Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • talkrational: Wasabi derail from Statutory Rape Laws

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 10339 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #950
https://www.wired.com/story/starting-to-study-physics-watch-out-for-these-common-mistakes/

A good link but is there some specific point you want to make?

Do you agree there isn't an opposing vector for a force acting on an inertial mass? Inertia is not a force so it doesn't rate a vector.
Maybe not a huge point to dwell on but the inertia tending to hold the cart in place while the belt is pulled under it is important for understanding how the cart can advance on the belt. Of course, it also needs propeller thrust to do that.
No I wasn't making any point. I just thought the article was apropos for this thread.  Anyway,  do you think that's how the blackbird worked? Slipping?

I don't believe the bb worked at all, at least not Directly downwind and the "evidence" certainly does not establish that.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #951
Seems you could devise a test where you hold mini-cart without prop in place, and let it go to see what happens. Or you could give one an electric motor without enough power to climb on a treadmill, and see what happens.

OK so devise such a test and show the cart is not slipping on the belt.

  • nesb
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #952
I don't own a treadmill. :( I guess I could sneak into a gym, because God knows I don't have a gym membership, either.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #953
Or just film it with a high speed camera
EXACTLY! I have asked for this to be done. Ridgerunner has the cart, the treadmill and the HFR camera.

I feel certain, out of his own curiosity, he must have made a video but when I ask him to release it or describe what he saw, he goes mute.

This is their claim and if they want to be scientific about this and get general acceptance in mainstream they should do experiments to try and disprove their theory, not just to reinforce what they believe.  They won't do it!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #954
I don't own a treadmill. :( I guess I could sneak into a gym, because God knows I don't have a gym membership, either.
Neither do I but there are members of the cart club who obviously do, and carts and HFR cameras.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #955
We'll, I think blackbird put the doubts to rest.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #956
https://www.wired.com/story/starting-to-study-physics-watch-out-for-these-common-mistakes/

A good link but is there some specific point you want to make?

Do you agree there isn't an opposing vector for a force acting on an inertial mass? Inertia is not a force so it doesn't rate a vector.
Maybe not a huge point to dwell on but the inertia tending to hold the cart in place while the belt is pulled under it is important for understanding how the cart can advance on the belt. Of course, it also needs propeller thrust to do that.
No I wasn't making any point. I just thought the article was apropos for this thread.  Anyway,  do you think that's how the blackbird worked? Slipping?

I don't believe the bb worked at all, at least not Directly downwind and the "evidence" certainly does not establish that.
Some folks you just can't please.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #957
We'll, I think blackbird put the doubts to rest.

How so? Do you believe anything you see on youtube?

You do know that the sailing club who sanctioned the test never required the cart to be directly downwind.

Spork admitted it was "impossible" to follow the wind, so just pointed the cart in a general dw direction.

The video evidence shows the tell tales changed direction even when the cart was not moving!

That is shabby eveidence and it would never be accepted by any scientific body if it were presented.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #958
https://www.wired.com/story/starting-to-study-physics-watch-out-for-these-common-mistakes/

A good link but is there some specific point you want to make?

Do you agree there isn't an opposing vector for a force acting on an inertial mass? Inertia is not a force so it doesn't rate a vector.
Maybe not a huge point to dwell on but the inertia tending to hold the cart in place while the belt is pulled under it is important for understanding how the cart can advance on the belt. Of course, it also needs propeller thrust to do that.
No I wasn't making any point. I just thought the article was apropos for this thread.  Anyway,  do you think that's how the blackbird worked? Slipping?

I don't believe the bb worked at all, at least not Directly downwind and the "evidence" certainly does not establish that.
Some folks you just can't please.

Some folks are easily fooled.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #959
You aren't a Republican by any chance are you?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #960
You aren't a Republican by any chance are you?

I have liberal views about some things and conservative in some other things but most definitely conservative about science and scientific claims. In particular, I am a staunch believer in intellectual property rights and the  peer review process.

from the link:
Peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and reduces the dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Publications that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by academic scholars and professionals.

And by Peer review, I do not mean Brother Daniel's version of it (post it on the internet).

I mean this

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #961
Ok, so how do you feel about Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Donny Trump's policy positions generally?

I'm agnostic regarding peer review.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #962
Peer review only works when there are peers.  In the case of the actual Blackbird, the peers were the people who were there and observed it.

Humber would argue that the Wright Brothers didn't actually fly because they were never peer reviewed.  Yeah, it's that stupid.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #963
The treadmill experiment/demo is also not something peer reviewed.  But it was replicated many times.  Only an ill person would deny the treadmill demo. But it's not actually an isolated situation.  Many people refuse to believe things.
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #964
Seems you could devise a test where you hold mini-cart without prop in place, and let it go to see what happens. Or you could give one an electric motor without enough power to climb on a treadmill, and see what happens.

OK so devise such a test and show the cart is not slipping on the belt.
Heinz,
If the cart is slipping on the belt, wouldn't this imply that the propeller was not producing as much thrust as the case of the cart not slipping?

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #965
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What happens when you pull the tablecloth slowly?  Then quickly?

Exercise Heinz#1:  Point on the graph where those resultant forces occur to a plate on a tablecloth;
a) Pull a tablecloth slowly.
b) Pull a tablecloth quickly.

Bonus Question:  If you pull the tablecloth quickly from the start (assume instantaneous speed) does the plate move?

Are you really this dumb? You confused static friction with Inertia and now rather than admit your Blunder, you are defending it by saying there is also kinetic friction? Neither of those types of friction is INERTIA!

That graphic has absolutely nothing to do with friction doing work against inertia. Nothing, nada, zip.

But of course, the Cargo Cult, that will jump on my back for getting one word out of syntax, will never tell you what a huge mistake you are making, because that is how a cult works.

Come back when you figure out the difference between inertia and friction.
Open your eyes a bit here Heinz.
I'm talking about the tablecloth trick here, not the cart.  If you want to apply this idea to the cart you can, but you have to change your reference to the wheel and the ground.  You say there is "slipping" of the wheel and the treadmill belt.  That implies that the static friction of the tire/belt system is overcome and leads to kinetic friction (the "slipping").

Inertia, in this case, can modify the static friction curve and inflection point where kinetic friction takes over.

In this case I am using the term Inertia as a Force with a vector but I'm not specifically defining it in the system yet.

Open your eyes a bit on this one.  When you talk "slipping" your talking friction, from start to finish.  So focus on that instead of waving your arms around about everything else.  Define the known quantities first and THEN move on.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #966
The whole peer review/ published article thing is such a red herring. The cart/DDWFTW doesn't present any new or novel physics. It's really no different than a trick shot in basketball or the like.

Counter intuitive maybe but nothing novel that would warrant publishing in a scientific journal.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #967
It's definitely weird to me that anyone would doubt what is clearly visible in the demos. Once I saw it, the relevant question was "How does it work?" And from there spork et. al did a really good job of explaining. But when we approach anything  from the perspective of unquestionable truths, we are putting Morton's demon in between ourselves and our observations. Or else trolling.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #968
Ok, so how do you feel about Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Donny Trump's policy positions generally?

I'm agnostic regarding peer review.

Leave your politics out of this.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #969
Seems you could devise a test where you hold mini-cart without prop in place, and let it go to see what happens. Or you could give one an electric motor without enough power to climb on a treadmill, and see what happens.

OK so devise such a test and show the cart is not slipping on the belt.
Heinz,
If the cart is slipping on the belt, wouldn't this imply that the propeller was not producing as much thrust as the case of the cart not slipping?

Due to flywheel action, thrust is a stored quantity while wheel drag is not. Say they are evenly balanced, the cart will not advance, right? Now say wheel drag drops substantially as the wheel slips for a split second. Thrust is stored so it will not drop as fast or as much as the wheel drag, the cart will now advance during that split second, right? Now the wheels grip again, returning the lost energy to the prop by acting to slow the belt. Inertia will act to prevent the cart being dragged backwards during this split second.

Overall, the cart will advance for the cycle. Now, repeat this cycle a hundred times per second and the cart moves a meter up the belt.

The steady state claim of  thrust greater than drag, makes no sense and in fact reeks of over unity while my cyclic theory makes perfect sense. The problem for the ddwfttw believers is, the cyclic theory has nothing to do with wind or wind energy and cannot work on the ground.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #970
The whole peer review/ published article thing is such a red herring. The cart/DDWFTW doesn't present any new or novel physics. It's really no different than a trick shot in basketball or the like.

Counter intuitive maybe but nothing novel that would warrant publishing in a scientific journal.

I agree it doesn't deserve publishing and it is a trick! But the way it has been misrepresented in physics and science makes it no different from perpetual motion and that causes damage! The kids who were confronted with this crap on an AAPT exam were damaged. I intend to see that never happens again.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #971
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What happens when you pull the tablecloth slowly?  Then quickly?

Exercise Heinz#1:  Point on the graph where those resultant forces occur to a plate on a tablecloth;
a) Pull a tablecloth slowly.
b) Pull a tablecloth quickly.

Bonus Question:  If you pull the tablecloth quickly from the start (assume instantaneous speed) does the plate move?

Are you really this dumb? You confused static friction with Inertia and now rather than admit your Blunder, you are defending it by saying there is also kinetic friction? Neither of those types of friction is INERTIA!

That graphic has absolutely nothing to do with friction doing work against inertia. Nothing, nada, zip.

But of course, the Cargo Cult, that will jump on my back for getting one word out of syntax, will never tell you what a huge mistake you are making, because that is how a cult works.

Come back when you figure out the difference between inertia and friction.
Open your eyes a bit here Heinz.
I'm talking about the tablecloth trick here, not the cart.  If you want to apply this idea to the cart you can, but you have to change your reference to the wheel and the ground.  You say there is "slipping" of the wheel and the treadmill belt.  That implies that the static friction of the tire/belt system is overcome and leads to kinetic friction (the "slipping").

Inertia, in this case, can modify the static friction curve and inflection point where kinetic friction takes over.

In this case I am using the term Inertia as a Force with a vector but I'm not specifically defining it in the system yet.

Open your eyes a bit on this one.  When you talk "slipping" your talking friction, from start to finish.  So focus on that instead of waving your arms around about everything else.  Define the known quantities first and THEN move on.


Let's back up a bit, OK?

I was talking about how inertia resists any change in motion while a force acts to cause a change in motion.

You then said QUOTE  "Can you write a balance equation for these counteracting actions?  Remember that the terms of each side must be equal" UNQUOTE

To which I said  QUOTE "You do it. A frictional force acting against inertia. The frictional force acts to cause a change in motion, while the inertia acts to maintain the state of motion.
Give me a vector diagram, hotshot" UNQUOTE

Then you posted the diagram showing a Force acting against static and kinetic friction.


That diagram is not related to the question that was posed by you. "Can you write a balance equation for these counteracting actions? " where the "counteracting actions" were a force acting against inertia.

Do you understand now? There is no counteracting force, only inertia and your diagram does not apply.

Here, take a look at this photo of astronauts moving a satellite around in space. The force they exert is only opposed by inertia. If only one astronaut exerts a force in one direction, there is no counteracting force and only one vector is needed to diagram this.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #972
It's definitely weird to me that anyone would doubt what is clearly visible in the demos. Once I saw it, the relevant question was "How does it work?" And from there spork et. al did a really good job of explaining. But when we approach anything  from the perspective of unquestionable truths, we are putting Morton's demon in between ourselves and our observations. Or else trolling.

And you still don't know how it works! :no:

Once you do know, you will realize it has nothing to do with going ddwfttw.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #973
The treadmill experiment/demo is also not something peer reviewed.  But it was replicated many times.  Only an ill person would deny the treadmill demo. But it's not actually an isolated situation.  Many people refuse to believe things.

I refuse to believe you are this stupid. Well, maybe . . . .

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #974
https://www.wired.com/story/starting-to-study-physics-watch-out-for-these-common-mistakes/

A good link but is there some specific point you want to make?

Do you agree there isn't an opposing vector for a force acting on an inertial mass? Inertia is not a force so it doesn't rate a vector.
Maybe not a huge point to dwell on but the inertia tending to hold the cart in place while the belt is pulled under it is important for understanding how the cart can advance on the belt. Of course, it also needs propeller thrust to do that.
No I wasn't making any point. I just thought the article was apropos for this thread.  Anyway,  do you think that's how the blackbird worked? Slipping?

I don't believe the bb worked at all, at least not Directly downwind and the "evidence" certainly does not establish that.
Some folks you just can't please.

Some folks are easily fooled.
The reference was this post
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor