Wind powered vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind?

[spork]

Originally Posted by Harold Bricer

Seriously, spork! A BET!!??

Yes. Seriously.

The fact that a Nobel Laureate PhD in physics, rejects your "claim" does not phase you in the least?

His claim vs. my physical evidence? That's not even a hard decision. He's welcome to take my bet as well. He lives and works quite close to me. I'm sure Berkeley would be glad to have the donation if he doesn't want it.

You don't even HAVE a claim unless you can submit it to a peer review. All you have is Internet bullshit and the Internet will eat it up... no dignified physicist will bother with it. I don't know why I bother with it... But if in the end, all you can offer is a BET, you are already finished. Washed up and left out to dry. Done.

All the more reason to take my money - right? I still haven't heard why you don't want my $100K

[spork]

I've been trading emails with Mac. He's expecting the parts any day. He's arranged a presentation, and will try to video tape it. Maybe we'll get to see his presentation.

[humber]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

As usual humber is so close to the truth he cannot see it. He described the cart running at exactly wind speed on the treadmill as being on a "knifes edge". In a sense he is right. If the cart can get up to wind speed it can surely go faster than wind speed. Somehow he is blind to the fact that not only does the cart manage to achieve wind speed on the tread mill, it advances up the treadmill, indicating a speed faster than the wind. spork had to do all sorts of things to keep the cart in place in his videos. Either it was continuously pushed back by hand, or the treadmill was raised up showing that it had enough energy to go as fast as the wind and climb a hill at the same time, or, one of my personal favorites since it showed how quickly the cart got up to and over wind speed, he tied it in place with shoe laces. With all of these scenarios the one thing in common is that if the cart could not go wind speed, or more, the cart would fall off of the back of the treadmill, it would not advance towards the front.

You have missed the point SZ. The cart is held in place by the hand, so that it spins up, and is then released. The only difference between the held and released states, is whatever force is being applied by the hand. Just enough to stop it creeping away.
If instead of the belt, you use a small roller or electric drill to spin the wheel to the same speed while holding it -over the belt or not - then that is exactly like the held condition of the belt. It must be. The thrust from the propeller must be the same, because the propeller has no idea what is driving the wheel. So the belt and the roller are identical. There is no "windspeed".

[spork]

Originally Posted by humber

You have missed the point SZ. The cart is held in place by the hand, so that it spins up, and is then released.

But when you take our bet we won't use a treadmill or a small model. We'll be riding a cart that has a prop with a 15' diameter. There will be no hand holding it in place. I'll bet your facility could use a new large screen plasma TV for the commons room. You'd still have enough left over to make a whole lot of tinfoil hats.

[F X]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

I'm going to be very short with you; it's not worth wasting much time on a physics crank.

Yes, so please quit quoting the waste of time. Everybody quit quoting. You are bypassing my user filter, and I have to ignore your posts as well now.

Spork,

If you ever get some fool to take the bet, I want in on the action. I will add another 10 grand to the pot.

Fuck, I will give 10 to 1 odds as well.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by humber

It is irrelevant, Seebs. If I tell you I'm a bumpkin, or I tell you I'm a PhD, and that influences the way you see my arguments, then either way, you are being influenced by my "authority", yet you could confirm neither.

Ahh, but it would help me understand what you say.

I presented a very simple explanation of how the cart works. As I said, it's a summary, but numbers can be put on it to flesh it out. It's not difficult, and I can tell you that all the numbers very low.

Okay, so do it.

Put the numbers on it. I can't; my understanding of physics ends around "electricity lives in metal and water and bites". But I'm pretty good at checking numbers.

It's elementary mechanics, in fact, simplified elementary mechanics.

What are the simplifications? Can you do it without the simplifications? Many simplifications change conclusions in interesting edge cases.

What if I were in Spork's audience, and I posed that alternative explanation, how do you think he would handle that? He couldn't be hostile, and would be expected to provide a satisfactory explanation.

Why not here?

Probably because, so far, you have not offered anything coherent enough to need a rebuttal.

Slow down, show your work. Start from the top. Include all the numbers.

[humber]

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

Wrong type of friction. If you are calculating STATIC friction then you might have a point. The wheel is in motion so in this case the more friction (or at least some minimum amount to keep the turning wheel from slipping) the better. The wheel in motion now acts like a gear that is coupled to the belt.
So we have a gear turning according to some very basic kinetic rules.

Rolling resistance, Frr, is defined as the force required to keep the wheel in motion, that is rolling. Pure static friction is not appropriate, because there is at least some small motion between wheel and belt, so the friction is the lower kinetic friction Crr. For two smooth rubber surfaces (the tire is an O ring), the value of Crr will be about 0.03. The Rolling Resistance Frr, is then mgCrr. The cart weighs 0.16kg, with 50% over the driving wheel pair, so for each wheel, Frr = 0.04kg*9.8m/s^2*0.03 = 0.011N. Quite small. This is a simplification because the wheel radius should be factored in, and there are other unknowns, but its probably lower than that just calculated.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

The treadmill is moving at the same velocity as the windspeed we wish to duplicate. This means that IF the vehicle stays steady on the treadmill it will be travelling the equivelent of the windspeed.

It means that it will not be moving relative to the ground. The belt simply drive the wheels and does not imply motion.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

The video clearly shows the start-up of the system where the cart at first strains at the restraints backwards. Once the carts power-equilibrium is reached then the cart moves forward through the center-line and strains at the restraints forwards thus going faster than the windspeed modelled.

The restrained model, the shoestring, is not the same as a free cart. When free, the only path for the force from the wheel, is to the propellor. The strings allow a second force path to the chassis for both the prop and wheel, so naturally the force will be greater in that case. However, there is no valid place for the strings to be tied. Where is the chassis? Ground? What ground?
How can something traveling at windspeed be tied to the ground?
It is no-man's land, and that they made a video of that mistake for all to see.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

You are not modelling this correctly. The propeller, being coupled to the wheel (which in motion is really a gear that translates ground speed to propeller speed) is variable in thrust. If the gearing is correct (and spork has gone over the different gear ratio mechanisms) then you can maintain thrust through the "transition" from tailwind to headwind (the movement of the cart through the windspeed point).

There is absolutely no need to do that. It takes only a little power to remain motionless.

Originally Posted by Mike PSS

So even if you start to exceed the windspeed, and thus experiance headwind, the ground speed gearing is enough to support this. HOW? Because now you have TWO components of work that effect the cart. The first component, the tailwind, is enough to keep the cart velocity at windspeed (or slightly below with friction) even if the propeller is feathered and not turning. Even you agree with that since all you need is some cross-section of the cart for the wind to push. The second component is the propeller coupled to the wheels. This thrust, if geared correctly, will provide additional force to the cart to exceed the windspeed. HOW? By treating the cart as an upwind (not downwind) cart since it will now travel faster than the wind and therefore convert opposing windspeed as thrust through the propellor. There are probably four other ways to explain this too (as a propeller-like-a-sail tacking through a cylinder, etc...).

There's a simpler one. The belt drives the cart's wheel, and that generates the small amount of force needed to push the cart along the belt. When the friction is low, the cart slides rather than rolls. If the wheel is forced to belt speed, then the only speed for the cart must be "windspeed"; it can't go slower or faster. Any other speed than "windspeed" is evidence that the wheel is slipping.

In fact, it slips all the time. A wheel on ice can move by translation - pure linear motion with no rolling. It can also do the same, but with the wheel spinning either way. The linear momentum carries the translation, and the angular momentum the rotation, but that is not coupled to the ground so slips, and is therefore not actually rolling. The cart is like that - it is not really rolling on the surface in but spinning like the wheel on ice.

[humber]

Originally Posted by F X

Spork,
If you ever get some fool to take the bet, I want in on the action. I will add another 10 grand to the pot.

Fuck, I will give 10 to 1 odds as well.

Where fool's gold is involved, there is usually only has one sucker involved in the deal. Breaking new ground again.

[spork]

You just know we're wrong, but you don't seem to be able to explain why you won't take our money and show everyone what fools we are.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by humber

You are confusing the result, with the components of that result. There is friction between the belt and the wheel, allowing the belt to exert a force on the cart in the direction of the belt.

The belt isn't exerting a force on the cart. You can tell it doesn't because the cart doesn't move. Are you really this dumb? Look at the video again. Stop making up stories in your head and just actually look at what you see in front of your fucking face. The cart doesn't move.

You're lying again, humber.

Originally Posted by humber

Should the cart be pulled by the belt, it would be in motion with respect to the air.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda, oughta, musta. Still lying.

Originally Posted by humber

No.

Whadda ya mean, "No?" Are you taking LSD, or having delusions, or trying to lie again? All I did was repeat what you said back to you, asshole! What the flying fuck do you mean, "No?" Anybody can go look at it, the link is right there. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

You're still lying, humber.

Originally Posted by humber

If the cart is pulled by the belt,

It's not, humber. Anybody can look at the video and see it's not. There's no point in "if." It's not, and that's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by humber

Right. The cart stays essentially in the same place w.r.t the ground, if the belt is on or off.

What, now you can't make up your mind? A minute ago, you were saying it's moving. Now you're saying it's still. Because that's what I said- it doesn't move- and you're agreeing with me, humber. That's what it means when you say, "Right." But you're disagreeing with yourself, humber. One or the other is a lie.

Do you even know which, humber? Are you so far gone you don't even know when you're lying any more? It sure looks that way.

Originally Posted by humber

It explains some of its operation, but do you expect that would be stable? It would be on a knife edge. Whatever, you have simply described a cart which takes energy from the belt, to stay where it is. I say the same.

No shit, sherlock. And by the way, guess who else says it?

Spork says that, humber. You're agreeing with spork. Spork says the cart takes energy from the belt in order to stay still, humber.

Was there something that you were arguing about? Do you remember what it was?

Originally Posted by humber

The wheel is driven by the belt, but the propeller generates the same "thrust", if the wheel is driven by a belt, or by any other means. There is nothing to suggest that the cart can be said to be traveling at "windspeed". The belt is irrelevant, and could be replaced with a small roller.

But there's a huge problem with that, humber. When the cart's moving the same speed as the wind, NOT on the treadmill, guess what? It's going the same speed relative to the wind as it is when it's on the treadmill and there's no wind at all.

Have you ever flown in a hot-air balloon, humber? I have. When you're up there, there's no wind. You know why that is, humber? Because the balloon's moving the same speed as the air.

Same deal with the cart. It's not moving with respect to the air, humber. It's not moving with respect to the air when it's on the treadmill, and it's not moving with respect to the air when it's rolling down the road. That's how it works. It's simple. Not complicated like you're making it. That's what happens when you make shit up; everyone can look at it and see you're lying.

Originally Posted by humber

You should tell Spork that. The "tailwind" idea is entirely his. if you actually read what I write, I have already said that I consider all the treadmill winds to be notional.

No, you didn't, humber. Go read it. Anyone else can. The word "notional" does not appear in any post of yours that I have replied to, nor in any post of yours that is a reply to me.

You're lying again, humber. You lie so much you can't keep your stories straight. You can't remember what you said, who you said it to, or where you said it. That wouldn't be a problem, though, if you were telling the truth, would it, humber?

Originally Posted by humber

I think that you are so hungry to score points, that you have pretty much supported my case, and contradicted Spork's.

And you're still lying.

And humber, everybody's watching. You're standing up on stage with no clothes on, and everybody's staring at you. You're not cute enough to be standing up there with no clothes on, humber. Nobody wants to see your pale, slug-like torso, or your little teeny penis all shriveled up and trying to find a place to hide. But there you are. Lying. In front of everyone. Naked.

Disgusting.

ETA: OK, so I took the size tag out. Inch-high red letters were likely to remind this guy of the letters of fire on the inside of his forehead.

[spork]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

Have you ever flown in a hot-air balloon, humber? I have. When you're up there, there's no wind. You know why that is, humber? Because the balloon's moving the same speed as the air.

You may not want to open that can of worms again. humber has hundreds of posts on other forums explaining that hot air balloons do not move at the same speed as the air in which they are floating. Apparently the air has to push the balloon, so it finds a steady speed somewhat slower than the wind.

You're standing up on stage with no clothes on, and everybody's staring at you. You're not cute enough to be standing up there with no clothes on, humber. Nobody wants to see your pale, slug-like torso, or your little teeny penis all shriveled up and trying to find a place to hide.

Thanks for that visual. Looks like I'll be skipping lunch today.

[humber]

Originally Posted by seebs

I presented a very simple explanation of how the cart works. As I said, it's a summary, but numbers can be put on it to flesh it out. It's not difficult, and I can tell you that all the numbers very low.

It's a long story, Seebs. Let's try one step. There is nothing special about a cart moving against a belt. The idea that it must somehow be traveling at the speed of the belt, or struggling against the belt, in order to stay in place, is wrong.

If you take a small four-wheeled toy car, and place it on the supermarket checkout belt, it will move back with the belt. Of course, if you restrain the rear of the car with your finger, then it will be held in place as the belt moves under the now stationary car. It won't take much force to restrain it, just your little finger.
By using exactly the same "reasoning" as Spork, we can now say the car is at "windspeed" ( for that belt speed), propeller or not.

Do you believe that car is at windspeed, Seebs?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by humber

Rolling resistance, Frr, is defined as the force required to keep the wheel in motion, that is rolling. Pure static friction is not appropriate, because there is at least some small motion between wheel and belt, so the friction is the lower kinetic friction Crr. For two smooth rubber surfaces (the tire is an O ring), the value of Crr will be about 0.03. The Rolling Resistance Frr, is then mgCrr. The cart weighs 0.16kg, with 50% over the driving wheel pair, so for each wheel, Frr = 0.04kg*9.8m/s^2*0.03 = 0.011N. Quite small. This is a simplification because the wheel radius should be factored in, and there are other unknowns, but its probably lower than that just calculated.

So we both agree that rolling friction is in play. AND that the wheel is NOT slipping on the treadmill surface.

So the force of this friction is in which direction? Why "backwards" w.r.t. the treadmill (or "to the left", or "upwind" or...).

So for the cart to attain equivelent velocity with the treadmill it's work (the propeller) would have to have the same counter-acting thrust as this friction.

But we know that the propeller is providing MORE thrust than this don't we.

It means that it will not be moving relative to the ground. The belt simply drive the wheels and does not imply motion.

IF there were no propeller then the cart would be flung off the end of the treadmill because of the rolling friction above. If the treadmill were long enough then the cart would be moving against the air enough so that this air velocity (the wind) would counter-act the rolling friction.

So let's look at a cart-centered reference frame and see that the cart is motionless, the ground is moving to the left and there is a small wind component moving to the right.

Would you agree with that? (remember, we don't have the propeller connected at all, just the cart with wheels and rolling friction)

The restrained model, the shoestring, is not the same as a free cart. When free, the only path for the force from the wheel, is to the propellor. The strings allow a second force path to the chassis for both the prop and wheel, so naturally the force will be greater in that case. However, there is no valid place for the strings to be tied. Where is the chassis? Ground? What ground?
How can something traveling at windspeed be tied to the ground?
It is no-man's land, and that they made a video of that mistake for all to see.

This is where your modelling interpretation is muddled.

The strings, and the direction in which they are pulled, are only directional indicators of force. They are not scaler unless we measure other factors (like force applied to the string). So if in the video the string is pulled backward (with the treadmill motion) then we can say the cart is travelling slower than the wind. If the string is pulled forward then we can say the cart is travelling faster than the wind.

In reality there will never be a time when the string is slack in equilibrium since force balance in real life is a real bitch. But you can clearly see this in transition in the video when the cart goes from a backwards to forwards pull on the string.

If the treadmill was a mile long then no string would be needed and we could observe the cart move either to the right or left for a long time before it left the track. The string is only there because spork wasn't smart enough to do this test on a mining conveyor belt.

There is absolutely no need to do that. It takes only a little power to remain motionless.

But we know that the propeller provides MORE than 0.011N of force. And on the treadmill you will never really "remain motionless" without tugging on the strings one way or another.

There's a simpler one. The belt drives the cart's wheel, and that generates the small amount of force needed to push the cart along the belt. When the friction is low, the cart slides rather than rolls. If the wheel is forced to belt speed, then the only speed for the cart must be "windspeed"; it can't go slower or faster. Any other speed than "windspeed" is evidence that the wheel is slipping.

The cart is not sliding. There is no slip. The wheel is working as a gear to transfer linear motion of the ground to the gearbox and thus the propeller.

And we know the force of the propeller thrust is greater than the rolling friction of the belt. So with this in mind which way must the cart move w.r.t. the belts motion?

In fact, it slips all the time. A wheel on ice can move by translation - pure linear motion with no rolling. It can also do the same, but with the wheel spinning either way. The linear momentum carries the translation, and the angular momentum the rotation, but that is not coupled to the ground so slips, and is therefore not actually rolling. The cart is like that - it is not really rolling on the surface in but spinning like the wheel on ice.

Wwwwwwhhhhhhaaaaaaattttt?
I must state that the wheel is directly coupled to the treadmill belt. If you measured the wheel radius and calculated the length travelled in one wheel rotation then that is exactly the amount of belt that travelled past during that rotation.

Unless you want to prove otherwise?

[Subduction Zone]

Would Harold get it if we put the cart on the back of a truck, I don;t think so.

But let's try just for fun. Okay Harold, you know that the cart can advance up the belt inside when there is no wind so lets put the treadmill on an enclosed truck and drive it around a bit. If the speed of the truck is steady the motion of the truck will not affect the cart, so it should still move up the treadmill. Right?

Okay now imagine a day with a nice 10 mph wind. We take the truck out with the cart inside on the treadmill and drive in the direction of the wind, at the speed of the wind. Got the picture? Good.

Hey! The cart still moves up the treadmill. Okay now we drop the sides of the truck and since we are going exactly with the wind the wind the cart still moves up the treadmill.

Now we look down at both the treadmill belt surface and the ground and we notice that they are both traveling in the same direction at the same speed. So we take our cart that was moving up the treadmill towards the front of the truck and put it on the ground. Now as far as the cart can tell the conditions are exactly the same as they were before when it was advancing up the treadmill so it continues to act in the same manner, passing our truck and moving faster than the wind. I know that humber will bring some more of his Lindy Hop nonsense to try to explain why this wouldn't happen but there you go.

[humber]

Originally Posted by spork

You just know we're wrong, but you don't seem to be able to explain why you won't take our money and show everyone what fools we are.

You want each party to agree to a trail, put the money in escrow, and the winner takes the cash. You haven't even though that through.

Do you think the escrow holder, is going to release the money on the word of one party, or will they need both? The answer is both.
That's a problem. If after the test, one side may not like the result, and refuse to release the money. That's a potentially long and tedious legal hassle. To solve that, you need a third party to adjudicate, and the money released on that authority. That's going to be difficult to arrange.

But there's another problem, because the adjudicator is responsible for the issuing of the money, so he will need to be sure that the result is fair. He will need scrutineers to prevent cheating, and some technical authorities to judge the validity of the result. Any skeptic knows that you have not done your technical homework, and rely solely on streamers and your opinion to measure windspeed.
If you agree to other instrumentation, you are going to be in for a surprise, but you are not prepared to lose. That, and the attitude displayed to those who disagree with you, strongly suggest that you are just the type to be sore loser, and that will mean judges and so forth. Too much trouble, more than it's worth. It's not the money, it's you.

[humber]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

<snip>

Too little too late. You've let the cat out of the bag.

[Harold Bricer]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Would Harold get it if we put the cart on the back of a truck, I don;t think so.

But let's try just for fun. Okay Harold, you know that the cart can advance up the belt inside when there is no wind so lets put the treadmill on an enclosed truck and drive it around a bit. If the speed of the truck is steady the motion of the truck will not affect the cart, so it should still move up the treadmill. Right?

Okay now imagine a day with a nice 10 mph wind. We take the truck out with the cart inside on the treadmill and drive in the direction of the wind, at the speed of the wind. Got the picture? Good.

Hey! The cart still moves up the treadmill. Okay now we drop the sides of the truck and since we are going exactly with the wind the wind the cart still moves up the treadmill.

Now we look down at both the treadmill belt surface and the ground and we notice that they are both traveling in the same direction at the same speed. So we take our cart that was moving up the treadmill towards the front of the truck and put it on the ground. Now as far as the cart can tell the conditions are exactly the same as they were before when it was advancing up the treadmill so it continues to act in the same manner, passing our truck and moving faster than the wind. I know that humber will bring some more of his Lindy Hop nonsense to try to explain why this wouldn't happen but there you go.

Are you nuts? The road is not "travelling in the same direction as the treadmill" at all. The TRUCK is doing the travelling on the road! As long as the cart is in the frame of the truck, the road is moving with respect to the cart. In other words, you can HOLD the cart while you are on the truck and turn the wheels using the road. But, if you release the cart, the frame of the truck is gone and the cart is in the frame of the now stationary road. The now stationary road does not drive the wheels as a treadmill. Do you understand that at all or has spork brainwashed you to the point where you have lost all sense of reality?

[Subduction Zone]

Harold, if the truck is moving at 10 mph and the treadmill is set for 10 mph the speed of the treadmill top relative to the road is 0 mph. Even you should be able to figure out that math. The bottom side of the treadmill, the part we don't see, is going at 20 mph relative to the road. So try again.

In the meantime answer this question: What is the speed of a tire at the point of where it touches the road on a ten mph truck?

[Harold Bricer]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Harold, if the truck is moving at 10 mph and the treadmill is set for 10 mph the speed of the treadmill top relative to the road is 0 mph. Even you should be able to figure out that math. The bottom side of the treadmill, the part we don't see, is going at 20 mph relative to the road. So try again.

In the meantime answer this question: What is the speed of a tire at the point of where it touches the road on a ten mph truck?

I don't need to try again, sport, but you need to see a shrink, seriously.

[cold one]

I'm going to keep posting this until you explain to all of us why the cart knows to act differently in a real wind than it does on the treadmill.

Originally Posted by Harold Bricer

For starters, there is NO "ddwfttw" cart so your elemenentary grade school mathematics means nothing. Please stop trying to impress me with the basic math that you know and learn some physics to go with it. MORON

I'm going to show you that again, Harold, just to rub some more salt in to that self-inflicted wound of yours (the one on the end of your neck, that is):

(1) dwfttw cart
...
(c) cart rest frame

ground v = -14
wind v = -4 (apparent headwind)
cart v = 0

(2) spork's treadmill cart
...
(c) cart rest frame

tread v = -14
wind v = -4 (apparent headwind)
cart v = 0

[spork]

Originally Posted by humber

You want each party to agree to a trail, put the money in escrow, and the winner takes the cash. You haven't even though that through.

I have thought it through. There's no point in you squirming to come up with reasons why the bet can't be satisfactorily settled before we even agree you're willing to take my money. Do you want my money, or do you simply want to stand in the back yelling that I'm wrong without offering any evidence, prooof, or analysis?

I don't need to try again, sport, but you need to see a shrink, seriously.

SZ doesn't need a shrink. I submit that the guy that needs a brain scan is the guy that knows something with absolute certitude, but won't take $100K that's just sitting there waiting for him.

Still no one can explain how they can be absolutely certain, but not willing to take a bet, even with 10:1 odds in their favor.

[Subduction Zone]

Originally Posted by Harold Bricer

I don't need to try again, sport, but you need to see a shrink, seriously.

So you are too stupid to answer even a simple question like that. No wonder you cannot understand something a little more complex. Don't worry, you're in good company. humber couldn't even answer the question what is 2 + 2?

[ThinAirDesigns]

Originally Posted by humber

You want each party to agree to a trail, put the money in escrow, and the winner takes the cash. You haven't even though that through.

Do you think the escrow holder, is going to release the money on the word of one party, or will they need both? The answer is both.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ... wrong answer (well DUH! Of course it's the wrong answer, it's Humber after all).

The *correct* answer is that the escrow holder will release the money according to (and only according to) the escrow instructions which were agreed upon BEFORE the money was put into escrow.

The won't be releasing the funds on the word of EITHER party, nor will need the 'after the fact' agreement of EITHER party to do so.

One example of the way the escrow agreement could be written is that there is a panel of judges (perhaps each side picks two of their liking and agree on a fifth) and the vote of the judges determines the release instructions. Alternately it could be base on certain instrument outputs with an agreed upon knowledgeable judge installing and monitoring the instruments.

Give it up Humber ... even when it comes to the simplest aspects of the escrow process you are clueless. The escrow agents primary job is to execute instructions that were decided on BEFORE the money is in escrow, not to attempt to get agreement after the fact.

JB

[spork]

Welcome back JB. I hope you don't mind that we started without you.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by humber

The use of quotes intended to lead to hyperbole. No dice.

I have no idea what that means.

Originally Posted by humber

This is a Newtonian machine. Flywheels store energy in that world.

OK, where in the flywheel is the energy stored, humber?

Originally Posted by humber

You and your master failed the last time you played this game.

"Me and my master."

Paranoid much?