Wind powered vehicle that goes faster than the wind - part 11

[RossFW]

So
Humber
Can't
Do
Third
Grade
Maths.........................

Just as well he was smart enough to figure out the cart won't work, eh Harold?????

[semper]

Originally Posted by RossFW

So
Humber
Can't
Do
Third
Grade
Maths.........................

Just as well he was smart enough to figure out the cart won't work, eh Harold?????

I think he began strictly trolling soon after his initial error on kWh. But that doesn't mean he actually understands his fuckup.

The failed electronics technician is also a failed propeller versus turbine identifier. Don't let him in as a purchasing officer either. He must be unemployable, you'd have to think.

[Subduction Zone]

humber keeps ignoring this and Harold hasn't shown up yet so I will ask this again.

I am proposing that a modified Harold Bricer Test be done. But first to satisfy the testers we need some predictions from humber and Harold, otherwise there is not much point in running it. So here is how it would be run. A relatively low power fan would be blow on the front of the cart. Its speed would be measured by a hand held anemometer at a set distance from the fan.

Now for the test. Several runs would be taken starting with the treadmill running at a lower speed. The fan would be at the head of the treadmill for all of these tests. We would see how the cart reacts and then do several more tests. In each test the speed of the treadmill would be increased until we reached the maximum speed of the treadmill. Now humber is probably too afraid to do any predictions since he has taken such a beating lately that even Harold wouldn't defend him. But I will ask him for predictions anyway. Well humber?


Since this is Harold's test. more or less, he should be able to make some reasonable predictions. Now carteers should not make public predictions yet, let harold and humber go first.

[jjcote]

Originally Posted by humber

When JJcote advertises land at $1000/acre, he will accept $200 dollars for 5 acres, or 3 foobs.

Nope, it means that I want $5000 for those 5 acres. $5000 divided by 5 acres = $1000/acre. And I'm definitely not hiring you to be my accountant.

[mender]

Originally Posted by humber

I like making predictions about the cart, because it forces the office rats to act to deny it.

Well, Mostlydumbest, let's hear your prediction.

[mender]

Originally Posted by jjcote

And I'm definitely not hiring you to be my accountant.

But just imagine how long humber could stall an audit!

[humber]

Originally Posted by uncool

But kW-hr is not kW/hr. kW-hr is the total energy consumed. kW/hr is not.

I never said it was. It is used it to specify the behavior of some equipment; Harold mentioned UPS, but there are others.
You insist one equating the two, because that is ALL that you have to work with. The remaining possibilities are not on your radar - it's as simple as that.

I did use kW/hr, because that is the parameter that is usually of concern to me, and not what the utilities want as a means of billing. I did explain that in the immediately following post, yet you still hang on to it regardless. A very strange attitude, and a frequent one at that.

A unit may be rated in Watts, but that is not the only concern. There is the maximum power that may be consumed at some phase of operation, and the that reflects in the current. That is why in the example I gave of 20W, aslo carries 30VA. Similarly, there are reasons to rate the power in W/hrs, but why would I bother to explain?

Originally Posted by uncool

That is because you have again not understood how it works.

It's interesting what you won't address, like how you have equated time and distance, and the absurdity of suggesting that ohms/in is "incremental".

Originally Posted by uncool

Once again, for the dollars to acres:
Let's say you're buying 1000 acres at $5/acre. Then the cost is:

$5/acre * 1000 acres = 5 dollars/1 acre * 1000 acres = 5 dollars * (1000 acres/1 acre) = 5 dollars * 1000 = 5000 dollars. All the calculations are exactly the same. The acres do cancel out once you add in the other term to the calculation.

How about you add a few more lines? Square it and take the root?
($5/acre) = unit cost
Unit cost*quantity = total cost

Nothing incremental about that, and no division.

Originally Posted by uncool

For ohm/in:
Let's say you have a 20 in wire, with resistivity 3 ohm/in. Then the resistance is:

3 ohm/in * 20 in = 3 ohm/1 in * 20 in = 3 ohm * (20 in/1 in) = 3 ohm * 20 = 60 ohm. The length cancels out after you add in the other term.
=Uncool-

Oh, isn't that neat?

Ohms/in is a physical constant.

R = (constant)*Length = 60ohms.

"(20 in/1 in)"...oh, that's good. Add a superfluous "in" so that so you can cancel it. The calculation is only correct if the unit of length are the same.
Well done for pointing that out.

Ohms/inch = (pL/A)/L
You want to cancel "length" ?.

You can do that, and then R = (p/A)L, but then you need to know p and A.

The ohms/inch is an expression of the other quantities that you need, like p and A. Next time, "cancel" them too.

[humber]

Originally Posted by RossFW

So
Humber
Can't
Do
Third
Grade
Maths.........................

Just as well he was smart enough to figure out the cart won't work, eh Harold?????

Why is it that you never compare what is written, with anything other than junior school? I think it's because that's your ceiling, Captain.

[humber]

Originally Posted by semper

I think he began strictly trolling soon after his initial error on kWh. But that doesn't mean he actually understands his fuckup.

The failed electronics technician is also a failed propeller versus turbine identifier. Don't let him in as a purchasing officer either. He must be unemployable, you'd have to think.

Well, cretin, recall the bowling ball experiment? That cart can work using any propellant, so can do so in a vacuum. That rules out any "tailwind" fancies you may care to proffer.

As Harold points out, the cart can't reach more then 5m/s, but that's beyond your understanding.
But, if the belt is moving to the left at -10m/s, the cart would be moving at 5m/wrt the belt, but the ground observer would see it moving to the left at -5ms. To the left, but 5m/s slower than the belt.

You say that's the "same as" 5m/s of real road travel.
To see that, the ground observer can move to the left at -10m/s, and the cart will then appear to move at +5ms to the right, but the belt will be stopped. Magic, the cart that moves in no air, on a stopped belt.

If the observer gets on the belt, he sees the same thing. How do you explain such witchcraft, Semper?

[RossFW]

Originally Posted by humber

Why is it that you never compare what is written, with anything other than junior school? I think it's because that's your ceiling, Captain.

Perhaps,

But you have amply demonstrated that it is beyond yours....

[semper]

Originally Posted by humber

Well, cretin, recall the bowling ball experiment? That cart can work using any propellant, so can do so in a vacuum. That rules out any "tailwind" fancies you may care to proffer.

As Harold points out, the cart can't reach more then 5m/s, but that's beyond your understanding.
But, if the belt is moving to the left at -10m/s, the cart would be moving at 5m/wrt the belt, but the ground observer would see it moving to the left at -5ms. To the left, but 5m/s slower than the belt.

You say that's the "same as" 5m/s of real road travel.
To see that, the ground observer can move to the left at -10m/s, and the cart will then appear to move at +5ms to the right, but the belt will be stopped. Magic, the cart that moves in no air, on a stopped belt.

If the observer gets on the belt, he sees the same thing. How do you explain such witchcraft, Semper?

You've really lost the plot haven't you. Gibbering hopeless idiot mode in the corner under the blankee. Maybe the realization that you cannot even distinguish the physical features of a prop vs turbine finally sent you over the edge.

[uncool]

Originally Posted by humber

I never said it was. It is used it to specify the behavior of some equipment; Harold mentioned UPS, but there are others.

You claimed that kW/hr is how energy is billed. Energy is billed by total energy consumed. Therefore, you claimed that kW/hr is total energy consumed.

You insist one equating the two, because that is ALL that you have to work with. The remaining possibilities are not on your radar - it's as simple as that.

I have never. Ever. Equated kW/hr with kWh. That is what you have done.

I did use kW/hr, because that is the parameter that is usually of concern to me, and not what the utilities want as a means of billing. I did explain that in the immediately following post, yet you still hang on to it regardless. A very strange attitude, and a frequent one at that.

Do you deny that you said that

kW/hr is how energy is billed by utilities.

?

That is claiming that that is what the utilities want as a means of billing. In precise contradiction to your post here.

And what is "explained" in this post

Originally Posted by humber

Has the guppy seem a morsel floating on the surface above?
I pay no heed to the utility bills; the maid takes care of that sort of think.

And how does that help you? I used the watt as 1J/sec, and you will not find me using kwh or kw/hr, because that's tautological. Time is already in the unit of the Watt, dufus.

?

A unit may be rated in Watts, but that is not the only concern. There is the maximum power that may be consumed at some phase of operation, and the that reflects in the current. That is why in the example I gave of 20W, aslo carries 30VA. Similarly, there are reasons to rate the power in W/hrs, but why would I bother to explain?

It's interesting what you won't address, like how you have equated time and distance, and the absurdity of suggesting that ohms/in is "incremental".

The only absurdity is saying that it is not. If you take two pieces of wire with resistivity 3 ohm/in, and one piece is 1 in longer than the other, then the longer one will have 3 ohms more resistance. That is incremental.
=Uncool-

[uncool]

Humber, do you agree that you claimed that energy companies bill by the kW/hr?

Do you agree that they actually bill by the kWh?

Do you agree that the kW/hr is not a unit of energy?

Do you agree that the energy companies bill for energy consumption?
=Uncool-

[recursive prophet]

[Bookmark] Hard to believe so much time has been spent on what's watt the last few days. I've found very few joules worth remembering. Sad.

[Harold Bricer]

Originally Posted by recursive prophet

[Bookmark] Hard to believe so much time has been spent on what's watt the last few days. I've found very few joules worth remembering. Sad.

Confucious say "Crowded elevator smells different to midget"

[seebs]

So, Harold, is humber still a "genius"?

His argument is that if land costs "one thousand dollars divided by one acre", and you have ten acres, that it costs only a hundred dollars, because he figures if there's ten acres, you have to replace "1000$/1acre" with "1000$/10acres", and then you throw away the units and just write "$100". While other people would argue that you'd multiply "1000$/1acre * 10acres" and end up with $10,000 (not per-anything).

So, genius?

[Harold Bricer]

Originally Posted by seebs

So, Harold, is humber still a "genius"?

His argument is that if land costs "one thousand dollars divided by one acre", and you have ten acres, that it costs only a hundred dollars, because he figures if there's ten acres, you have to replace "1000$/1acre" with "1000$/10acres", and then you throw away the units and just write "$100". While other people would argue that you'd multiply "1000$/1acre * 10acres" and end up with $10,000 (not per-anything).

So, genius?

He is not making that argument at all! He is saying that $1000/acre is a single unit, a ratio, in that the "/" does not indicate the mathematical operation of division. He then multiples that ratio by the number of acres to get the correct amount of $10,000. I don't entirely agree with this and it is not the way I think of doing things. However he does end up with the correct answer so it is difficult fo me to say he is "wrong".

You know, I have studied "operational calculus" which is esentially Laplace transforms. Heaviside introduced this terminology at the beginning of the twentieth century for analyzing transients in electrical circuits. He did not really know what he was doing, but he always got the right answers. It was only afterwards that mathematicians realized that what he was doing was entirly equivalent to the Laplace transform, something Heaviside never even studied! Heaviside definitely was a genius. I don't know if Humber is a genius or not, but he just might be, and why is that so important?

[RossFW]

1000X/10A * A= 1000X/10= 100X hether A=Arcres, Apples or Avalanches.

/= "Per" which= "Divided by".

Admit it,Humber is simply wrong and won't admit it.


Tell me Harold, where your and Humbers explanations of why the cart won't work ars simply contradictory (and his "Fully geared and it would slpip back on the belt" clearly contradicts your "Latch-up mode theory"......

Which one is correct?

[A.T.]

Originally Posted by Harold Bricer

He is not making that argument at all! He is saying that $1000/acre is a single unit,

The unit here is $/acre. The 1000 is the numerical value.

Originally Posted by Harold Bricer

a ratio, in that the "/" does not indicate the mathematical operation of division.

A ratio is a quotient, the result of division. What other mathematical operation should "/" indicate?

[humber]

Originally Posted by RossFW

Perhaps,

But you have amply demonstrated that it is beyond yours....

It is definitely your limit, which is why you can't see beyond it, even if you were to stand on your hat.
Rather like you can't think of a means of making a simulator, but know only of what you have been taught to use. You're a pilot, not an engineer or designer, so you get a simplified description, without ventures into alternative methods. See? Using, is not necessarily knowing, Captain.

[RossFW]

You're a pilot, not an engineer or designer,

Yes I am.

You are not an engineer, designer, Pilot or Janitor.

You think you can reproduce sustained "g" in a simulator by oscillating it.

You think heavier than air craft can remain airborne powered only by the steady, horizontal wind.

You think balloons at windspeed slow down.

You think the "per" does not mean "divided by"

I'll stake my simple CORRECT maths and physics against you vast repository of bullshit any day.

[humber]

Originally Posted by jjcote

Nope, it means that I want $5000 for those 5 acres. $5000 divided by 5 acres = $1000/acre. And I'm definitely not hiring you to be my accountant.

Oh, I see, after selling for a total of $5000, you then divide by 5, to get the advertised price of $1000?

How's that workin' out for ya in this market?

Most, but not a carteer, coz they is thick, would calculate the expected return as $1000*5 = $5000, which is, well, 5 times the advertised price.


SOED (Not McDonald's scratch 'n' sniff book of fat American words)

per /p<schwa>:/ prep.LME. [L (whence OFr. & It. per, Fr. PAR prep.).

For each, for every, as per cent, per mil, etc. Cf. A a. 4. L16.


That's right. It's the basis of words like percent.
You will hang yourself rather than say you are wrong, and that is power you gave to me, and you can't blame your niece for that.

How's the latest reel video progressing? Has the prospect of a negative outcome put a damper on your enthusiasm?

[humber]

Originally Posted by RossFW

Yes I am.

You are not an engineer, designer, Pilot or Janitor.

You think you can reproduce sustained "g" in a simulator by oscillating it.

You think heavier than air craft can remain airborne powered only by the steady, horizontal wind.

You think balloons at windspeed slow down.

You think the "per" does not mean "divided by"

I'll stake my simple CORRECT maths and physics against you vast repository of bullshit any day.

You're only a pilot, and you boast of that. You once said that my lampooning of you, showed a disdain for "authority". It must be the hat and braiding that leads you to think you have any.

Originally Posted by RossFW

You think the "per" does not mean "divided by"

SOED ( not the ABC's of voice-over)
per
For each, for every, as per cent, per mil, etc. Cf. A a. 4. L16.

See percent, per capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
If you knew of more than simplified American language, other languages would tell you of its origins, and how it is used. Try Spanish.

[RossFW]

Per Capita eh?

1 Millon people, 2 Million cars.

2M/1M = 2 cars PER CAPITA meaning DIVIDED BY POPULATION

See how that works?

DUMBARSE!!

[humber]

Originally Posted by uncool

You claimed that kW/hr is how energy is billed. Energy is billed by total energy consumed. Therefore, you claimed that kW/hr is total energy consumed.
I have never. Ever. Equated kW/hr with kWh. That is what you have done.


Do you deny that you said that

?

Well, I will now. In practicce it is different, but since you insist, I will say that it is W/hrs = watt*hours.= watthours
Here's my authority.
SOED ( not junior's book of pedantry)
For each, for every, as per cent, per mil, etc. Cf. A a. 4. L16.

Originally Posted by uncool

That ...snip

Who cares what a whining and duplicitous fuckwit thinks?