Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Bloody hell

Topic: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind (Read 24048 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1850
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
Was Heinz or one of his alternate identities the one who predicted that type of cart could never work? That it would just lock up and not go anywhere? Good times.

IIRC, his explanation for why that cart works is that the person pulling it can supply whatever amount of force is needed to make it go, thus implying that there is some amount of force that makes it work, and by implication implying that there is some amount of force that will make the DDWFTTW cart work as well. Yet another tacit admission by Heinz that the cart works.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1851
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
Was Heinz or one of his alternate identities the one who predicted that type of cart could never work? That it would just lock up and not go anywhere? Good times.

IIRC, his explanation for why that cart works is that the person pulling it can supply whatever amount of force is needed to make it go, thus implying that there is some amount of force that makes it work, and by implication implying that there is some amount of force that will make the DDWFTTW cart work as well. Yet another tacit admission by Heinz that the cart works.

How about a scientific control to test the vibration theory.

Use a "control" cart. One that has, instead of a prop, a plastic rod or disk or whatever, maybe a plastic tupperware cover. Something with no airodynamic properties.

Put the control cart on the treadmill and watch to see if the vibrations from wherever (?) cause the tupperware lid cart to advance up the treadmill.

Once I do the tupperware experiment you will all see the truth. I know you are shaking in your boots now! The tupperware control cart will expose the cargo cult for what it is once and for all!!!!! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1852
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

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1853
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.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1854
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.
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 10:18:35 AM by Tom Booth

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1855
What I mean is, there are other forces at work other than thrust from the prop.

Eliminating the resistance from the very blunt edges of the dummy prop might very well result in some noticeable difference in performance, given that the cart with zero thrust seems to only need a slight nudge to send it up the treadmill.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1856
What I mean is, there are other forces at work other than thrust from the prop.

Eliminating the resistance from the very blunt edges of the dummy prop might very well result in some noticeable difference in performance, given that the cart with zero thrust seems to only need a slight nudge to send it up the treadmill.

It's got wheels, and  that "prop" acts as a flywheel and stores some energy, so I don't really find its performance at all surprising. Reducing the wind resistance of the prop (or friction in the wheels and drive train) would make it take a bit longer to roll backwards as would increasing the angular momentum of the "prop" (by adding weight or concentrating the weight to the outer part of the "prop",  but without thrust, that's all that it would do.
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:00:30 AM by CORed

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1857

Perhaps there is some gyroscopic effect

I thought it would fly right off the treadmill like the popcorn.
I don't see how gyroscopic effect would prevent it from flying off the back.  Can you explain?

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1858
Claim "B" is where you appeared to be going when you said "think of all the examples of widely accepted science that was eventually proven wrong".  But I'm sure you've come across the adage that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.  The claim that ddwfttw can't work is an extraordinary claim.

Hmm. So even minus any visuals such as I Ratant produced, you think that 'extraordinary evidence' has been presented to prove ddwfttw? Also, can we prove beyond refute that anything 'can't work?' Beyond 'reason,' and perhaps physics, but also beyond any science?

In the runs spork used as proof, he had 2 other vehicles following along. There was some talk beforehand about using smoke or balloons, which could have been done by one of the 2 following BB. It didn't happen. This is what I still find 'extraordinary.'  :raisebrow:

  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:03:01 PM by Brother Daniel

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1859
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:
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1860
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:
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:52:30 AM by windgrins
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1861

 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:
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 11:45:24 AM by windgrins
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1862

Hmm. So even minus any visuals such as I Ratant produced...

We have produced INFINITELY more visuals than I Ratants ill-conceived experiment.  We have carts on treadmills, carts on the playa, carts blowing past dust clouds with their streamers in danger of being blown off.


Quote
you think that 'extraordinary evidence' has been presented to prove ddwfttw?

YES!!!  In addition to all of the above we have 2 world records, all the analyses, and a bunch of independent "researchers" (mainly high school students) that have built and demonstrated their own carts.

Quote
In the runs spork used as proof, he had 2 other vehicles following along. There was some talk beforehand about using smoke or balloons, which could have been done by one of the 2 following BB. It didn't happen. This is what I still find 'extraordinary.'  :raisebrow:

What I still find extraordinary is your trolling.  You just keep bringing up the balloons and popcorn while ignoring the streamers and dust cloud.  If you want to talk about popcorn first tell us what you don't like about streamers and dust clouds.  Be honest for fuck's sake!





Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1863
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:
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:28:01 PM by windgrins
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1864
you think that 'extraordinary evidence' has been presented to prove ddwfttw?
The evidence presented for ddwfttw is more than adequate.

But you're missing (or intentionally twisting?) my point.  It makes perfect sense, from the viewpoint of someone familiar with physics, that the cart (if constructed properly[1]) should work (ddwfttw)[2].  If it can't work, there's something badly wrong with established physics -- so badly wrong that it ought to mess with just about everything we do.  We live in a world of machines, many of them vastly more sophisticated than the cart, but none of them violate established physics.  So why on earth would the cart be the one place where it all breaks down?  You'd pretty much have to have a divine being watching everything and declaring "I shall allow the universe to proceed according to sensible laws, EXCEPT that if those humans ever dare to build a ddwfttw cart (which would work according to those laws), then I shall SMITE it and ensure that it worketh not!!!!"

Established science is what we use (or what we ought to use, at least) in order to decide whether a claim is extraordinary or not.  That's why I said that the claim that ddwfttw can't work is an extraordinary claim.  Because if ddwfttw can't work, then everything is wonderfully fucked up.

In short, there's no need for "extraordinary evidence" for ddwfttw, because ddwfttw ought to be the baseline assumption[3].
Quote from: arpie
Also, can we prove beyond refute that anything 'can't work?' Beyond 'reason,' and perhaps physics, but also beyond any science?
Not sure what you mean by that.  But there's very good reason to believe that anything that would break CoE can't work.
Obviously you can't just take any old gizmo that happens to have wheels and a propeller and expect it to go ddwfttw (the I Ratant approach); there are plenty of configurations that won't work.
Of course there is still value in the experiment.  Once you've established that something is possible in principle, there remains the question of just how difficult it is in practice, and that question is best addressed by getting out and actually making the thing in question.  But I digress.
Ought to be, that is, once one has bothered to think through the physics of it.  In this case, a typical person's initial intuition would be to go with the contrary assumption, and that's what makes the question fun.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1865
Hmm. So even minus any visuals such as I Ratant produced, you think that 'extraordinary evidence' has been presented to prove ddwfttw? Also, can we prove beyond refute that anything 'can't work?' Beyond 'reason,' and perhaps physics, but also beyond any science?

In the runs spork used as proof, he had 2 other vehicles following along. There was some talk beforehand about using smoke or balloons, which could have been done by one of the 2 following BB. It didn't happen. This is what I still find 'extraordinary.'  :raisebrow:


I actually don't think DDWFTTW is an extraordinary claim. It is only the deniers who claim it violates established physics, but that is due to poor understanding of both physics and the way the cart works on their part.

It is well established that sailing craft can achieve downwind vmg faster than the wind when sailing on a broad reach.* The DDWFTTW cart simply allows the "sails" (propeller blades) to operate on a broad reach while the cart itself travels DDW.

The feedback loop between wheels and propellers makes it look at first glance like a perpetual motion machine, and for a couple of physics challenged people, that is enough to convince them that it is a perpetual motion machine.

The Blackbird run used a variety of instruments, including GPS and anemometers, to record the results. I really don't understand why actual measurement is less convincing than popcorn (not really even a reliable indicator of wind speed), smoke or balloons, nor do I understand why streamers and dust are not convincing.
 
ETA: The treadmill tests were a far more than adequate proof of concept. It was the denial of this that made it abundantly obvious that the deniers didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to physics. The only question not answered by the treadmill tests was, "How much faster than the wind is practical?", because once the little carts exceed windspeed, they quickly run out of treadmill.

* A "broad reach" means sailing in a direction with a downwind component, but at an angle to the wind.
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 12:58:37 PM by CORed

  • Brother Daniel
  • Global Moderator
  • predisposed to antagonism
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1866
I actually don't think DDWFTTW is an extraordinary claim. It is only the deniers who claim it violates established physics, but that is due to poor understanding of both physics and the way the cart works on their part.
exactly.
Quote from: CORed
The Blackbird run used a variety of instruments, including GPS and anemometers, to record the results. I really don't understand why actual measurement is less convincing than popcorn
oh, but [Heinz]only spork ever handled the data, so we still only have his word for it, and of course he's a fraud, and furthermore I know exactly what was in the data, and it shows that the cart WASN'T going ddwfttw, and I don't care that I just contradicted myself!!!!![/Heinz]

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1867
@Grins: I read GEB years ago, and have often referred to it in the old threads. It's one of the few books I've kept over the years. In fact, my emails still have the following statement at the bottom.
Trust me. The statement below is true.
What I wrote above is absolutely false.

Thanks for reminding me about this book, Grins. Are you familiar with Godel's life story? He literally starved to death in his room at Princeton. He became certain someone was trying to poison him. So sad that one of the giants of the century would end this way.

@spork: 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. Sorry you still think I'm 'trolling' you here. If you had any idea of how much I truly admire you it would blow your mind. Seriously. Don't you ever disagree with those you know to be tons smarter and more informed than you? What happens when another such person agrees with you? Is it all about the majority view? Have you read GEB?? Familiar with Godel's 'uncertainty?'

I do hope you at least realize I believe BB did exceed WS during your tests. I'm a bit less certain about the wind's direction and overall speed. But after the AAPT accepted the validity of your claims, that uncertainty is about equal to that of my belief I'm the dumbest person in this discussion. :(

PS: Many thanks to BD and CORed for the thoughtful replies. I will think them over during my walk and reply later. And let me apologize for my lowering the level of thought itt.

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1868
I actually don't think DDWFTTW is an extraordinary claim. It is only the deniers who claim it violates established physics, but that is due to poor understanding of both physics and the way the cart works on their part.
exactly.
Quote from: CORed
The Blackbird run used a variety of instruments, including GPS and anemometers, to record the results. I really don't understand why actual measurement is less convincing than popcorn
oh, but [Heinz]only spork ever handled the data, so we still only have his word for it, and of course he's a fraud, and furthermore I know exactly what was in the data, and it shows that the cart WASN'T going ddwfttw, and I don't care that I just contradicted myself!!!!![/Heinz]

It was actually humber who started with the claims of data manipulation, though Heinz (whatever name he was using at the time) was quick to echo them. And yes, humber would simultaneously argue that the data was manipulated, and that it showed that the BB didn't really go DDWFTTW (the argument for the latter was based on the fact that there were gusts and direction changes (as there will inevitably be in actual wind outdoors). humber (quite recently echoed by Heinz) even argued that gusts and direction changes before the test started invalidated the test. 

  • CORed
Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1869
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
Was Heinz or one of his alternate identities the one who predicted that type of cart could never work? That it would just lock up and not go anywhere? Good times.

IIRC, his explanation for why that cart works is that the person pulling it can supply whatever amount of force is needed to make it go, thus implying that there is some amount of force that makes it work, and by implication implying that there is some amount of force that will make the DDWFTTW cart work as well. Yet another tacit admission by Heinz that the cart works.

I think it was humber that said that it would lock up (though I could be misremembering after a few years). humber, IMO was a different person than Heinz, though the person currently posting as Heinz apparently (based on similar arguments and overall posting style) used several names (Harold Bricer, yevgheni, ProfPanGloss among them) on the old TalkRational forum and several others. I used to type ProfPanGloss Pr0/0fPanGl=0ss, because at some point he used a thrust fromula with an airspeed term in the denominator at zero airspeed and thought that 0 / 0 = 0.

Humber, however, took the cake for ridiculous blunders. For any topic that came up he would claim to be an expert, and usually took only one or two posts to demonstrate that he didn't have a clue about the topic. And for physics, he produced some real howlers: Among them, that a lighter-than-air balloon drifting with the wind would go slower than windspeed, and that an object in a ballistic trajectory had an acceleration  (not velocity) of 0 at the top of its arc.
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 01:30:01 PM by CORed

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1870
I think it was humber that said that it would lock up (though I could be misremembering after a few years). humber, IMO was a different person than Heinz, though the person currently posting as Heinz apparently (based on similar arguments and overall posting style) used several names (Harold Bricer, yevgheni, ProfPanGloss among them) on the old TalkRational forum and several others.
I'm almost positive yevgheni made that prediction, though humber might have too.

I used to type ProfPanGloss Pr0/0fPanGl=0ss, because at some point he used a thrust fromula with an airspeed term in the denominator at zero airspeed and thought that 0 / 0 = 0.

Humber, however, took the cake for ridiculous blunders. For any topic that came up he would claim to be an expert, and usually took only one or two posts to demonstrate that he didn't have a clue about the topic. And for physics, he produced some real howlers: Among them, that a lighter-than-air balloon drifting with the wind would go slower than windspeed, and that an object in a ballistic trajectory had an acceleration  (not velocity) of 0 at the top of its arc.
I remember both of those. Humber really did produce the best nonsense.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1871
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.



Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1872
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:
  • Last Edit: November 15, 2017, 03:07:53 PM by windgrins
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1873
Streamers seem to work OK in wind tunnels...

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

Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Reply #1874
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:
Lunatic Fringe, I know you're out there.  You've got to blame someone for your own confusion.