop as expected)
2) No evidence of hopping below 15Hz (direct video) or above 15 Hz by aliasing and change in speed of belt so no particular resonance would get masked that was an integral multiple of frame rate (this is much like your strobe concept).
3) Heavy additional weight over front axle (camera) which would change any resonance and damp any loss of traction. (cart still functioned)
4) video analysis of incremental frames against TM surveyed belt markers illustrated that rate of travel over belt was same as wheel turn rate which means no slippage from video pairs like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjij5fMi134  and this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQt9YHBKXqA

There just isn't anywhere left for Heinz to hide as a High Framerate video would simply show the same "hopping" that would be aliased down into the video rate for a lower frequency camera (like my 30 FPS camera).  There was no hopping aliased down.  (This is the same phenomenon that makes wagon wheels (with spokes) look like they are turning backwards.  The issue of a wagon wheel moving at all is the equivalent of evidence of hopping.  The wheels look like they are turning backwards because they are sampled at a rate that the spoke travel is aliased down to a much lower frequency going backwards visually.  Only at specific integer multiples of the frame rate do they look like they are standing still (which is what hopping would look like no loss of traction if the frequency was just right).  So to falsify that, you simply vary the speed of the belt and the motion of any hopping above 30 Hz would be aliased down and would be evident.

Since Heinz didn't understand Nyquist Rates and sampling theory, none of that made any sense to him.  But anyone who has ever watched a spoked wheel wagon slow to a stop on an old Western should get it.

Windgrins :grin:
23
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind

Generally, if you see something on YouTube that looks like "perpetual motion" or something, it's only natural, I think, that most people will assume it's a hoax.

Out of the 10,000 fake videos, why should anyone think this is any diferent?

They probably won't except for the fact that this got quite of bit of airtime in WIRED magazine and a lot of physics experts have endorsed it as definitely functioning but not an example of PM.  Professor Donald Simanek for example who is minorly famous for busting myths about PM machines initially thought it was a PM machine until it was explained to him.  Now he endorses it.  What is ironic is that he was brought to the forum by Heinz.  The noise around the ddwfttw cart has died down.

One of the major differences between this and PM machines shown on the internet is that the perps are claiming those machines are PM machines and will be the solution to the world energy crises when details are worked out.  The DDWFTTW crowd here all clearly contend it is definitely NOT a PM machine, works with simple physics principles, and has no obvious use to date (other than stirring up the internet)!

But, if you want to bring it back to the forefront, more power to you.

But proving it isn't PM is a bit late (by a few years).  That ship has sailed long ago.  The fact that Heinz makes noise about it falls in the category of flat earthers, Young earth creationists (6000 years old) and Spacex landing and moon landings are fake.

At this point, you can see all the evidence that has been gathered which definitively illustrates the concepts for anyone interested.  It is still interesting to see the little carts working for yourself in person but there are literally hundreds of explanations and experiments showing that it does work and how.

The most interesting thing about this is that it is real and completely counterintuitive for the vast majority of the public.  That is worth a film documentary.  But the physics itself is completely conventional and only a bit more complex than the cogcarts shown here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65MpjT_jnI

The only difference between this simple device and the ddwfttw cart is that one medium is invisible, and fluid and the propeller can "slip" when it couples to the medium of air.  Which is what is happening as the cart operates at different speeds (different amounts of "slip" in the air).  The principles are the same otherwise and the cog cart goes ddtftts (directly down track faster than the slide). 

With the cart, the "windspeed" point is the same with just enough "slip" of the prop in the windstream to go only ddw as fast as the wind.  But when the wind is just a bit faster, the prop develops enough efficiency for the cart to come closer to the ideal illustrated by the cog cart (the ideal being a speed relationship of the gearing of the prop and wheels with no slip at all).  It never quite reaches that but it can definitely go faster than the wind like the cog cart can go faster than the slide.

One of our pundits here stated that he would believe it if he could see it outrun popcorn in the wind.  So I made a very real physics video that illustrates this quite clearly doing just that with a touch of humor (running along beside the cart at windspeed).  But amusingly he doesn't understand it.

That is here:

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

Windgrins :grin:

PS: one of the other little tidbits that show it isn't working from "vibrations" is that it will run forward or backwards on the TM as illustrated here.  As I recall, running backwards, as shown here in the video is not quite as efficient since the prop has a backwards camber but it does work at a lower efficiency level evidenced by a higher Vminhover speed.  The little vibration players on "vibration football games" only run in one direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJI9sFJ9RXQ


24
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The people at the school, some of whom have done some high speed photography thought 60fps would be fast enough for the purpose.


In real life or in Heinz's world?  Because I can guarantee you 60 fps will not be fast enough for him.  Not unless it happens to clearly show exactly what he's looking for.  And it won't. 

We recently did some work where I was taking bursts at well over 1000 fps.  That wouldn't be fast enough either.


That is another problem, with very high frame rates, the video can't be very long, it will use up memory.

Processing the footage is also an issue, you need a lot of computing power and gobs of memory. I sometimes have problems processing normal video footage.

Anyway, I would think putting a white mark on a wheel and corresponding marks on the treadmill would show any "slippage" but it would require more than a few second burst of high speed video to prove anything IMO.

Maybe it only did or didn't slip for those few seconds or whatever. A longer normal video would be more evidential IMO, more time for the "slippage" to manifest, or accumulate.

Even a normal regular video should reveal if marks on the treadmill continue to line up with marks on the wheel. I would even think that could be done by direct visual observation. It doesn't require actual gears to mesh up, just marks, and it doesn't modify anything.

If the wheel diameter is say 3 inches, get some whiteout or white paint and put a mark on the wheel and a mark on the treadmill every 3 inches. And probably some kind of dividing mark if 3 inch spacing doesn't line up exactly after going all the way around the treadmill. A strobe light might help, like an automotive timing light.

Something like that would be MORE convincing to me than a burst of high speed footage. What does 2 seconds prove?

If you look at my videos you may well notice that there are tape markings on the TM belt which were put there about this issue.  When the video was examined for travel and rotation of the drivetrain, there was no evidence of slipping.  This is a dead horse Heinz is beating and we all know it.

The reason Spork is adamant is that it was shown without doubt that the cart wasn't slipping from video footage (that wasn't even intended to show that but clearly does when examined closely).  Heinz is just making up the happy horsecrap about the camera because no one has actually done it so he is hiding behind it.  If the camera he is asking for shows no evidence as he states, he'll simply state that it isn't fast enough or move on to the next recycled issue.

The rest of us have looked at the experiments and video in detail and all data was completely consistent with no slippage and that the cart was traveling at belt speed from propellor speed shown on the video which was capable of being ascertained clearly from the registration dots in slow motion.  It's important to question (which we did) if there is a way this could be occurring, but the evidence (in multiple modes of video and audio) show that it is not.

The only reason I personally hang around is not to convince Heinz as all of his allegations and hypotheses (and there have been lots of them) have been refuted, but to have fun in finding the flaws and clarifying the information even further for myself.  The issues have been settled long ago for anyone who has been around for a while. 

At this point, we are just watching the next person who wanders by and is mystified by how the cart works.  It's pretty explicable in a multitude of ways even if it is initially counterintuitive.   Different people respond to different explanations but most eventually have an "aha" moment where it finally clicks.  Some of us enjoy explaining the physics, why the answer is counterintuitive, and why a lot of people don't have a good understanding of relative motion of media due to cognitive biases also known as "folk physics" which blinds most people initially to correct understanding.

Heinz has never gotten past the first chapter of physics book and clearly doesn't understand the foundational information of what an inertial reference frame is and how kinetic energy is a frame dependent variable since it contains velocity in its definition.  And velocity is with respect to a agreed upon frame of reference which is typically chosen to be an inertial reference frame.  There are two fundamental questions most semi-sophisticated people have about the cart:  Does it create an unbalanced force at windspeed so it can accelerate and does it violate conservation of energy (perpetual motion).  It does the former but not the latter.  So consequently, his mathematical derivations involving energy and propeller thrust always contain an error or an absurd flaw. 

Most of us are leaning to the idea that he really is as stupid as he sounds but he may be being deceptive.  The jury is out on that one.  I lean towards the idea as a combination of both.  He is as stupid as he looks but he leans towards deception when his own analyses contradict his misconceptions that the cart can't work as we state.

But again, I encourage experimentation on your part to convince yourself it does indeed work and if you need some explanation as to how, talk to us.  After all, Spork was the inventor and well understands his creation.

Windgrins :grin:
25
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
You are actually saying that treadmill belts are not rotating  when the treadmill is operating?
What I said was very clear. The part going over the edge at any given time is rotating around the roller. The top and bottom are translating. This is very straightforward from the physics definitions of rotation and translation. I'm sorry you don't understand basic physics.
The entire belt is rotating
Then identify the rotating reference frame in which the belt is completely stationary.

More specifically:  Start by picking some inertial frame.  Let (x, y, z) be the coordinates of any arbitrary point in that frame.  Let s denote the vector whose components are those coordinates.  Now find an angular velocity vector Ω, and let s' be the coordinates corresponding to the point s, in the rotating (non-inertial) reference frame given by

s' = (Ωs)Ω/Ω2 - (Ω×(Ω×s)/Ω2) cos (Ω(t - t0)) - ((Ω×s)/Ω) sin (Ω(t - t0)).

You should be able to find an inertial reference frame and an angular velocity vector Ω such that the belt will be completely stationary in the rotating reference frame given by the transformation above.

Go for it.
Quote from: HH
you fucking retard.
This is what you're reduced to when you know that you have no argument.

Unfortunately, Heinz would have to understand what a "rotating reference frame" is.  And to understand that, he would have to understand what an inertial reference frame is.  Heinz understands neither.  Nor the properties of either.  And certainly not the mathematics of either including the matrix transformations.  Because Heinz doesn't understand what a transform from one reference frame to another means either.

So no help there.  The fact that he can't just means he doesn't have a clue what you are asking and why and he will ignore it and try to hide in bozoish semantics.

Windgrins :grin: