Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: home of the A- community.

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 24197 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1650

These guys are full of shit and I will brave the insults to make my voice heard.

My hero!  You are so brave!


If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered.

OK, then, we demand that you produce an HFR video of the cart on the TM if it is a matter of honor and scientific integrity.  Show us a video of the cart going up the TM with and without losing traction and compare the two.  (What you will observe is the one losing traction, may actually work, but will be less efficient than the one with 100% traction (ie, no loss of traction).

As I recall, JB offered to build a "cogcart"--one in which the wheels were cogs actually geared to the running surface and demonstrate that it two could perform DDWFTTW.  But when that was offered, the Hidiots became mum and didn't want that to be done!  It would have settled the issue way better than a "High Frame Rate Video". :devil3:

You crack me up in the ways you manage to run away with your hair on fire  :hair:  from actual experiments that clearly prove you wrong.

Windgrins :grin:

Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1651
It has been clear all along that Heinz is quite incompetent.  But what I'm only belatedly realizing (maybe the rest of you figured it out long ago) is how unhinged he is.  It's very hard to read his last response to cold one as anything but psychotic.

What has always fascinated me is the epic scope of the Heinz's failure.  Stuff gets exaggerated all the time on the internet but in this case I believe it is a fact to say that they are among the biggest fails in the history of civilization. I have over 18 million words the H's have written (the King James bible has 750k) in my own database and over 90000 posts. I used to post a bunch of statistics about the time he and the other Hidiot have spent on this endeavor with not a single convert or any other indication of any sort of success or progress in convincing someone, anyone of their correctness. Instead there have been instance after instance of there nonsensical arguments prompting someone initially skeptical to educate themselves and gain understanding of the ddwfttw cart's function. Donald Simanek would be a prime example of this opposite effect. It is profoundly sad but definitely, at least to me, fascinating at the same time.

It is truly amazing how much effort the h's have wasted on something that is both so wrong, and so trivial. Even if the silly thing is a complete fraud (note to Heinz. This is a hypothetical, I am by no means suggesting that I believe it's a fraud), so fucking what? It's not like a quack cancer cure, where people are dying because they use the cure instead of getting treatment that might actually work. A few internet physics geeks have been taken in my a con. The vast majority of people either don't know about it, or don't give a fuck.


Yes, I know. I have thought the same thing myself, (So What) many times. Why waste my time arguing with a Cargo Cult when there is zero chance of getting any of them to change their minds?

The answer is, I don't argue for the sake of the Cargo Cult, I argue for the sake of the integrity of correct science.

When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.

First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air! If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value. This is a well-established fact and to see people ignoring this to claim what is in effect perpetual motion, is something that should be fought against.

What does Martin Hepperle think of static thrust:

QUOTE
The thrust of a propeller is not constant for different flight speeds. Reducing the inflow velocity generally increases the thrust. A reduction of the aircraft speed down to zero tends to increase the thrust even further, but often a rapid loss of thrust can be observed in this regime.

That is why the static thrust of a propeller is not such a terribly important number for a propeller - the picture of a propeller, working under static conditions can be distorted and blurred.

As long as an aircraft does not move, its propeller operates under static conditions. There is no air moving towards the propeller due to the flight speed, the propeller creates its own inflow instead. A propeller, with its chord and twist distribution designed for the operating point under flight conditions, does not perform very well under static conditions.
As opposed to a larger helicopter rotor, the flow around the relatively small propeller is heavily distorted and even may be partially separated. From the momentum theory of propellers we learn, that the efficiency at lower speeds is strongly dependent on the power loading (power per disk area), and this ratio for a propeller is much higher than that for a helicopter rotor. We are able to achieve about 80-90% of the thrust, as predicted by momentum theory for the design point, but we can reach only 50% or less of the predicted ideal thrust under static conditions.
UNQUOTE


Yes, you read that right. At static conditions the propeller can barely reach 50% of the calculated ideal thrust value, yet, these crackpots entirely depend on a high static thrust value to make the cart "work" even though static thrust cannot move the cart, only the air!

Maybe you are content to let this "harmless" HOAX perpetuate, but I am not. Yes, I do give a fuck. Oh, I don't spend nearly as much time on this as people think, but I do think my time is well spent as the only voice of reason left against a perpetual motion claim.

If you don't think it is pmm, then consider what would happen IF the thrust was really greater than the braking force on the treadmill; you could just push the cart on the ground and the same positive thrust would make it go forever. THAT is the truth that these crackpots avoid by saying there is a "wind" on the treadmill when the cart is operating in still air.

These guys are full of shit and I will brave the insults to make my voice heard.

If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered. It is because the HFR will show the wheels are losing traction in a periodic way and that is how the cart advances on the belt. It is an oscillator and has NOTHING to do with going faster than any imaginary wind.

Eventually, the truth will win out. It always does. Maybe some mechanical engineering students will make the HFR video just to satisfy their own curiosity and then the Cult will have nowhere to hide.

Time will tell.








When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.
Nonsense.  As light as the little DDWFTTW model is, one gram of unbalanced force will cause it to move.

First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air! If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value.
Nonsense.  You can easily see from the thrust vs. airspeed plots on Jeff Lewis' page that the thrust drop off is negligible for the initial increase in airspeed.

I hate to be pedantic, but an unbalanced force of any value will cause a mass of any value to accelerate. Now as a practical matter the effect of, say 1 newton on the earth is going to be so small as not to be measurable. Also, no net force is needed to maintain a constant velocity. (I'm sure I don't actually need to explain that to anybody but Heinz). Friction of course  complicates matters in the real world.

The fact that Heinz, the Defender of True Physics, converts newtons to "grams force" (shudder) and then argues that "only 4 grams" for a cart that ways maybe 50 grams (Wild ass guess: feel free to correct me.) isn't enough to move it is laughable.

ETA: It looks like Heinz may be as confuse about the distinction between force and mass as he is about the distinction between energy and power.
  • Last Edit: November 10, 2017, 12:08:02 PM by CORed

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1652
I argue for the sake of the integrity of correct science.
If you really cared about "the integrity of correct science", you would take the time to learn some of it.
Quote from: HH
When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.
Did you not read my earlier response?  The "potential losses" that were not explicitly modelled were all covered by your "transmission efficiency" value.  And the resulting force differential will grow rapidly with increasing treadmill speed.  In any case, 0.04 N is plenty for these tiny treadmill carts.

In the real world, you'd only need FT > FB in order for the cart to advance.  If we decide that a differential of 0.04 N isn't good enough (based on Heinz's gut feeling), then we could add a "Heinz fudge factor" and say that we need FT > FB + FHFF, where FHFF has a value that is somewhat greater than 0.04 N.  But then we'd have cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 N or so, and Heinz would complain that that is too small.  So we'd have to add a second fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 2 FHFF.  And then we'd have other cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 or so, and Heinz would complain that that's too small.  So we'd add a third fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 3 FHFF.  And so on ad infinitum.  So no matter how big the thrust is, Heinz will say that it's not good enough, because of his gut feeling.

Fortunately, physics doesn't depend on Heinz's gut feeling.
Quote from: HH
First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air!
So you're denying Newton's 2nd Law again?  I should check my bingo card and see if I have a complete row.
Quote from: HH
If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value.
No, it doesn't drop "sharply".  And you just spent most of your post arguing that it actually rises in some cases.
Quote from: HH
At static conditions the propeller can barely reach 50% of the calculated ideal thrust value, yet, these crackpots entirely depend on a high static thrust value to make the cart "work" ...!
No, I accepted (for the sake of argument) the figures you provided for the 16x8 prop, with its FOM of only 45%, and that was good enough to make the cart work.  So your claim here, that we're assuming near-ideal static thrust, is simply false.
Quote from: HH
If you don't think it is pmm, then consider what would happen IF the thrust was really greater than the braking force on the treadmill; you could just push the cart on the ground and the same positive thrust would make it go forever.
No, this doesn't follow at all.  if you push the cart on the ground (when there is no wind), you'd be departing from static thrust conditions (by creating a relative headwind), so it wouldn't be "the same positive thrust".
Quote from: HH
If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered. It is because the HFR will show the wheels are losing traction in a periodic way and that is how the cart advances on the belt. It is an oscillator and has NOTHING to do with going faster than any imaginary wind.
You have yet to provide a coherent argument (let alone a convincing one) for your "cyclic" hypothesis.  If the cart loses traction, that would merely make it less efficient.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1653
If the cart loses traction, that would merely make it less efficient.

This has been pointed out to Pr0/0fPangl=0ss/Harold/Yevgeni/Heinz and humber many, many times for many years. The fact that they (I'm assuming humber is a different person) think that losing traction somehow makes it work when it otherwise wouldn't simply demonstrates their utter failure to understand how the whole thing works.

One more time for the hidiots. It's not perpetual motion; it's just a slightly unconventional method of harvesting wind energy.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1654
Why is it that when Heinz thinks he's shooting fish in a barrel he's actually shooting his foot?
Does he wear barrel shaped shoes?
Maybe he's real poor and wears a barrel, lucky he hasn't shot off any other appendages then.   :eek:
Why is it that when Heinz thinks he's shooting fish in a barrel he's actually shooting his foot?
Does he wear barrel shaped shoes?
Maybe he's real poor and wears a barrel, lucky he hasn't shot off any other appendages then.   :eek:

Maybe he wears a barrel and also wears fish shaped shoes. We don't actually know that he hasn't shot off any other appendages. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that he has.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1655
I argue for the sake of the integrity of correct science.
If you really cared about "the integrity of correct science", you would take the time to learn some of it.
Quote from: HH
When someone like Brother Daniel, who obviously does know some math and physics, argues that the cart runs on the treadmill due to a force differential of 4 grams, and he has not even bothered to factor in all of the potential losses, something is seriously wrong.
Did you not read my earlier response?  The "potential losses" that were not explicitly modelled were all covered by your "transmission efficiency" value.  And the resulting force differential will grow rapidly with increasing treadmill speed.  In any case, 0.04 N is plenty for these tiny treadmill carts.

In the real world, you'd only need FT > FB in order for the cart to advance.  If we decide that a differential of 0.04 N isn't good enough (based on Heinz's gut feeling), then we could add a "Heinz fudge factor" and say that we need FT > FB + FHFF, where FHFF has a value that is somewhat greater than 0.04 N.  But then we'd have cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 N or so, and Heinz would complain that that is too small.  So we'd have to add a second fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 2 FHFF.  And then we'd have other cases where the new differential is only about 0.04 or so, and Heinz would complain that that's too small.  So we'd add a third fudge factor, and require that FT > FB + 3 FHFF.  And so on ad infinitum.  So no matter how big the thrust is, Heinz will say that it's not good enough, because of his gut feeling.

Fortunately, physics doesn't depend on Heinz's gut feeling.
Quote from: HH
First of all, using static thrust to make the cart move is a non-starter because static thrust only moves air!
So you're denying Newton's 2nd Law again?  I should check my bingo card and see if I have a complete row.
Quote from: HH
If the cart moves from the thrust, the thrust drops off sharply from the static value.
No, it doesn't drop "sharply".  And you just spent most of your post arguing that it actually rises in some cases.
Quote from: HH
At static conditions the propeller can barely reach 50% of the calculated ideal thrust value, yet, these crackpots entirely depend on a high static thrust value to make the cart "work" ...!
No, I accepted (for the sake of argument) the figures you provided for the 16x8 prop, with its FOM of only 45%, and that was good enough to make the cart work.  So your claim here, that we're assuming near-ideal static thrust, is simply false.
Quote from: HH
If you don't think it is pmm, then consider what would happen IF the thrust was really greater than the braking force on the treadmill; you could just push the cart on the ground and the same positive thrust would make it go forever.
No, this doesn't follow at all.  if you push the cart on the ground (when there is no wind), you'd be departing from static thrust conditions (by creating a relative headwind), so it wouldn't be "the same positive thrust".
Quote from: HH
If you would like to see the issue settled, then you should be demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill and you should be wondering WHY, with all of the videos the Cargo Cult has produced, NO High Frame Rate version has ever been offered. It is because the HFR will show the wheels are losing traction in a periodic way and that is how the cart advances on the belt. It is an oscillator and has NOTHING to do with going faster than any imaginary wind.
You have yet to provide a coherent argument (let alone a convincing one) for your "cyclic" hypothesis.  If the cart loses traction, that would merely make it less efficient.

You know, I love the way Heinz pulls some numbers out of his ass, uses them to calculate a value that is positive, when it needs to be negative to support his assertions, then claims that it does support his assertions because it isn't positive enough.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1656
I am hereby demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill.

  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1657
....
No, this doesn't follow at all.  if you push the cart on the ground (when there is no wind), you'd be departing from static thrust conditions (by creating a relative headwind), so it wouldn't be "the same positive thrust".
And specifically, the prop on a DDWFTTW cart will never produce any thrust at all when the cart is pushed in a no wind environment, because of the wheel-to-prop advance ratio.  The headwind through the propeller will be faster than the propeller is "trying" to push air backwards.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1658
And specifically, the prop on a DDWFTTW cart will never produce any thrust at all when the cart is pushed in a no wind environment, because of the wheel-to-prop advance ratio.  The headwind through the propeller will be faster than the propeller is "trying" to push air backwards.

In fact it will actually act as a fairly effective brake.   On the Blackbird I always used the prop for braking initially.

  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1659
By reducing pitch?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1660
By reducing pitch?
In no wind it will act as a brake in general.  To brake during a run I would reduce pitch.  I wouldn't go negative though - just lower it to the optimal autorotation pitch.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1661
For quite a while, humber was amazingly prolific. I discovered by the end of the original 'Zombie' thread that he had posted nearly 25% of all the replies. But given the rhetoric here I find it hard to grok why so many-the 75%-would bother to respond to such an 'idiot.' And of course this also applies now to HH.

I agreed with spork way back in '08 at JREF. It seemed to me it was all about leverage. I can't lift my truck but with a jack I can. What still makes me a bit uncertain is that so many with far more knowledge wrt the physics in play than I continue to respond to his 'madness,' and the fact I have never seen any visual proof of a cart going DDWFTTW. If only spork had dumped a bag of popcorn when he had exceeded WS, or RR had fulfilled his promise to show his cart doing so. That's all it would have taken.

Even a dunce like me has learned a lot following this debate over the last decade, and it doesn't surprise me Grins is the only one to point out the value of all the detours we've seen. So glad HH has revived this thread. And FX, of tides fame, accusing me of trolling was the best laugh I'd had all day. ;)

I continue to be befuddled by the utter certainty on both sides. I mean, think of all the examples of widely accepted science that was eventually proven wrong. Oh ye of too much faith.


  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1662
You are serving your role Arpie...

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1663
What still makes me a bit uncertain is that so many with far more knowledge wrt the physics in play than I continue to respond to his 'madness,'...

There are two (or maybe three) things going on here...
1) Some are just playing with their food.  It's generally pretty clear who these folks are.
2) Some, like Windgrins, see him as a sort of sparring partner.  Generally one of those non-animated guys that you can punch and kick to sharpen your skills.
3) Sometimes a new guy comes along and thinks "you guys are being awfully hard on the idiot - why not just be logical and patient.... here, let me show you".

Quote
and the fact I have never seen any visual proof of a cart going DDWFTTW.

There's really no better visual proof than streamers.  We had one in front, two at hub height, and one well above the top of the prop.  You may not have been convinced, but I assure you that you did in fact see visual proof.

Quote
If only spork had dumped a bag of popcorn when he had exceeded WS, or RR had fulfilled his promise to show his cart doing so. That's all it would have taken.

Come on now.  Let's be honest here.  In addition to the streamers you saw the dust cloud.  There was also tons of data scrutinized by NALSA and others.  I'm pretty sure there is no "that's all it would have taken".

Quote
I continue to be befuddled by the utter certainty on both sides. I mean, think of all the examples of widely accepted science that was eventually proven wrong. Oh ye of too much faith.

Some things are easy to be certain about, some are not.  Look at the other thread here about heat engines.  I made a statement that was completely wrong.  Did you notice how long it took me to step forward and admit it?  It sure as hell didn't take a decade.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1664
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

In most circumstances loosing traction would cause something to falter or fail. How does loosing traction, theoretically or whatever, allow the cart to stay on the treadmill, if i understand the argument behind that correctly, which I'm pretty sure I don't, or I wouldn't be asking.

If this has already been explained, a link back would suffice and would be much appreciated.

I'm guessing maybe the idea is the cart is being held "motionless" to start with so being off the treadmill allows it to stay in one place rather than being carried down and off the end of the treadmill? Just guessing.

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1665
I shall remain silent in response to Tom until Heinz shows up to support his claim (once again).

Let's see if Tom can make any headway, or end up like one of these ....

 :stopper:  :colbert:  :no:  :raise:  :gonk:  :ohmy:  :staregonk:  :stareicide:  :psyboom:  :hair:  :rofl:  :arg:  :banghead:  :pwned:  :cripes:  :moon:  :rapidfire:  :meltdown:  :itsamystery:  :toetap:  :smithicide:  :dogout:  :getout:  :noo:  :hamster:  :goddamnitraven:  :aargh:  :lalala:  :facepalm:  :barf:  :sad:  :wtf:  :stop:  :vcide:  :wtchrist:

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1666
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

In most circumstances loosing traction would cause something to falter or fail. How does loosing traction, theoretically or whatever, allow the cart to stay on the treadmill, if i understand the argument behind that correctly, which I'm pretty sure I don't, or I wouldn't be asking.

If this has already been explained, a link back would suffice and would be much appreciated.

I'm guessing maybe the idea is the cart is being held "motionless" to start with so being off the treadmill allows it to stay in one place rather than being carried down and off the end of the treadmill? Just guessing.

Unless you are a Hidiot it is in fact obvious that any loss of traction would result in a loss of efficiency making any ddwfttw cart video more convincing not less.

Unrelated question: Why do I see people using "loose" when they mean to use "lose"? To me it makes them seem ignorant and foolish but I see it so much lately I am wondering if it is some sort of redefinition the millennials have come up with? Has any one else noticed it?

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1667
Don't loose your cool jduffy77.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1668
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

No one follows the rationale behind that, including the guy that makes the claim.  By all means you should have a discussion with "Heinz" and see if you can work it out.  I'm nearly certain you will quickly conclude that it's total nonsense that's not even internally consistent.  But maybe you'll be the very first one that's ever joined in and made sense of Heinz after 10 years or so.

By the way, Heinz will treat you like a gentleman and a scholar as long as he thinks you have a chance of believing his claim that the cart is a hoax, and will start calling you an idiot and a sack of shit as soon as it begins to be clear that you're not buying it.

That said, we can offer you our explanations of how and why the cart actually does work.  If I recall correctly, every single person that has come along ultimately accepts that our explanation makes sense.  I predict that pattern will hold.

Quote
JDuffy: Why do I see people using "loose" when they mean to use "lose"?
Dunno.  But it's astonishingly common.


Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1669
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

In most circumstances loosing traction would cause something to falter or fail. How does loosing traction, theoretically or whatever, allow the cart to stay on the treadmill, if i understand the argument behind that correctly, which I'm pretty sure I don't, or I wouldn't be asking.

If this has already been explained, a link back would suffice and would be much appreciated.

I'm guessing maybe the idea is the cart is being held "motionless" to start with so being off the treadmill allows it to stay in one place rather than being carried down and off the end of the treadmill? Just guessing.

Of course, all of the Cargo Cult understands what my argument is, but all are scared shitless to say that they understand it.

Brother Daniel will deny it, but he understands that a loss of traction will result in the cart surging forward on the belt.
See this post: http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,24.msg120302.html#msg120302

QUOTE (Brother Daniel):
Hey Heinz.

Let v denote the velocity of the cart relative to the treadmill surface, and let ω denote the angular velocity of the cart's wheels.

As long as traction is maintained, we have v = r ω.

If traction is lost, we'd have v > r ω.  (It can't be "<", because that would be opposite from the way the treadmill is pulling on the wheels).

As you say, there'd be a little surge in the velocity, because of the loss of (some of) the braking force.

Meanwhile, ω would drop off, increasing the difference between v and r ω.

In order for traction to be regained, eventually we'd have to have v = r ω again.  You've suggested that they could match up again in only 5 ms or so (although you've never supported that figure with anything).  It's not clear to me that they could ever match up again at all, let alone in only 5 ms.  Rather, ω will decay more quickly than v will, so the inequality v > r ω would be maintained.

Just another problem with your "cyclic" hypothesis (over and above the little problem of having no evidence for it).
UNQUOTE

He is wrong about  ω decaying more quickly because he is forgetting that energy is stored in the spinning propeller.

What you have on the belt is a simple case of opposing forces, the braking force at the wheels created by harvesting power from the belt versus the thrust force from the propeller spinning in the air.

Power is harvested at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity
And power is used at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity

There is always transmission loss between the wheels and the propeller, so it is OBVIOUS from the above relationship that the thrust force is always LESS than the braking force.

Example: the belt is moving at 4 m/s and the wheels harvest 3 Watts of power. Transmission efficiency is 90% (a High number), so there is 2.7 Watts of power available at the propeller to push the cart at 4 m/s on the belt.

Braking Force = 3 Watt / 4 m/s = 0.75 N

Thrust Force = 2.7 Watt / 4 ms = 0.675 N


Thrust is less than brake force and the cart cannot advance as long as the wheels maintain traction!
This is the same result I obtained earlier using a much more detailed calculation of propeller thrust!

Ask yourself what happens if the wheels slip and lose traction?

The braking force will drop off almost instantly towards zero, but the propeller has stored kinetic energy and the thrust CANNOT drop off instantly.

The result is the thrust will exceed braking force during the slip and the cart will advance during the slip.
All the cart needs to do is regain some traction periodically to recover the tiny amount of energy lost during the slips and the cart will advance on the belt indefinitely.

This process of losing traction is almost identical to the process used by all sorts of vibrational conveyors that also use air flow to move many things very efficiently from place to place.

There is nothing magical about this and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "going faster than the wind directly downwind" that is a complete fantasy and a fabrication.

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1670
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

No one follows the rationale behind that, including the guy that makes the claim.  By all means you should have a discussion with "Heinz" and see if you can work it out.  I'm nearly certain you will quickly conclude that it's total nonsense that's not even internally consistent.  But maybe you'll be the very first one that's ever joined in and made sense of Heinz after 10 years or so.

By the way, Heinz will treat you like a gentleman and a scholar as long as he thinks you have a chance of believing his claim that the cart is a hoax, and will start calling you an idiot and a sack of shit as soon as it begins to be clear that you're not buying it.

That said, we can offer you our explanations of how and why the cart actually does work.  If I recall correctly, every single person that has come along ultimately accepts that our explanation makes sense.  I predict that pattern will hold.

Quote
JDuffy: Why do I see people using "loose" when they mean to use "lose"?
Dunno.  But it's astonishingly common.



Sporky is worried.

Hey Sporky, since you "demand" to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill, why don't you make one and post it?

You GUTLESS fake!
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1671
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

No one follows the rationale behind that, including the guy that makes the claim.  By all means you should have a discussion with "Heinz" and see if you can work it out.  I'm nearly certain you will quickly conclude that it's total nonsense that's not even internally consistent.  But maybe you'll be the very first one that's ever joined in and made sense of Heinz after 10 years or so.

By the way, Heinz will treat you like a gentleman and a scholar as long as he thinks you have a chance of believing his claim that the cart is a hoax, and will start calling you an idiot and a sack of shit as soon as it begins to be clear that you're not buying it.

That said, we can offer you our explanations of how and why the cart actually does work.  If I recall correctly, every single person that has come along ultimately accepts that our explanation makes sense.  I predict that pattern will hold.

Quote
JDuffy: Why do I see people using "loose" when they mean to use "lose"?
Dunno.  But it's astonishingly common.



Sporky is worried.

Hey Sporky, since you "demand" to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill, why don't you make one and post it?

You GUTLESS fake!
Your theory- you prove it, you lazy gutless fake
And if you really think Spork or any of us are worried, you are even dimmer than I thought.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1672
Your theory- you prove it, you lazy gutless fake
And if you really think Spork or any of us are worried, you are even dimmer than I thought.
I've been called a gutless fake by someone that's terrified his true identity might become known.  :rofl:

  • MikeS
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1673
Your theory- you prove it, you lazy gutless fake
And if you really think Spork or any of us are worried, you are even dimmer than I thought.
I've been called a gutless fake by someone that's terrified his true identity might become known.  :rofl:
What are you talking about.  He's a legend in the condiment section.


  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1674
I'm a little curious about the idea that the cart on the treadmill "loosing traction" somehow allows it to appear to be working when it really isn't, or however that argument goes. I don't quite follow the rationale behind that.

In most circumstances loosing traction would cause something to falter or fail. How does loosing traction, theoretically or whatever, allow the cart to stay on the treadmill, if i understand the argument behind that correctly, which I'm pretty sure I don't, or I wouldn't be asking.

If this has already been explained, a link back would suffice and would be much appreciated.

I'm guessing maybe the idea is the cart is being held "motionless" to start with so being off the treadmill allows it to stay in one place rather than being carried down and off the end of the treadmill? Just guessing.

Of course, all of the Cargo Cult understands what my argument is, but all are scared shitless to say that they understand it.

Brother Daniel will deny it, but he understands that a loss of traction will result in the cart surging forward on the belt.
See this post: http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,24.msg120302.html#msg120302

QUOTE (Brother Daniel):
Hey Heinz.

Let v denote the velocity of the cart relative to the treadmill surface, and let ω denote the angular velocity of the cart's wheels.

As long as traction is maintained, we have v = r ω.

If traction is lost, we'd have v > r ω.  (It can't be "<", because that would be opposite from the way the treadmill is pulling on the wheels).

As you say, there'd be a little surge in the velocity, because of the loss of (some of) the braking force.

Meanwhile, ω would drop off, increasing the difference between v and r ω.

In order for traction to be regained, eventually we'd have to have v = r ω again.  You've suggested that they could match up again in only 5 ms or so (although you've never supported that figure with anything).  It's not clear to me that they could ever match up again at all, let alone in only 5 ms.  Rather, ω will decay more quickly than v will, so the inequality v > r ω would be maintained.

Just another problem with your "cyclic" hypothesis (over and above the little problem of having no evidence for it).
UNQUOTE

He is wrong about  ω decaying more quickly because he is forgetting that energy is stored in the spinning propeller.

What you have on the belt is a simple case of opposing forces, the braking force at the wheels created by harvesting power from the belt versus the thrust force from the propeller spinning in the air.

Power is harvested at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity
And power is used at the rate determined by Power = Force x Velocity

There is always transmission loss between the wheels and the propeller, so it is OBVIOUS from the above relationship that the thrust force is always LESS than the braking force.

Example: the belt is moving at 4 m/s and the wheels harvest 3 Watts of power. Transmission efficiency is 90% (a High number), so there is 2.7 Watts of power available at the propeller to push the cart at 4 m/s on the belt.

Braking Force = 3 Watt / 4 m/s = 0.75 N

Thrust Force = 2.7 Watt / 4 ms = 0.675 N


Thrust is less than brake force and the cart cannot advance as long as the wheels maintain traction!
This is the same result I obtained earlier using a much more detailed calculation of propeller thrust!

Ask yourself what happens if the wheels slip and lose traction?

The braking force will drop off almost instantly towards zero, but the propeller has stored kinetic energy and the thrust CANNOT drop off instantly.

The result is the thrust will exceed braking force during the slip and the cart will advance during the slip.
All the cart needs to do is regain some traction periodically to recover the tiny amount of energy lost during the slips and the cart will advance on the belt indefinitely.

This process of losing traction is almost identical to the process used by all sorts of vibrational conveyors that also use air flow to move many things very efficiently from place to place.

There is nothing magical about this and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with "going faster than the wind directly downwind" that is a complete fantasy and a fabrication.



I see. By storing kinetic energy when it's being intermittently driven, the prop can perform better than when it's being continuously driven. Heinz, I just realized that it is you who believes in a thermodynamically impossible perpetual motion machine.

Also. If the cart is advancing on the belt, it is, in fact going DDWFTTW, regardless of the mechanism. So for the Blackbird, or any other cart outdoors in a natural wind, it should work just fine on a bumpy surface, but won't work on a smooth one.
  • Last Edit: November 11, 2017, 07:03:35 PM by Brother Daniel