Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: We didn't ban coberst.

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 24241 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1700
So, from the lack of response, should I assume there are no carts available from anywhere?


Nope.  From the lack of responses you should assume I'm kitesurfing in Maui.

That being said - I did post a set of three 10 minute videos that will walk you through how to build one.  It includes the part numbers, where and where to get them.  If you don't want to build one, but really want to do experiments, I could arrange to loan you mine.  But by the time it's shipped back and forth it might not be much cheaper.




Thanks.

So..

Nobody is taking out a patent or anything?

Nobody's cashing in on the high demand for treadmill carts?

No, no patent. Spork didn't invent anything! He copied everything! :yes:

The small cart on a treadmill as well as a big man-sized cart, was first done by Andrew Bauer back in 1969!

It is only the Internet that Spork is taking advantage of now for some unearned "fame".
"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 #1701
Good luck with making a cart, but whatever you do, you will NEVER convince Hopalong Heinz.

Don't panic, Toby. This could be settled soon.
"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 #1702
I guess the whole problem with this demonstration video was that the frame rate wasn't high enough to detect the hopping and skipping which must surely occur if not to blow the brain of the H.

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

... Oh, ok not the whole problem. The other requirement to recognize is that a propeller is not 'geared' like a corkscrew in the air. There is Slip, ie generating a slip-stream, which effectively reduces the transmission efficiency. Nevertheless, the principle is precisely a negation of the bizarre 'can't outrun power source' notion run in the main, by crackpot Hs.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1703
So, from the lack of response, should I assume there are no carts available from anywhere?


Nope.  From the lack of responses you should assume I'm kitesurfing in Maui.

That being said - I did post a set of three 10 minute videos that will walk you through how to build one.  It includes the part numbers, where and where to get them.  If you don't want to build one, but really want to do experiments, I could arrange to loan you mine.  But by the time it's shipped back and forth it might not be much cheaper.




Thanks.

So..

Nobody is taking out a patent or anything?

Nobody's cashing in on the high demand for treadmill carts?

No, no patent. Spork didn't invent anything! He copied everything! :yes:

The small cart on a treadmill as well as a big man-sized cart, was first done by Andrew Bauer back in 1969!

It is only the Internet that Spork is taking advantage of now for some unearned "fame".

I think you may be nearly correct here, except for the "unearned" bit. Whatever 'fame' may have arisen, he sure did earn it.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1704
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.

Yeah right! It doesn't matter what the mechanism is, so all of the objects being transported in this video are going ddwfttw since they are moving in still air and the vibrational conveyor's method of moving is through periodic loss of traction! Just Amazing, huh?
"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 #1705
I guess the whole problem with this demonstration video was that the frame rate wasn't high enough to detect the hopping and skipping which must surely occur if not to blow the brain of the H.

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

... Oh, ok not the whole problem. The other requirement to recognize is that a propeller is not 'geared' like a corkscrew in the air. There is Slip, ie generating a slip-stream, which effectively reduces the transmission efficiency. Nevertheless, the principle is precisely a negation of the bizarre 'can't outrun power source' notion run in the main, by crackpot Hs.

AND......yet another silly video demonstrating gearing that has absolutely NOTHING to do with a wind-powered cart going faster than the wind. The CULT is already in a PANIC!
"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 #1706
So, from the lack of response, should I assume there are no carts available from anywhere?


Nope.  From the lack of responses you should assume I'm kitesurfing in Maui.

That being said - I did post a set of three 10 minute videos that will walk you through how to build one.  It includes the part numbers, where and where to get them.  If you don't want to build one, but really want to do experiments, I could arrange to loan you mine.  But by the time it's shipped back and forth it might not be much cheaper.




Thanks.

So..

Nobody is taking out a patent or anything?

Nobody's cashing in on the high demand for treadmill carts?

No, no patent. Spork didn't invent anything! He copied everything! :yes:

The small cart on a treadmill as well as a big man-sized cart, was first done by Andrew Bauer back in 1969!

It is only the Internet that Spork is taking advantage of now for some unearned "fame".

I think you may be nearly correct here, except for the "unearned" bit. Whatever 'fame' may have arisen, he sure did earn it.

He can have the infamy after he is exposed as a CRANK.
"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 #1707
I guess the whole problem with this demonstration video was that the frame rate wasn't high enough to detect the hopping and skipping which must surely occur if not to blow the brain of the H.

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

... Oh, ok not the whole problem. The other requirement to recognize is that a propeller is not 'geared' like a corkscrew in the air. There is Slip, ie generating a slip-stream, which effectively reduces the transmission efficiency. Nevertheless, the principle is precisely a negation of the bizarre 'can't outrun power source' notion run in the main, by crackpot Hs.

AND......yet another silly video demonstrating gearing that has absolutely NOTHING to do with a wind-powered cart going faster than the wind. The CULT is already in a PANIC!

You don't see how it works? Or, why it is a very good analogue of the mechanism? If you cannot recognize the similarity, you might go off looking for some wildly unfounded and speculative nonsense to appease an inner resentment.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1708
Please go for it, Tom- we look forward for Henz's excuses of why you did it all wrong!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1709
Heinz: do you really think anyone here is panicking?
Or even the tiniest teeniest bit worried?

Truth is, we are all sitting back,  chuckling at you.
But do keep the comedy show running.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1710
I would think the shoelaces would prevent the cart from jumping off the belt or losing traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMRviy-5zY

No, not taut enough. To lose traction, the cart doesn't "jump off the belt". It is a matter of millimeters, that is all it takes since the cart barely makes any traction in the first place.
As soon as the cart moves forward, the laces become slack anyway and then you can actually see them oscillate as the cart oscillates on the belt.

I can't say I actually follow your reasoning. If I'm driving my car and loose traction on ice or sand or going up hill whatever, the car will go slower, sideways, backwards, anything but forward FASTER, but this is an unusual car, driven in an unusual way under unusual circumstances so I am curious. You may have a point. I have difficulty understanding how the thing works at all. I'll see what I can do. I'd like to do a few experiments myself but for other reasons.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1711
I would think the shoelaces would prevent the cart from jumping off the belt or losing traction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMRviy-5zY

No, not taut enough. To lose traction, the cart doesn't "jump off the belt". It is a matter of millimeters, that is all it takes since the cart barely makes any traction in the first place.
As soon as the cart moves forward, the laces become slack anyway and then you can actually see them oscillate as the cart oscillates on the belt.

I can't say I actually follow your reasoning. If I'm driving my car and loose traction on ice or sand or going up hill whatever, the car will go slower, sideways, backwards, anything but forward FASTER, but this is an unusual car, driven in an unusual way under unusual circumstances so I am curious. You may have a point. I have difficulty understanding how the thing works at all. I'll see what I can do. I'd like to do a few experiments myself but for other reasons.

No problem. It might help if you understand how a vibratory conveyor works.

Please watch this video closely. The coins are moving uphill due to the fact that they are losing traction with the surface of the conveyor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExwAISBfu4

Can you see that if traction was to be maintained, the coins could not move except to be moved back and forth? When traction is lost, they move with respect to the surface.

If traction was lost very quickly, maybe 100 times per second, the motion would appear to be smooth and continuous. Only a HFR video would reveal the jerkiness.

The cart on the treadmill moves due to a similar mechanism. For argument's sake, it does not matter what the specific cause is for the loss of traction; it could be the propeller shaking the cart, or vibrations from the treadmill, or the fact that drawing power from the belt causes a reaction force that pushes the wheels away or it could be six other reasons. All that matters is, the wheels DO lose traction in a regular periodic way, and when that happens, the propeller thrust moves the cart up the belt.

I hope you do make the HFR video, because what you will see will be very interesting and informative!
Thanks!



"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 #1712
That is interesting. If for no other reason it would be good to do the experiment. Take video of the wheels. To rule out this slippage as a variable.

The problem is though, the outcome may depend on who's in the room at the time and who ends up watching the video.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1713
That is interesting. If for no other reason it would be good to do the experiment. Take video of the wheels. To rule out this slippage as a variable.

The problem is though, the outcome may depend on who's in the room at the time and who ends up watching the video.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Yeah, Ha Ha. Hopefully, the outcome of your experiment will not depend on quantum weirdness as the delayed choice experiment does. But, when dealing with a Cargo Cult, one has to be prepared for any excuse they can come up with!
(I am familiar with Wheeler's work, by the way and that would be an interesting thread. But please, let's get this one settled first)
"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 #1714
That is interesting. If for no other reason it would be good to do the experiment. Take video of the wheels. To rule out this slippage as a variable.

The problem is though, the outcome may depend on who's in the room at the time and who ends up watching the video.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Yeah, Ha Ha. Hopefully, the outcome of your experiment will not depend on quantum weirdness as the delayed choice experiment does. But, when dealing with a Cargo Cult, one has to be prepared for any excuse they can come up with!
(I am familiar with Wheeler's work, by the way and that would be an interesting thread. But please, let's get this one settled first)


If such a test as will satisfy you is done as Spork has demanded;

I am hereby demanding to see a HFR video of the cart on the treadmill.


I sincerely hope you will stick around to honestly debate and accept the outcome, along with everyone else. I doubt there will ever be agreement, but let's hope the experiment can proceed with minimal room for alternate interpretation.



If it shows the wheels are maintaining full traction as the cart is advancing on the belt, I will be AMAZED and go away quietly, offering my apologies to all the Cargo Cult on the way out.


Do not merely skulk away, let everyone develop a better understanding from the outcome.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1715
Heinz: do you really think anyone here is panicking?
Or even the tiniest teeniest bit worried?


Yup - this is exactly why I posted instructional videos so that any high school kid could build and test their own cart, and even sent carts to a dozen people.  It's because I was so worried they'd figure out the whole thing is a fake.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1716
That is interesting. If for no other reason it would be good to do the experiment. Take video of the wheels. To rule out this slippage as a variable.

The problem is though, the outcome may depend on who's in the room at the time and who ends up watching the video.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse

Yeah, Ha Ha. Hopefully, the outcome of your experiment will not depend on quantum weirdness as the delayed choice experiment does. But, when dealing with a Cargo Cult, one has to be prepared for any excuse they can come up with!
(I am familiar with Wheeler's work, by the way and that would be an interesting thread. But please, let's get this one settled first)


https://youtu.be/0KPcVHUWJh4

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1717
Tom, I strongly recommend you build a single cart from the instructional videos.  That way you'll know for sure exactly what went into it.  There will be no way for me to hide rubber bands, motors, or magical pixie dust.  This way you will be able to convince yourself.  But I give you my absolute assurance that you'll never convince Heinz - not even with the high frame rate video.  I'll make one further prediction... you'll almost convince Arpie - almost.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1718
I continue to be befuddled by the utter certainty on both sides.
Out of curiosity:  What exactly do you think I'm "utterly certain" about?

Basically that going ddwfttw has been proven beyond doubt, and that the cart on a treadmill is part of that proof. I'm far more convinced the former is true than the latter, but I would-and have-bet money that you and spork et al are right. As the physics in play are mostly beyond me however, to be totally certain I would need to see visual proof. It still bothers me that none that I find at all convincing has been shown after all this time. :(

@Tom Booth: I suggest you do a search of RidgeRunners posts here about 2 years back. He made 2 small carts, and I doubt anyone would disagree that they were the most advanced to date. He was planning to test them on the ground and use smoke and balloons to show speed and direction. Sadly that was over 2 years ago and there's been no video.

My suspicion that the TM carts with their small props, light weight, and skinny tires could not exceed WS on the ground was given a major boost over 6 years ago at JREF. (This is where this thread had it's origin, though it appeared elsewhere as far back as '06.) There was a poster there (I Ratant) who set out to prove I and others wrong by filming his cart in a quite steady 20 mph wind. He made about 6 of these videos, on 2 different days, that he posted on YouTube. I won't go into all the details, but it became quite a story.

First IR released his cart, and then a bag of foam packing popcorn. I was astounded at how quickly the foam passed his cart and kept going for about 200 yards. It was easy to see the foam was going faster and going in the exact same direction as the cart.

Had say Humber done this I would have been more doubtful. But IR was a believer. His results were exactly the opposite of what he expected. So what was the reaction from the 'carteers?' They blamed it on all kinds of things that were wrong with his cart.

IR had some kind of run in with YT a few months later and deleted all his files. Besides the only outdoor tests ever shown of a small, remote controlled cart on the ground racing something visible and going close to WS, he also had about 20 videos of different model aircraft he had made, including many with cameras. This guy was definitely a well experienced model builder, and so I still wonder about the reaction to his cart. I can see one thing I think could be a factor, but it wasn't even mentioned in the attacks against him, so....

Glad to have someone else here who still has questions about this topic, Tom. Welcome to the jungle.


  • MikeB
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1719
.....
First IR released his cart, and then a bag of foam packing popcorn. I was astounded at how quickly the foam passed his cart and kept going for about 200 yards. It was easy to see the foam was going faster and going in the exact same direction as the cart.

Had say Humber done this I would have been more doubtful. But IR was a believer. His results were exactly the opposite of what he expected. So what was the reaction from the 'carteers?' They blamed it on all kinds of things that were wrong with his cart.

I never saw the IR videos, sorry I missed them.  Did IR ever demonstrate that his cart model was in theory DDWFTTW capable?  In other words, was it ever shown to be able to advance on a treadmill?  If it was, then the videos could have been a demonstration of how difficult it is to get the model to operate well in the "rough" outdoor conditions.

I vaguely recall a photo of his cart and thinking that the design was somewhat "clunky" compared to the familiar treadmill carts, so my suspicion is that the IR cart was in fact not DDWFTTW capable.  Wasn't there someone here who tried telling him approximately what the prop / wheels advance ratio needed to be and he wouldn't accept the advice?

I would say it's likely that if anyone could examine the IR cart and identify issues with it, it would be the experienced folks in this forum.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1720
#Mike B; I spent a lot of time emailing with IR, and he didn't know anyone with a TM and had no interest in doing it despite my pleas for him to find one to do a video with his cart. He lives in a remote desert area and considered the TM tests irrelevant. I still have doubts about them myself.  :unsure:

His cart was made of foam, and I think it's possible that as a result it had even less traction than the ones spork made. Spork and JB did do 2 videos of their cart racing another geared for reversing the rotation of the prop, after Harold claimed it would go faster. It didn't, but neither did either exceed WS after going about 200 yards in a heavy wind.




  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1721
My ONLY FOR is the belt, as you damn well know.
Even this statement is ambiguous.  If I didn't have some clues from your numerous other posts, I wouldn't know (from this statement alone) which reference frame you think you're working with:  It could be the rest frame of the room (I'll call that "frame 1"), which is the frame that minimizes the KE of the belt; or it could be the rest frame of the upper surface of the belt (I'll call that "frame 2").  Both of those choices could fit that brief description.

Anyway, you're wrong either way.  If you work with frame 1 (as I did in my post), then we have v = 0 initially for the cart, while you were trying to pretend that v = 4 m/s.  But if you work with frame 2, then you have to accept that there's wind energy to be harvested.  Pick your poison.  But try to be consistent for once.
Quote from: HH
You, on the other hand are using the crackpot notion of two different frames at one time.
No.  Apparently you didn't read my post -- you know, the one you quoted here in its entirety.  I'll help you by putting it here again.  Maybe you'll actually read it this time, and see that I stuck firmly with frame 1:
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!
You're still being inconsistent about which reference frame you're working in.

Since you love to deny that there is any wind in this scenario, let's keep (consistently) to the reference frame in which there is, in fact, no wind.  So the velocity v for the cart is relative to the room.

Let v0 denote the treadmill speed, which you've set at 4.0 m/s.

Since the braking force creates a torque, in the direction that agrees with the rotation of the propeller, the cart gains (rotational) KE at a rate of TB ω (where ω is the angular velocity of the wheels).  (Remember that "P = T ω" is the rotational analog of "P = F v".)

But TB = FB r, and ω = (v + v0) / r.  So the power gained is FB (v + v0).

(The braking force also makes the cart lose (linear) KE at a rate of FB v, and that is important in the full energy accounting, but presumably not important for purposes of figuring out limitations on the thrust.)

So if the cart is initially going at v = 0 (having been held in place and then released), the rate of energy gain at that moment is FB v0.  And we've specified that v0 = 4.0 m/s.  So if we imagine that that power is 3.0 Watts, then, as you say, the braking force would have to be 0.75 N.

And let's go along (for the sake of argument) with your assumption that the power associated with the thrust can be no more than 2.7 W (i.e. 90% of the 3.0 W).

Now, since the velocity of the cart is zero, the power associated with the thrust (P = FT v) will be zero, no matter how high the thrust is.  Of course there will be limits on the thrust, but there is no limit that can be derived from this relationship.

You've used v0 in place of v, in order to try to limit the thrust to 0.675 N.  And that's completely wrong, as has been spelled out to you numerous times.
  • Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 06:49:51 PM by Brother Daniel

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1722
Just be warned Tom Booth.

Everyone who has built a mini cart has since died under mysterious circumstances.

Including I Ratant, who had his nuts bit off by a Laplander before he bled out behind some bar in Indianapolis.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1723
Tom, I strongly recommend you build a single cart from the instructional videos.  That way you'll know for sure exactly what went into it.  There will be no way for me to hide rubber bands, motors, or magical pixie dust.  This way you will be able to convince yourself.  But I give you my absolute assurance that you'll never convince Heinz - not even with the high frame rate video.  I'll make one further prediction... you'll almost convince Arpie - almost.


The blade in the video (part 3)

https://youtu.be/gSHNqrF93MU

seems, or appears rather flat and thin. You mentioned the "curved side" should be forward.

I'm wondering if more curve might not result in more forward "lift" so to speak. More like a regular airplane prop.




  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1724
I continue to be befuddled by the utter certainty on both sides.
Out of curiosity:  What exactly do you think I'm "utterly certain" about?
Basically that going ddwfttw has been proven beyond doubt, and that the cart on a treadmill is part of that proof.
Well, let's separate out the questions a little bit more.

Consider the following four claims.

(A) Going ddwfttw, in fact, works.
(B) Going ddwfttw should work, given established physics.
(C) The arguments raised so far against ddwfttw are all bogus.
(D) In particular, Heinz Hershold doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.

These claims are all different, in principle.  I've arranged them in increasing order of certainty.  I confess to having what you'd call "utter certainty" about D.  There's really no room for doubt there.