December 03, 2008
There's a big debate being promoted over the web by someone using the handle "spork," who claims to have built a wind-powered vehicle capable of traveling faster than the wind while moving in the direction of the wind.
My theory on how this works is that, in ideal conditions with no friction and the propeller decoupled from the wheels, wind blowing on it will accelerate it to wind speed. Engaging the propeller factors in lift (perpendicular to the rotors/against the wind) and we have more acceleration. Apparently when losses from friction and drag are included we still manage to move faster than the wind.
Like small sailboats that utilize lift to travel faster than the wind (relative to the water) by moving at an angle, this device uses gears and a propeller to rotate the lift force 90 degrees against the wind.
see "Sailing close to the wind"
http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/sailing.html
and for the mechanically inclined, a parts list!
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/5081905889?r=9101903399#9101903399
Ok, so I'm going to do something that often irritates me when other people do it, but then again I'm nothing if not a hypocrite. I don't understand a damned thing in that thread, and the fact that I don't understand it makes me think that this is a fake.
Why do I hate this when other people do it? Because very often it's anti-intellectual crap. I don't understand what the economist said, so he must be making it up. I don't understand what the artist is trying to do, so it must be random splotches of colour.
But when it comes to putting forward a striking and counter-intuitive scientific claim, then the shoe is on the other foot. These people are presenting fragments of evidence without explaining, fully, what they're doing. I can't even follow who's who in the discussion and the whole thing makes me feel like they're trying to pull a fast one. They even start off by saying that people were totally unfair to them because they posted all sorts of vector diagrams in another thread and they were totally deleted, and if only people had read them they would understand that this is all legit and... they go on like this for some time without actually deigning to repost their vector diagrams for us to inspect.
Then there are things like this vector sum that isn't even a vector sum. Now, I don't know whether this is being posted by a proponent or an opponent, but as far as I can make out it's totally meaningless.
And the video? What's that even supposed to represent? They have a little cart that moves against a treadmill somehow. Ok? What does that demonstrate? Are we to suppose that the treadmill was going exactly as fast as the wind speed from their fan? Further, are we to suppose that the fan was blowing air through the guy stabilising the back of that little cart thing?
I just don't get it. I see a lot of protestation and declarations of persecution and some stuff about how expensive it was for them to build their prototype, and I see none of the technical details they claim to have shared with the world.
And so, even though I don't understand what the heck is going on, I'm prepared to state, for the record, that I think these guys are pulling everyone's legs.
It doesn't counter my intuition. What's wrong with a wind-powered vehicle traveling faster than the wind that's powering it? The only reason against gasoline-powered vehicles that travel faster than the gasoline that's powering it is that the environment is not composed of gasoline, so the vehicle leaves it's power source behind.
But I don't think that a treadmill in one direction is the same thing as having wind in the opposite direction.
The treadmill confused me too. I think what's happening is
there is -not- a fan. The treadmill is spinning the cart wheels,
the cart wheels are spinning the propeller, and the propeller
is pushing the cart upstream on the treadmill. This is equivalent
to the faster-than-the-wind scenario and by showing that it
works they are also showing that faster-than-the-wind works.
Or, I mean, they think they're showing.
Well, boys, it's out on the net now. If someone can build a prototype and get it out to the public, it will be clear sailing.
clear sailing
arf!
*gets big bag of Cheetos and a can o'Skepticism*
*sits back to watch the pile on*
Well, if there's anyone clever enough to do it, it's a nice Vulcan boy.
I assert that it is impossible. My reasoning: The force of the wheels pushing the car forward cannot be greater than the force of the wind pushing on the propeller.
I don't understand how lift or any of these other factors can overcome the fact that force cannot be plucked from thin air. So to speak.
Well, intuitively, the problem is that once you are going as fast as the wind pushing you, you are standing still relative to the air mass you are moving along with. Once you go faster than the air mass pushing you, you have a head wind. Converting that headwind into additional velocity forward is completely counterintuitive . . . the faster you go, the greater the headwind you are fighting against.
Their explanation seems to be calling on stuff like ground effect, lift, etc. If we take it at face value, their model shows a device moving faster than the treadmill powering it, not the wind. Even if we take their claims at face value, I have my doubts that this would be applicable in the real world at full scale.
I guess there are more impressive demonstrations.
Well, intuitively, the problem is that once you are going as fast as the wind pushing you, you are standing still relative to the air mass you are moving along with. Once you go faster than the air mass pushing you, you have a head wind.
Yes, that's my thinking. Or more generally, going faster than the sole force that's propelling you seems to mean you're violating the law of conservation of energy.
Admittedly, I'm just a scientific rube, but I would think that this is impossible. To go faster than the wind, you would need more energy than the wind is giving you. Or what EarWax said.
And from my sailing experience, you sail faster in a cross-wind rather than directly downwind, as it's a much more efficient use of the sails -- the wind working both sides, as on a wing. But that's just my perception -- maybe it just seems faster, since going downwind, there's no relative difference. Idunno.
just SEEMS faster. Jeez Louise, when are we finally getting that previwe button?
No, Cap'n, I think you're right about that, that a cross-wind does move a boat faster, because of vectors and shit. But if you're being directly pushed by a force straight behind you, there's just no goddamn way. IANAP, obvs.
Yeah, from the BB link:
UPDATE: Charles says: "You might make it clear to readers that the argument is strictly confined to the behavior of vehicles in a direct tail wind. A cross wind can indeed create a force-multiplying effect when it blows against an angled sail."
Sorry, the preview button blew away.
Sailing in a crosswind can accelerate a boat to faster than the wind speed. It does this because the large size of the sail as presented to the wind direction is much bigger than the small size contributing to drag in the direction of travel. Also boats aren't "pushed" by the wind, they're propelled by pressure differences built up by the shape and angle of the sails.
All of that has nothing at all to do with the contraption on the treadmill.
Yes, but what about an airplane on a treadmill. Will it take off, or do I have to cut off my hand?
So, if I can run forward on a treadmill, does that mean that I'm a perpetual motion machine?
Only if it's one of those road-treadmills.
That's why you haven't seen them -- the government and Big Oil are suppressing them, man.
Maybe it's really wind-powered cold fusion.
Oh wow. Imagine how fast this contraption could get
a road-treadmill running.
Robert Park's Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science.
DISCLAIMER: This is a post on my personal blog.
There are two kinds of wrong. The just plain wrong, and the
wrong-but-in-a-really-interesting-way wrong. The second kind
is fun because by the time you've articulated exactly what's
not right, you've really learned something. This has all the
markings of the second kind.
This claim (about whatever that propellor-on-a-treadmill thingy is) is undoubtedly wrong. I'd like to know what the video is actually showing, though. It appears to move forward when he lets go, but the laws of physics say it shouldn't. Obviously the laws of physics are correct, so why does it appear to move?
Why do you guys think it shouldn't happen? Why do you think it violates a law of physics?Every arguement against it is also an argument against going faster than a crosswind, and that's possible.
Speed != Energy
There is no conservation of speed law in physics.
There are two forces at work (actually 3 but we can ignore gravity for now) that act in opposite directions. The treadmill is exerting a force on the entire assembly at the contact points with the four wheels. If this were the only force the assembly would accelerate backwards on the treadmill until the relative motion between the assembly and treadmill was zero (assuming a long enough treadmill).
The other force is the thrust from the propellor, which is acting to accelerate the device forward. The problem is that the thrust from the propellor can't be greater than the rotational energy of the propellor, which is provided by the treadmill. In fact, the amount by which the propellor thrust must be less than the applied treadmill force is the propellor inefficiency + all friction losses in the propellor drive shaft, belt drive, pulleys, and wheels, all of which are non-zero. Therefore the "backward" force must be greater than the "forward" force, resulting in a net backward force and a backward acceleration.
Monkeyfilter: We can ignore gravity for now
"Why do you guys think it shouldn't happen?"
Imagine that instead of a propeller, the rear wheels were connected
to the front wheels via a gear train with a positive ratio. Such that
rotating the rear wheels once caused the front wheels to rotate
two times. You can imagine how placing this cart onto a treadmill
would cause it to accelerate exponentially.
I think this is precisely the same situation.
I think someone would have thought of that long ago, if that really worked.
My walnut-sized brain can't get past coming up with more energy than is being provided.
Kevvin, your device would tear itself to bits, erase the video, and cause a black hole to appear oh so briefly.
Such that
rotating the rear wheels once caused the front wheels to rotate
two times.
Which means that the front wheels would be trying to traverse twice the distance of the treadmill mat as were the back wheels, which means the front wheels would be spinning out like car tires on ice, and there would be no gain in forward momentum whatsoever.
Or...if the front wheels actually gained traction, which is unlikely, the back wheels would drag as they would not be turning quickly enough, and would serve as an anchor.
Either way, Newton wins.
All this fuss and bother is making me think about a related, but slightly separate, concept. What if you made a windmill powered boat, such that a wind turbine is powering a screw which drives it through the water? Now I'm perfectly willing to accept that such a vessel would not be able to sail down wind faster than the wind (which would, after all, relatively speaking stop blowing), but is there any reason that she shouldn't be able to drive herself at some speed in any direction, including directly into the wind? My intuition wants to say 'no', but my low brain power says 'that sounds complicated!'.
A rather quixotic approach, I'd say.
There's no reason a windmill powered boat wouldn't work. If you
imagine an electric car with a wind turbine on the roof charging
the batteries, you eliminate a lot of the non-essential complexities
and can see right off how it's possible.
What if you made a windmill powered boat...
The critical factor in windmills, turbines, mills, etc. is that the torque provided by the source must be greater than the resistance of the load. A gentle windmill spinning in the breeze would noit be capable of churning much water, which has a greater density than air. So the windmill would have to be very large, the wind would have to be of considerable force, and the propeller would need to move the water with as much efficiency as possible.
Even with all these factors in place, this windmill boat would stop accelerating as soon as the wind speed minus the drag of the boat (both from water and air and ignoring gravity) minus the loss of the gear ratio between the wind blades and the water blades was reached.
Sailboats are a better idea. Plus, they attract babes.
an electric car with a wind turbine on the roof charging
the batteries
...is an example of a perpetual motion machine, and one can see right off how it's NOT possible.
*notes Dreadnought's username*
*checks Dreadnought's profile*
Say, if anyone here were in a position to track down the
history of wind-turbine-powered ships, wouldn't that
be you? There has got to have been some insane 17th century
Dutchman who gave it an expensive and failure-laden try.
...is an example of a perpetual motion machine
No it's not. As long as the energy is being supplied by
actual wind, rather than from the motion of the car through
the air.
My walnut-sized brain can't get past coming up with more energy than is being provided.
Of course that's not going on. We are talking about coming up with more speed than the wind, not more energy than provided. Speed is not energy. Energy is not speed.
Imagine that instead of a propeller, the rear wheels were connected to the front wheels via a gear train with a positive ratio. Such that rotating the rear wheels once caused the front wheels to rotate two times
I can't see how that's related to the conversation at all. It seems like you believe that for all vessels, vessel speed is only directly proportional to wind speed, and that vessel size, weight and shape, amount of surface contact with road (or water), method to harness wind energy (sail, windmill, etc), size of sail/prop/etc, none of these things, nor anything else, will influence the speed. Only wind speed.
The kinetic energy of the wind is being to potential energy when harnessed by the prop, which is then converted back into kinetic energy to move the vessel.
The energy required to move the vessel at some speed is some amount, let's call it X. That amount of energy can be harnessed from the wind, and the wind's speed is only one of many factors in this harnessing. It's not the limiting factor. The limiting factor is how efficient your energy harness is. I haven't heard a reason why X amount of energy can't be stored in the wind (or be harnessed from it). The wind doesn't know or care how you plan on expending the energy.
Say, if anyone here were in a position to track down the history of wind-turbine-powered ships, wouldn't that be you?
The closest thing I've ever head to this happening would be the so-called 'Flettner' concept which was experimented with in the 20s. This is not exactly the same, though, as they were spinning these big cylinder things to make super-efficient sails. They couldn't sail directly into the wind, and they actually needed an engine to spin the cylinders. Interestingly, the Wikipedia page says that they're building a new Flettner ship in Germany. Cool. A quick google shows various pages like this, but the status of such designs have to be regarded, for the moment, as 'unverified'.
dreadnought made me think of this:
don't really understand this stuff, but is the claim being made here equivalent to being able to move directly upwind?
i.e. if you can move downwind faster than the speed of the wind, that means you're using the wind energy to derive a speed that is greater than the speed of the wind, so wouldn't you be able to move upwind using the same means?
cf. Zimara's self-blowing windmill:
>My walnut-sized brain can't get past coming up with more energy than is being provided.
Of course that's not going on. We are talking about coming up with more speed than the wind, not more energy than provided. Speed is not energy. Energy is not speed.
Of course not. But you need more energy for more speed, no?
Speed != Energy
I took it that that's what you meant...
Speed comes from acceleration and acceleration requires energy.
Not only, as spacediver notes, should the cart move forward into
a headwind, but since will also move forward in zero wind. Because
faster than zero is something.
But in the absence of wind, how will it know which direction
is "forward"?
... but
ITwill also move forward ..., sigh
Hello all,
I'm the guy in the video on BoingBoing that you've been discussing and the co-designer/builder of several of these 'downwind faster' carts.
Someone mentioned about that we weren't answer a lot of questions over on BoingBoing and I'd just like to say that it was pretty much impossible given our time constraints to do so.
I think you'll find us more than willing to answer questions and help people understand the principles supporting this device.
The device works as we say and as we've done in the past, if someone has a reasonable test that we can post -- we pull out the camera and go at it.
Fire away.
JB
Welcome, JB. I look forward to the ensuing discussion. Come on people, ask the difficult questions!
What's the world's fastest land animal?
Wait a minute. We have to deal with reality now? This violates every principle that we stand for!
There are several key facts that can help folks understand the device, the most important one is that land and even water vessels with traditional sailing rigs exceed the downwind component of the wind on a regular basis. This is especialy prevelant among ice-boats and land-yachts but also is accomplished by the best racing sailboats of this era.
Now the above sailcraft must be running at an angle to the wind to accomplish this feat -- but even with the longer angled path, their VMG(velocity made good) is faster than the wind.
This means that if a land-yacht races a neutral bouyancy balloon down a course from a start point to a downwind finish point, the yacht will take a zig and then a zag and the balloon will follow a straight downwind path. In spite of the longer path of the yacht, it still beats the balloon by a very large margin to the finish line. High performance rigs can ~3x VMG the speed of the balloon/wind.
The two sails (otherwise called a prop) in the video cart are geared to the wheels in such a way to provide the same angle constraint that the keel/skate/wheel provides on sailboats, ice-boats and land-yachts respectively.
By changing the gearing on the cart, you can decide if you want the sail to take a 45d path downwind (or any other angle)-- all with the chassis of the cart continuing straight downwind. Once you settle on the angle of the path you wish the sail to follow, changing the pitch of the prop is the equivalent of adjusting the sail to the apparent wind seen along said path.
The adjustments truly are exactly the same adjustments one could make with a traditional sailing rig, just implemented in a different form.
JB
In your video, it appears that the prop is entirely driven by the wheels, which are driven by the treadmill. There doesn't appear to be any source of wind driving the "sails" as you put it.
I'm not seeing how any of this is wind-driven. It appears to be treadmill-driven. Am I missing an off-camera component?
Rocket, I will address your post in detail next -- I already had the following written when you posted.
----------------------
Dreadnought:
>Are we to suppose that the treadmill was
>going exactly as fast as the wind speed
>from their fan? Further, are we to suppose
>that the fan was blowing air through the
>guy stabilising the back of that little
>cart thing?
There is no fan in the room. The air is still and treadmill bed is moving as one would expect -- right to left in the video.
A treadmill in a still air room is the perfect equivalent of going downwind the same speed as the wind. Think about it ...
You are biking down the road at 10mph with a 10mph tailwind. Your wheels are turning, your speedo says "10mph", but you feel no wind on your face. Now, try the same thing in your garage on a treadmill set at 10mph ... Your wheels are turning, your speedo says "10mph", but you feel no wind on your face.
The laws of physics have held since the days of Galileo that there is equivalency to inertial frames of reference -- which is to say that even with the most sensitive instruments, one cannot tell if the air is moving and the road is still, or if the road is moving and the air is still.
The DDWFTTW cart is powered by the relative motion between the air and the rolling surface -- it matters not which frame you pick (still air or still road) as long as one is moving relative to the other. The device can't tell which is which and behaves the same way in both.
If the device is 'hovering' on the treadmill (not moving forwards or backwards relative to the air in the room), it is going the same speed as the wind. If it moves forward on the belt, it is moving faster that the wind.
At any speed greater than 2.7mph our device is trying to move forward on the belt and we have to hold it back either through running the treadmill up at an angle, or stop it from running off the top of the belt by pushing it back down and letting it run up again.
On the street, the above constraints would be the equivalent of running the device up a hill or grabbing it and slowing it down to below the wind speed each time it accelerates to a speed above the wind.
At speeds below 2.7mph, we are not extracting enough energy from the wind to overcome the friction of our mechanical systems -- bearings and the like.
JB
Rocket88:
>In your video, it appears that the prop
>is entirely driven by the wheels, which
>are driven by the treadmill. There doesn't
>appear to be any source of wind driving
>the "sails" as you put it.
>I'm not seeing how any of this is wind-driven.
>It appears to be treadmill-driven. Am I missing
>an off-camera component?
There is nothing off-camera to see. In fact if you look at our video selection on YouTube (search Spork33) you will see videos that pan from end to end just do demonstrate this. Unfortunatly, the video that is being passed around causing all the conversation is a composite of all our individual videos that we put together just to answer the MythBuster challenge and is cut with the voice-over soundtrack in mind and is not intended to demonstrate an one particular point.
As to the question of "wind-powered" or "treadmill driven", that's a common question. I addressed it a bit in my immediately previous post and will address it more in my next post.
JB
There's no question that a sail and a prop operate similarly. We're
all in agreement there.
The problem is, in the case of a boat the air is doing work on
the sail. And in the case of a prop, the prop is doing work on
the air. That is, energy is being transferred to the boat from
the wind for a net positive flow, and with a propeller energy is
being transferred to the air for a net negative flow.
So we need to figure out where the energy that powers the prop
comes from.
Kevin, I'll address your question in my next post - I again had the following written before seeing your post.
---------------------------
Let's touch on the "wind-powered" or "treadmill-driven" question for a moment:
Let's take a simple aerodynamic device -- a kite. Actually, we'll take four of them and put them in four situations and look at their behavior.
A: Kite on a string held by child in a 10mph breeze in an open field
B: Kite on a string held by a child in a wind tunnel set at 10mph
C: Kite on a string held by a child who is sitting in the back of a pickup truck driving down a country road at 10mph on a calm day.
D: Kite on a string held by a child who is standing still on a long indoor moving sidewalk (treadmill) set at 10mph.
Now, it's pretty easy to see that the kite doesn't know or care or behave any differently in any of these situation -- same lift, same drag, same string angle from kid to kite.
It would be easy to say that in "A", the kite is "wind-powered, as the power is coming from the solar generated winds.
It would be easy to say that in "B", the kite is "electric-powered" as the power is coming from the big A88 electric motor driving the fan.
It would be easy to say that in "C", the kite is "gas-powered" as the power is coming from the V8 engine under the hood of the pickup truck.
It would be easy to say that in "D", the kite it "treadmill-powered" for obvious reasons.
The truth is that the kite is "powered" by the relative motion between the air and the moving surface beneath it. What creates or "powers" that relative motion is irrelevant to the kite. Any test on the kite, string or kid will return the same result in any of the four situations.
Same with the cart -- on the treadmill, the electric motor creates the relative motion. In a wind tunnel, an electric motor would do the same. On the street it is the solar winds providing the motivation. All the same to the cart.
JB
I was raised in Metric. These Imperial measurements mean nothing to me.
Capt:
>I was raised in Metric. These
>Imperial measurements mean
>nothing to me.
I hold a strong believe that the principles will hold as true at 10kph as at 10mph.
JB
Now you're talkin' my language!
I was schooled in the middle of the whole "Let's all switch to metric/Screw it, let's not" seesaw.
At speeds below 2.7mph, we are not extracting enough energy from the wind to overcome the friction of our mechanical systems -- bearings and the like.
This statement doesn't make sense to me. When you say "extracting enough energy from the wind", what do you mean? You're not really extracting energy from the wind, are you? You're extracting energy from the treadmill.
If your device was actually wind-driven from a tailwind on a fixed surface, which you claim is an equivalent, it would never accelerate (assuming it starts from a stopped initial condition) to match the wind speed and get to the equivalent of the treadmill analog scenario. Not without an external energy source to initiate the acceleration.
In fact, if you put this thing in a wind tunnel and then turned on a tailwind, the propellor (or sails) would try to rotate in the opposite direction from the way it does in the video. Only if you externally accelerated it to faster than the speed of the tailwind (essentially creating a relative headwind) would it rotate in a way to drive the wheels forward.
Rocket88:
>This statement doesn't make sense to me.
>When you say "extracting enough energy
>from the wind", what do you mean? You're
>not really extracting energy from the wind,
>are you? You're extracting energy from the
>treadmill.
Hi Rocket:
I've created two quite extensive posts above to address the question of "treadmill-powered" or "wind-powered".
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough and you don't understand those posts. Perhaps I was clear and you just disagree. I really need to know which before I can substantively address your latest question.
In short, it's this simple: "Wind" is merely our common name for air moving relative to some surface. Hold you hand out the window of a moving car and you feel "wind" (it's called the "windshield" for a reason) even on a calm air day.
Indoors, the treadmill is creating the "wind" by moving the floor relative to the air. In a wind tunnel, the fan creates the "wind" by moving the air relative to the floor. On the street, the sun creates the "wind" by moving the air relative to the street.
In each case, what we commonly call a "wind-powered" device extracts energy the exact same way.
The answer to the question "is it 'wind-powered' or 'treadmill-powered'?" becomes a simple "Yes", because there is NO difference.
JB
Upthread, you said that a stationary (to frame of reference) object on a tradmill @ 10mph is equivalent to an object moving @10mph in a 10mph tailwind (no net air movement). I agree that this is correct.
This is not the same thing as saying the device is air-powered. It most definitely is not air-powered, and no energy is extracted from the wind.
In fact, as I stated, the only way your device would get to the "moving @10mph in a 10mph tailwind" state would be if you accelerated it to that state with an external force. This is analogous to what you do with the force of your hand to prevent the sled from moving backwards on the treadmill.
Nothing in your experiment is deriving power from the force of wind on the propellor. It is in fact the opposite. The propellor is acting as a propellor in that it uses mechanical energy to create air flow or "wind".
I've thought some more about your experiment. What you have created with the treadmill is a simulated headwind. Let me explain.
Imagine your device in a wind tunnel. Now give it a strong headwind. The wind will act on the propellor, rotating it, which couples through your belt drive to turn the wheels and drive the sled where? Into the headwind!
Now, on the tradmill the order is reversed. The energy comes from the tradmill which turns the wheels which turn the propellor (in the same direction as if it were facing a headwind). The device, as you rightly stated doesn't know one scenario from the other so it behaves the same, and drives itself into the headwind. You haven't demonstrated downwind-faster-than-wind. You've demonstrated upwind travel.
Rocket, you ask excellent questions and I apologize that there will be a delay in answering some of them due to time constraints on my end.
I will address one of your recent comments briefly:
you say:
>You haven't demonstrated downwind-faster-
>than-wind. You've demonstrated upwind travel.
To be sure, to a device going "DDWFTTW" there is a headwind. However, because of the speed differential over the ground, it is not the same as "upwind travel". Think about it for a moment:
If you're on a freeway going 60k/mph with a 20k/mph tailwind, you're car sees a 40k/mph headwind, but you are certainly traveling downwind faster than the wind. It cannot be rationally argued otherwise -- after all, in a snow storm you will be *passing* at 40k/mph all the snow that is blowing downwind at 20k/mph.
Likewise, if the cart travels 11k/mph downwind in a 10k/mph tailwind, it *will see a 1k/mph headwind, but it is certainly demonstrating DDWFTTW. Like the car on the freeway, it cannot be rationally argued otherwise.
JB
JB, not to distract you from addressing my previous issue, but ...
It's pretty pointless to keep arguing since it's too late to convince
anyone here. And besides, even if you convince us, what have
you gained?
However. What we -can- help you with is your goal of getting on
Mythbusters. It would be completely awesome to get on with
a perpetual motion machine and escape with your dignity intact.
I for one am 100% behind you in that effort.
Here are some things that you are doing wrong and which might
hinder your success unless corrected:
1. Dump the aol address. Mythbusters is based in SF. I'm sure things are
different in Florida, but out here, the only thing that gets you ignored
faster than a geocities web site as an aol email address. It looks like
ddwfttw.org is available. Get it.
2. Check out the Time Cube guy. This is where you don't want to get.
You get there by saying the same thing over and over again in the
face of reasoned criticism. At some point in every discussion with
a physicist, an engineer, whatever, it will get to the point where
they will say, "hummm interesting, I'll have to think about that a
bit" or "good point, let's analyze it from that perspective." Having
read through a lot of the discussion on other sites, you have never
done that. So at the moment you are waving the crackpot flag. You
can fix that.
3. The Mythbusters people consider themselves to be serving a pedagogic
purpose. So when they consider your video, they're thinking, "what sort
of lesson can we teach with this?" So you should have a really good
lesson in mind and then do everything to position yourselves to be
the vehicle for that lesson. At present, the trouble is that you are most
obviously positioned to be used to teach the "here's how to recognise
and avoid a charlatan" lesson. And if they go this way, they'll be merciless.
And even if you think you can stand up to them in person, you will
be destroyed in the editing room. So unless that's what you want -- and
why squander your 15 minutes being torn apart as a bad example? -- you'll
need to fix it soon.
4. Avoid getting into a rut. Everyone has seen the treadmill. Get a wind tunnel
video going. A cart falling into an updraft. A RC glider powered by a little
prop. A boat. At the moment you're in grave danger of turning into hamsterdance.
Anyway, good luck with your project!
I can see now that DWFTTW is pretty much the same thing as upwind travel. I also now fully accept that there's no trickery in your video, nor are there violations of any physical laws.
Sailboats regularly travel into the wind (albeit at a tack angle) so there's nothing new about this. In fact, for a sailboat to travel downwind faster than the wind they would initially travel almost crosswind and build up speed to faster than the wind speed (even though the downwind component of their speed is still less than the wind). They then steer their boat to point more downwind, using their inertia to make their downwind component faster than the wind, and overcoming the 'dead area' where the relative wind speed in either direction is too slow to power the sails. This creates a strong enough headwind (from the boat's frame of reference) and they re-angle their sails to use the relative headwind as their energy source, accelerating them even faster. Eventually they reach an equilibrium and a terminal velocity, but it's faster than the tailwind.
Thanks for joining the thread and for your explanations. Well done.
Also, there is nothing "perpetual motion"-like about this demonstration. It's a little counter-intuitive, but so is the concept of boats sailing upwind...yet they do it every day.
Three other items in the "If You Want To Be Taken Seriously" department:
Make sure you've got "your" and "you're" straight, even if it means going slower.
Don't say, "Think about it" so much - it implies that your audience hasn't been thinking, which is kind of insulting.
Don't sign your blog posts in addition to the signature line that's automatically added - you wouldn't sign a letter twice, or call yourself Dr. Mr. Smith.
Kevin, thanks for your time and advice:
1: I use this AOL address only for internet conversation and such -- it's a "garbage" address that I don't mind changing when spam gets too heavy for a given address.
2: I truly don't follow. I understand that "crackpot" is applied to our project often, but I do have one key advantage in that battle -- the fact that the device does exactly what we say it does no matter who builds in and tests it.
3:
A: This isn't about "15 minutes". I am an executive in the TV broadcast business and have in the past worked personally and am in current contact with one of the long-time Executive Producers of MythBusters. I have personally been the focus of a full hour sports related program previosly aired on Discovery Channel so my "15 minutes" has long ago come and gone. My partner has an even longer media resume and 2 Emmy's to his name. Still good generic advice, but not applicable in this case.
B: I have no need to "stand up to them in person" and have no fear of being "destroyed in the editing room" as the producers of MythBusters have more integrity than that -- If the device does what I say it does .. and it does, they will not attempt to hide that fact. If it fails -- and it never does, they will happily show that as well.
4: Think about the wind tunnel suggestion. No, really -- think about it before you suggest it again.
Thanks for wishes of luck -- any idea, good or not takes a bit of that to get on air.
Best wishes.
JB
OK, I thought about it. Now I suggest, again, that you set it up
and get a video of the results. What's the problem? Glider with
turbine was the throwaway.
Hi Kevvin, glad you though again. :-)
This device goes *downwind* at wind speed or faster. Wind tunnels are designed to test devices that go *upwind. Windtunnels are in short, treadmills for such devices.
Our device would need to be run the 'wrong way' in the wind tunnel and thus just smash itself into the back wall of the facility before even given a chance to get up to speed, let alone be tested.
So, given that a wind-tunnel is nothing more than a treadmill for upwind devices, allowing them to sit still, instrumented and observed without chasing them around, what would be the equivalent 'treadmill for devices operating at or near the speed of the wind?' -- turns out it's not a wind tunnel, but a treadmill in a still air room.
JB
Monkeyfilter: you're in grave danger of turning into hamsterdance
Our device would need to be run the 'wrong way' in the wind tunnel and thus just smash itself into the back wall of the facility before even given a chance to get up to speed, let alone be tested.
And I submit that your device would travel into the wind and bump itself into the front wall of the facility. Think about what direction the wind would turn your prop and how that would affect the drive wheels.
Haha. A device running downwind faster than the wind is seeing
a relative headwind. A wind tunnel provides a relative headwind.
Device should function.
Anyway, it's not that I'm going to argue this with you. But if
you really are in constructive discussions with some producers,
what I'm saying is that your presentation is no longer fresh.
I would love to see you on the air so my suggestion is to make
it fresh again. A series of "look how it fails in some other
situations" videos would help.
[Assuming you're not r88 in troll mode, which occam would say you are.]
Rocket88:
>And I submit that your device would
>travel into the wind and bump itself
>into the front wall of the facility.
>Think about what direction the wind
>would turn your prop and how that
>would affect the drive wheels.
Absolutely it will -- if I change the advance ratio of the prop by gearing, it will travel straight upwind and hit the front of the facility.
But that's hardly an interesting problem or device since you can buy childs pinwheel powered cart toys that are designed to go upwind.
JB
Kevvin:
>Haha. A device running downwind faster than
>the wind is seeing
>a relative headwind. A wind tunnel
>provides a relative headwind.
>Device should function.
With a change of gearing, devise *does* function in a 'directly upwind' manner -- but again, that's an entirely different problem. Just ask sailors -- they've been able to travel upwind for many centuries, but only recently have they been able to beat the wind VMG on a downwind leg.
Two different problems, two different mechanical solutions, two different testing procedures required.
JB
"you can buy childs pinwheel powered cart toys that are
designed to go upwind."
No you can't.
In addition to keeping the argument fresh, you should also
consider avoiding trivially falsifiable statements. Again, even
if there's a great idea in the center, if it's surrounded by
obvious wrongness your audience may never get there.
But that's hardly an interesting problem or device since you can buy childs pinwheel powered cart toys that are designed to go upwind.
And that's exactly what you have. Take a close look at your device and (without changing gears or prop angles) determine which way the prop will turn in a tailwind. Now what way is it turning when you run the treadmill? See my point?
The cart is symmetric. It should run on the treadmill facing
forward or back. If not, then there should be a video explaining
why not and showing the failure.
Keep it fresh. Science loves "failed" experiments. Google
"Michelson–Morley". Utter failure. Michelson got a Nobel
for it.
Me:
>"you can buy childs pinwheel powered
>cart toys that are designed to go
>upwind."
Kevvin:
>No you can't.
Give me a bit and I'll go search through a recent thread where a Finn or Swede posted a link to just such a toy for sale in Europe.
>In addition to keeping the argument
>fresh, you should also consider
>avoiding trivially falsifiable
>statements.
And you might want to avoid confusing your mere assertion with falsifying a statement.
With work I can prove my statement correct ... you can never prove your true because it would require proving a negative -- just because you can't find one doesn't mean they aren't sold.
Perhaps I'll be able to find my link to support my assertion and perhaps I won't -- and if I don't your call of BS will carry a bit more weight.
JB
Rocket88:
>And that's exactly what you have.
Nope.
>Take a close look at your device and
>(without changing gears or prop angles)
>determine which way the prop will turn
>in a tailwind.
With the cart geared for DDWFTTW and looking from the rear, if you hold the cart with the wheels off the ground, the 'prop' will act as a turbine and the prop will spin CCW (and the wheels backward). If you place the cart on the ground in the tailwind the prop will NOT spin CCW, but will rather be forced by the wheels to spin CW as the wind begins to blow the cart downwind.
With different gearing, the prop *would* begin to spin CCW in the tailwind and the device would drive itself upwind.
>Now what way is it turning when
>you run the treadmill?
The direction it always turns when geared for DDWFTTW -- CW when viewed from the rear.
>See my point?
No.
JB
Sorry. I was way too curt. The point is while you may be able to
buy a pinwheel cart that moves forward in a wind, you won't find
one that moves forward -directly- into the wind. For exactly the
same reasons it is claimed your cart won't move -directly- downwind
faster than the wind. If you can show your cart moving directly forward
in a wind tunnel, you will cause everyone to shut up and take notice.
>"And you might want to avoid confusing your mere
> assertion with falsifying a statement. "
Meh. I'm not trying to get on television with my idea. I'm trying
to help -you- get on television with yours. If it's going to work,
you're going to have to be ready to handle, and handle with grace,
mere assertions, irrelevant factoids, and internet goofballs.
Something else that might help: try pulling together a story about
the first couple of prototype carts that failed to work. Whether or
not there was a struggle, you should give the appearance of a struggle.
People love a narrative. Make up something about the quest for the
perfect mitre gear on the axle. Maybe you finally found it after days
of phone calls to a crazyman supplier in Taiwan. Or had to tear apart
your kid's old Tickle-Me-Elmo and got busted at 1am when it started
squawking. Whatever, it's all about the narrative.
What I'm missing here (and maybe it's because I've seen way too many 7th grade science projects) is where is the experiment that proves the hypothesis? One that doesn't use a treadmill as a surrogate, but uses natural wind at a measured velocity and employs a device that travels downwind at a measured speed and proves or disproves the notion?
If you can build it, do so!
Kevvin:
>Sorry. I was way too curt.
No harm, I have a habit of that myself.
>The point is while you may be able to buy a
>pinwheel cart that moves forward in a wind,
>you won't find one that moves forward -
>directly- into the wind. For exactly the
>same reasons it is claimed your cart won't
>move -directly- downwind faster than the wind.
>If you can show your cart moving directly
>forward in a wind tunnel, you will cause
>everyone to shut up and take notice.
You can't be serious kevvin -- are you with a straight face telling me that a simple turbine-geared-to-the-wheels powered cart can't move *directly* into the wind?
Next you'll tell me that you can't put a fan on the deck of a sailboat, aim it forward at a simple curved sail and move the boat foward.
I am truly fascinated by how far behind you are in the physics world. I'm so astonished that I would ask you to confirm that you believe one or both of the above scenarios are impossible according to the laws of physics.
JB
RalphTheDog:
>What I'm missing here is where is
>the experiment that proves the
>hypothesis?
First let me say that I would never consider the videos that we have posted as "proof" of anything -- there are far too many ways to cheat. This is why we want the MythBuster's to do a segment -- people don't always agree with their results, but they don't often accuse them of cheating to obtain them.
However, those that understand the physics of the cart can see that there is no *need* to cheat because there are no laws being broken -- just basic sailing principles packaged in a clever and unintuitive way.
>One that doesn't use a treadmill as a
>surrogate, but uses natural wind at a
>measured velocity and employs a device
>that travels downwind at a measured speed
>and proves or disproves the notion?
The treadmill is no "surrogate", but rather the most accurate and controlled way to demonstrate the principle. Having said that, we know that many people have problems understanding the equivalency of intertial frames and thus we have done and will continue to document outdoor tests. We have agreed between us to not release any outdoor documentation until we learn if the MythBusters has truly taken this on as a segment (Adam has said it's in the hopper). If it's going to be on their show, we sort of want to let them show the surprise.
If they choose not to pick it up, we'll show our own round of tests.
>If you can build it, do so!
Already did.
JB
> Next you'll tell me that you can't put a fan on the deck of a
> sailboat, aim it forward at a simple curved sail and move the boat
> forward.
ha!
Kevvin:
>Ha!
Ha back! LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CrXvOKPymk
A fan pointed at a sail is nothing more than a simple thrust reverser -- jet planes use them nearly every landing.
Shall I now show you turbine powered carts going directly upwind or do you cry "uncle"?
JB
Clever! That's what I meant by keeping it fresh.
Yes, please do show the cart in the wind tunnel!
>If you can build it, do so!
Already did.
Not that you have shown us. If you have built such a device, please do show us, show verification of wind speed, your vehicle's speed, and an independent observer's confirmation that what you are showing is truthful. Until this thread I had never heard of "Mythbusters" or whatever the hell it is and do not care one way or another if you ever get on that television program. What I am interested in is your claim, which sounds fascinating, but which you have not yet proven using the scientific method. And until you do, you fall into the category of blowhard.
And for those of you playing at home, the trick here
is that thrust reversers don't actually "reverse" thrust. They
stuff up the engine with unmoving air creating a large increase
in drag, which slows down the plane. If you start up a jet engine
with the thrust reversers deployed, it won't move backwards... :)
With the cart geared for DDWFTTW and looking from the rear, if you hold the cart with the wheels off the ground, the 'prop' will act as a turbine and the prop will spin CCW (and the wheels backward). If you place the cart on the ground in the tailwind the prop will NOT spin CCW, but will rather be forced by the wheels to spin CW as the wind begins to blow the cart downwind.
Have you tried this? Where can I watch the video of this happening?
I'm still not sure what you claim to have discovered or invented here that is noteworthy. Are you claiming perpetual motion? (I hope not, or I'll be sorry I ever engaged you seriously). Are you claiming that if you plonk your device down on a windy day it will accelerate from zero to some faster-than-wind speed? Because that ain't going to happen either.
My suspicion is that you're demonstrating an already well known aerodynamic phenomenon.
Kevvin:
>Clever! That's what I meant by keeping it fresh.
In this case, it's not really that we're "keeping it fresh", it just us trying to bring you up from the depths of stale. This is not new technology by any means.
Kevvin:
And for those of you playing at home, the
trick here is that thrust reversers don't
actually "reverse" thrust.
For those playing at home, it's becoming more and more clear that Kevvin will say stuff on a whim that just isn't true -- like the above and the following.
>If you start up a jet engine with the
>thrust reversers deployed, it won't move >backwards... :)
Nonsense. Thrust reverser on the typical plane produce plenty of thrust to move the plane backwards. Commercial planes don't use them to back away from the gates for several reasons -- noise, fuel consumption and primarly safety (if the reverser fails with the engine spooled up, the plane goes into the terminal and there's too much danger of ingesting debris when done near spaces occupied by people).
For those playing at home -- unlike Kevvin, when I make an assertion, I'm pretty good at backing it up with evidence:
C17 Cargo specs
Excerpt from above link:
"The engines are equipped with directed-flow thrust reversers capable of deployment in flight. On the ground, a fully loaded aircraft, using engine reversers, can back up a two percent slope."
C5A backing procedures
Excerpt from above link:
"Backing the airplane with reverse thrust is an option to consider only under emergency circumstances in order to preserve the airplane."
Wikipedia
Excerpt from above link:
"Thrust reverse is effective at any aircraft speed, and, if circumstances require, can be used all the way to a stop, or even to provide thrust to push the aircraft backward, though aircraft tugs or towbars are more commonly used for that purpose."
SAAB Viggen backing with thrust reversers
I'll get to the 'directly upwind' carts in my next post Kevvin.
JB
As I said:
>"you're going to have to be ready to handle, and handle with grace,
> mere assertions, irrelevant factoids, and internet goofballs."
You're failing the grace part.
Kevvin:
>Yes, please do show the cart in the wind tunnel!
Since Y'all like the outdoors so much, I'll do you one better -- I'll show you some of those.
They actually just recently finished a race in which the challenge was to built wind powered 'cars' that would drive directly into the wind on a 5.3km course.
Excerpt from the above link:
"In this first time ever race the participating teams were challenged to drive directly into the wind, without tacking. During the preliminary races, the Stuttgart Ventomobile had already proven to be the most lightweight and most efficient vehicle among the contestants when, with its 130 kg, it succeeded in racing at 64% of the wind speed directly against the wind.
More on the race
The cart that won
One shot of the race
Kevin:
>The point is while you may be able to
>buy a pinwheel cart that moves forward
>in a wind, you won't find one that moves
>forward -directly- into the wind. For
>exactly the same reasons it is claimed
>your cart won't move -directly- downwind
>faster than the wind.
Well then, since such carts can travel directly into the wind at a very significant rate, that "exact same reason" is no longer valid now, is it.
Ok, Kevvin ... I'm through with this little game of 'kevvin makes an assertion that's just nonsense and JB hunts down the evidence to prove him wrong'. Windpowered carts go straight upwind. A fan blowing an a sail can actually move you forward. Thrust reversers actually reverse thrust and allow a plane to backup. etc, etc.
I think I've proven my point -- you simply say too much that's just demonstrably wrong for you to be any fun.
I'm going to focus my time on those who can string together better questions.
Best wishes.
JB
Kevvin:
>You're failing the grace part.
More importantly, you're failing the "does it break the laws of physics" part.
JB
Gotta commute. Catch y'all later. When I return I'll get back to some of the good points that have been raised and questions asked.
JB
I have to admit that this thread has made my thinking gears turn... and that's a good thing in this place
>"More importantly, you're failing the "does it break the laws of physics" part. "
Why is that important? The goal is to get you on television.
I'm enjoying this discussion very much, especially since, for the most part, everyone is keeping it civil while having (omg!) some form of thoughtful exchange of ideas.
>"directly into the wind on a 5.3km course."
As the oblique angle of the fan on the car, as well as the
direction of the banner flapping in the final frames makes,
clear that was an onshore wind and the car was traveling at
an angle to it.
It is certainly conceivable to produce a fan-powered cart which
travels directly into a wind: brake vehicle, use fan to charge
battery/flywheel/something, unbrake vehicle, discharge stored
energy through wheels, lurch forward, repeat.
Me:
>"More importantly, you're failing the
>"does it break the laws of physics" part. "
Kevin:
>Why is that important? The goal is to
>get you on television.
No Kevvin, the goal is not to get "me" on TV. I work in TV so that isn't a particular thrill for me.
The goal is to get MythBuster's to do a segment on this physics brainteaser for reasons I have previously stated in this thread.
Onward.
JB
>"The goal is to get MythBuster's to do a segment ..."
Yeah; what I meant.
My goal is to get you to stop sounding like that time cube guy so
you have a shot at it.
Rocket:
>Are you claiming perpetual motion? (I
>hope not, or I'll be sorry I ever engaged
>you seriously).
Absolutely not. When the wind stops, the device stops.
>My suspicion is that you're demonstrating
>an already well known aerodynamic phenomenon.
There's nothing even "phenomenal" here, but the principle are very well known. As describe in my second post on this forum there are only established sailing principles involved here, packaged as they are in an unfamiliar package.
JB
Me:
>With the cart geared for DDWFTTW and looking
>from the rear, if you hold the cart with the
>wheels off the ground, the 'prop' will act as
>a turbine and the prop will spin CCW (and the
>wheels backward). If you place the cart on the
>ground in the tailwind the prop will NOT spin
>CCW, but will rather be forced by the wheels
>to spin CW as the wind begins to blow the cart
>downwind.
Rocket88:
>Have you tried this? Where can I watch
>the video of this happening?
If your asking if I have the precise video showing me holding the cart off the ground, the prop spinning CCW and then setting it down and letting the wind blow it downwind turning it CW, the answer is 'close, but not exactly in that perfect sequence'. That would be a interesting demo and so if it's breezy tomorrow I will take one of my carts out to the parking lot at work and film that for you and post it.
What I DO have right now, is this related video.
This particular video contains 5 different demonstrations, only the first two are relevent to your question.
The first 6 seconds of video show the cart self starting, prop spinning CW (from the rear) and beginning to move downwind in a steady light breeze. In this video we have wide rubber bands stretched around the hard plastic wheels for better traction. We took this video just to demonstrate to a member of another forum that in a breeze, the prop would truly spin CW.
At the 8 second mark, we begin a new test -- similar to the above, only this time I wanted to let the cart run for longer and show it gaining more speed on it's own (remember, this part of the video isn't a demonstration of DDWFTTW, but rather just a demo of the cart self-starting in a breeze). The cart in this test no longer has the rubber bands that were once stretched around the wheels -- they had fallen off by now.
I'll walk you through the next few seconds in detail: (as an explanatory note, the wind has become more gusty by now)
0:12
As the breeze first touches the cart, the cart moves forward about an inch driving the prop perhaps a quarter turn CW
0:13 - 0:14
The gust builds rapidly, breaking the wheels limited traction and causing the prop to spin CCW (briefly becoming a turbine). During this time you can see the wheels also spinning backward against the pavement surface. (Notice the strength of the gust judged by the leaves blowing by).
0:15
As the cart gains speed and the strength of the gust lessens, the cart sees less relative wind from the rear and the props desire to 'turbine' are overcome by the friction of the wheels and the prop and wheels reverse direction. The cart is now in normal DDWFTTW mode and accelerates down the street. Any changes in seemed prop direction from this point on are caused by frame rate issues.
Now, I know this isn't exactly what you asked me for, but it *does* show the battle that goes on during the starting process between the prop initally wanting to 'turbine (CCW) and the wheels wanting to drive it as a simple prop (CW).
Again, I'll try to get the requested video for you tomorrow, but know that I'll be limited by weather.
JB
PS:
The third demo on that video is just showing the treadmill level and set to full speed (10mph). The cart in this situation is trying very hard to drive off the top of the treadmill and I have to keep pushing it backward. Every time I push it back it is going slower than the wind and every time it comes back up, it is going faster than the wind.
The fourth test is showing the cart climbing our treadmill on its steepest setting (~4.5 degrees).
The fifth test shows the slowest setting our cart will beat the wind at(2.7mph).
>"What I DO have right now, is this related video."
Link is borked. This works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWSan2CMgos
We're getting paid for this, right?
Thanks to Kevvin for posting the correct link to my referred to video. I'll also give it another try.
JB
Rocket88:
>Are you claiming that if you plonk
>your device down on a windy day it
>will accelerate from zero to some
>faster-than-wind speed?
If you're referring to *downwind*, that's precisely what the device does. Since it's not of interest to us, we have not investigated it's speed capabilities in the upwind direction
>Because that ain't going to happen either.
If you'll specify the reasons why you believe this, I'd be happy to address them.
JB
there are only established sailing principles involved here, packaged as they are in an unfamiliar package
That seems to be the crux of it for me. In other words, you're an industrial designer who has come up with a spiffy new toaster in which the heating elements don't really look like heating elements, but they still perform the same function - to the surprise of those who toast their daily slice...
What's to bust on Myth Busters?
Or rather, *what* is to be "busted" on Myth Busters? What's the myth? If the goal is to get them to do a segment, why should they consider it?
I can't understand how testing this on a treadmill proves anything. Given no wheel slippage, the device is powered from what is effectively an infinite source of energy. It's completely intuitive that the device can move forward, relative to the treadmill. Not moving forward? Simply ratchet up the gearing...
Sugermilktea:
>In other words, you're an industrial designer
>who has come up with a spiffy new toaster in
>which the heating elements don't really look
>like heating elements, but they still perform
>the same function - to the surprise of those
>who toast their daily slice...
Well, the secret to any good myth IS the surprise, and the best myths are those that almost everyone believes and yet turn out to be not true.
In this case most folks, including the most vocal on this tread say that DDWFTTW is impossible and if done would break the laws of physics and constitute some form of 'perpetual motion'. As it happens none of the critics claims are true in this regard.
But in the end, of course it's up to MythBuster's to determine what they consider an airworthy myth. I'm just one of countless others who have offered a suggestion.
JB
Sugarmilktea:
>What's the myth?
"The myth is ... that one cannot build a vehicle that can travel directly downwind, faster than the wind, powered only by the wind, steady state."
JB
flurker:
>I can't understand how testing this
>on a treadmill proves anything.
Check out my posts from 4:27pm and 4:57pm yesterday. There is alway something providing the energy to make "wind" and it doesn't matter if that is the sun or an electric motor.
Think about a sailboat in a giant manmade river that is flowing downstream at 10mph in a calm air day. Just because there are large "unlimited" electric pumps moving the water from the lower end of the river to the upper doesn't mean that a sailboat test on that river is not valid. Everything about that sailboat test would still be legit. Doesn't matter if the sun moves the water or a gas engine -- same to the boat.
>Given no wheel slippage, the device
>is powered from what is effectively
>an infinite source of energy.
And that's no different than out on the street, but you must always think about the 'slippage" of the prop. The wheels can't excert any more force rearward on the car then the prop can excert forwards or it will run off the back of the treadmill (which means it's going slower than the wind).
>It's completely intuitive that the device
>can move forward, relative to the treadmill.
>Not moving forward? Simply ratchet up the >gearing...
I'm glad you find it intuitive -- most folks don't even think it possible to go downwind faster than the wind, let alone find it intuitive. You're one of the few.
JB
I was convinced, before, that the treadmill test, while bone fide, did not validate the road test results. The treadmill test seemed entirely intuitive, and the road test seemed counter. But I now understand that they really are two sides of the same coin, and both are entirely possible. Let me see if I can give a more intuitive explanation of this curiosity.
Short version:
road test: The wheels and the prop are directly connected, obvious. But maybe not so obvious is that the device doesn't have to fight the wind to move. All it needs is air movement over its propeller to turn it, which then turns the wheels. When the wheels turn, the device moves, regardless of what the wind is doing.
Long version:
a) treadmill test: imagine the device on the treadmill, but this time it is strapped in place, so that the device does not move forward or backward. While the treadmill runs, you measure the prop output (thrust). Next, imagine changing the gearing 10 fold, or 100 fold, so now, the same tethered device's prop spins 10 or 100 times faster, producing say, 10 or 100 times the original thrust. If released in this state, it's easy to imagine enough push to move it forward.
b) road test: as stated in previous comments, traveling downwind faster than the wind creates a net headwind. This causes the prop to turn, which causes the wheels to turn. That's it! There's no magic. It seems counterintuitive because we're used to thinking about the wind actually directly moving something, like how a sailboat (typically) works, or even leaves blowing about.
One of the confusing parts is labeling it "faster than downwind speed", but this is a misnomer. The device is experiencing air moving over its propeller (in this case a headwind), which naturally causes it to turn. What's the difference which way or how fast the wind is going? We're not fighting against the wind to move, we just need to overcome the friction related to actually rolling the device!
Imagine the original device standing still with no wind, and then a headwind starts. The prop turns, the wheels turn, the device moves. There is no mystery. The only trick to making the "faster than downwind speed" work is to create net headwind, so it does need a little push to get it going faster then the downwind speed.
Ok, final thought: given a clever enough device, you can imagine the propeller dynamically "switching polarity" (forgive my lexical ignorance) such that both a head wind, and a gusty tail wind will drive the device the same way.
Sorry so long, hope this helps.
b) If the wheels don't turn until there is a relative headwind, how does it ever get up to the speed of the wind? I have to push it at wind speed?
This is why the device can only travel faster than the wind, but can never get to that speed on its own if it starts off slower.
Even with a "polarity switching" propellor, the device will sart off in a tailwind just fine, but as it gains ground speed, the relative airspeed decreases. It will reach a slower-than-the-wind terminal velocity.
Add some external power to accelerate it past the slow tailwind -> static air -> slow headwind sections, and switch the prop polarity, and now it will be self-powered again into the relative headwind. Again, it will reach a terminal velocity because drag and friction are proportional to speed, keeping it from accelerating into the headwind forever.
So its is useless. Wow. We've spent a lot of energy on this little triffle. So, I say we get back to our forte, dogs in shawls.
yep :)
>The only trick to making the "faster than downwind speed" work is to create net headwind, so it does need a little push to get it going faster then the downwind speed.
I have thought of another problem. One of the videos shows a cart going faster and faster in the direction of the wind. This is problematic because, based on my assertions above, it implies that even as the cart moves faster, the headwind remains. At some point this can only be true if the wind relative to the ground switches direction (i.e. a true headwind), which then violates the spirit of the original premise of a tailwind.
Still, in principle, I believe it is possible to generate forward movement "in a tailwind", provided you start the device faster than the tailwind.
>keeping it from accelerating into the headwind forever
Yes, this is correct. I suspect the original video is a sham, and the device is being pulled. But, it is possible given changing wind conditions.
I still think I'm right regarding my original reply; the treadmill can provide unlimited power to drive the device, while a simple headwind can not, unless the headwind continually increases.
I don't think it's a sham. The propellor is generating thrust which pushes the device forward. No big deal.
I think a slower treadmill wouldn't generate enough thrust for the thing to work and a faster treadmill would increase friction enough to overcome the thrust.
They've found the sweet spot where the friction and the thrust are just right to make the thing work.*
*Blatant tagline bait.
*sigh*
Monkeyfilter: the sweet spot where the friction and the thrust are just right to make the thong work.
By original video, I meant this road test, not the treadmill test. Either way, the "test" needs to be done under controlled circumstances. I don't think this is worthy of Mythbusters effort since it's easily explainable, but I guess JB thinks so.
Monkeyfilter: the sweet spot where the fiction and the trust are just right to make the thang work.
Flurker, I appreciate the effort you put into your post dated Dec. 11 3:26am. You are however significantly off on several points, the most important one being the one you mark as "B".
flurker:
>as stated in previous comments, traveling
>downwind faster than the wind creates a
>net headwind. This causes the prop to turn,
>which causes the wheels to turn.
Ralphthedog then responds with an excellent and obvious question to your position:
>If the wheels don't turn until there is
>a relative headwind, how does it ever get
>up to the speed of the wind? I have to push
>it at wind speed?
The cart will pass from below wind speed to above wind speed on it's own without being pushed and it doesn't have to wait until there is a headwind to begin powering the wheels. Remember that the prop sees only wind *relative* to itself, not the wind relative to the cart chassis. That means that while the chassis sees a 180 degree switch in wind direction as it passed through TWS, the prop sees only an infinitesimally small change in angle at that same moment.
Here is a diagram showing the relative wind seen by the propsail at the exact speed of the wind as well as at VMGs below and above wind speed.
Notice that the cart chassis will see wind directly from the rear at the red line, and wind directly from the front at the green line, while the prop sail only sees a minor change in wind at these two points.
Since our fixed prop and gearing setup don't allow us to change neither the path or angle of the sail dynamically (as one could on a sailboat), we much simply choose an airfoil shape that works over a reasonable range of angles and set that airfoil angle to whatever range we wish to optimize for.
If we try to optimize for too high a speed, then we might well have to push it up to the speed where the airfoil begins to produce sufficient lift.
As it turns out, it's not that difficult to find middle ground where it will run both below and above the speed of the wind.
JB
*taps babel fish*
*leaves thread*
flurker:
>Either way, the "test" needs to be
>done under controlled circumstances.
I agree completely.
>I don't think this is worthy of Mythbusters
>effort since it's easily explainable, but I
>guess JB thinks so.
I do think so, but of course what I think isn't important to MythBusters. I'm sure they have a far better grasp of what their viewers wish to see than I do.
JB
A headwind turns a propeller one way, providing movement (via the fixed geared wheels), while a tailwind turns the same prop the other way, providing movement in the opposite directions. Short of "polarity switching" gearing, I can't see how what you've said makes any sense.
Mockeyfitler: the sweat spot where the affliction and the lust are just right to make the shwing berserk.
Flurker, if you allow the blades to spin free, a turbine will indeed reverse direction when the wind switches. Likewise, if you take the keel off of a sailboat but leave the sail on it will also reverse direction when the wind switches.
Put a keel back on a sailboat and the sail no longer reverses with the wind. You can now happily continue on to your original destination when the wind switches.
Place the same keel constraint on the cart's sails and you get the same result -- they no longer reverse.
Literally, the tips of the prop are the same as the tip of a sailboat sail and the keel constraint is accomplished through the gearing. If you have figured out how a sailboat works, this works the *exactly* the same way.
JB
>I don't think this is worthy of Mythbusters
>effort since it's easily explainable, but I
>guess JB thinks so.
Well there are thousands of posts on many forums over the past three years where this has been hotly debated. There are also plenty of PhD's and even professors of Physics, Aero, and Mech E. that are certain it can't be done.
I can't imagine the Mythbusters passing on this because it isn't controversial enough.
spork
Dang, I didn't know all this action was going on in here!
JB, thanks for stopping by. I hope you stick around (but please stop signing your posts. It irritates the natives).
I completely understand where you coming from when you describe relative motion for getting wind by putting the vehicle on a treadmill. Here's my problem with it though. You keep calling it a prop, short for propellor. Is it the source of propulsion thrust? Like on a boat? or a hovercraft? It seems like the wheels are turning the propellor, which then thrusts the vehicle forward. I think that's where some people are coming from when they say it's treadmill powered. It seems like the wheels are the energy harness with the prop as the thrust source, instead of the prop being the energy harness with the wheels and the thrust source. It appears that the prop operates *exactly* like a hovercraft works, not like a sailboat.
I can think of a test that would completely convince me (as I said upthread before you showed up, DWFTTW doesn't seem counter-intuitive to me). Have the vehicle suspended in air so the wheels can spin freely. Use a fan on the prop (that's such a bad term to continue using if it isn't the thrust source). The wheels should spin. Clock the RPMs of the wheels. Multiply by the wheels circumference should give you the speed. Compare against the speed of a fan (I have no idea how one measures the speed of a fan, or any wind, actually, but I bet that it isn't hard to measure, or to locate a fan with that spec known).
I guess many people prefer video of things in action. It's a showier demonstration. But the test above seems (to me) like it would be more conclusive for the skeptics.
But, Mr. K, your experiment would have no drag, hence the speed of the turning wheels is irrelevant.
With the wheels suspended, and a fan blowing from the rear, the prop will turn in the opposite direction that you see it turn on the treadmill. This is because the wheels provide the torque that turns the prop when on the treadmill (or in a tailwind on stationary ground).
This should not be confused with the idea that the wheels necessarily provide the power. The prop pushes the cart foward, and the wheels respond by turning, and thus applying a torque to the prop to make it turn opposite the direction the wind is trying to turn it.
This is true for all downwind speeds, from a standing start, up to and beyond faster than the wind downwind.
Knick:
>Here's my problem with it though. You
>keep calling it a prop, short for
>propellor.
Yes, it's a propeller. There is a clear way to distinguish between a prop and a turbine -- look at the direction the fluid flows though the spinning blades. On a turbine, the flow is from the high pressure side to the low pressure. On a prop, the flow is from the low pressure to the high pressure.
On our device, the air flows through that spinny pinwheel thingy from front to back, from low pressure to high pressure and thus it's clearly a prop.
>It seems like the wheels are turning
>the propellor, which then thrusts the
>vehicle forward
The gearing from the wheels to the prop literally provides the same constraint that a keel provides on a sailboat, the same constraint that skates provide on a ice-boat, the same constraint that wheels provide on a land-yacht. Let's take a sailboat on a 45d broad reach. The keel forces the sail to go 1ft to the side for every foot that the sail goes downwind. On the cart, the gearing ensures the same thing -- forcing the propsail to go 1ft to the side for every 1ft it goes downwind.
>It seems like the wheels are the energy
>harness with the prop as the thrust source,
>instead of the prop being the energy harness
>with the wheels and the thrust source. It appears
>that the prop operates *exactly* like a hovercraft
>works, not like a sailboat.
There is a trap here you are falling into and it's a common one. When it comes to a device (any device) powered by the relative motion of two mediums, to call one medium the "thrust source" or 'energy source' is just not correct. Is a sailboat wind powered or water powered? Is a watermellon seed squeezed between the fingers and popped across the room powered by the thumb or the forefinger? It's easy to show that all such examples are powered *equally* by both mediums -- any other conclusion is merely bookeeping.
Relative to each other, a sailboat reduces the kinetic energy of both the air and the water *equally* and uses that energy to cruise to points beyond. Likewise, the cart reduces the kinetic energy of both the air and whatever rolling surface you choose to set it on (street or treadmill) and it also does so equally. It's impossible to reduce this kinetic energy *unequally*, because of the well known "for each action there must be an equal and opposite reaction" constraint.
The test you describe is 100% inapplicable. It assumes that the prop is acting as a turbine, and it's not.
JB
There is a trap here you are falling into and it's a common one. When it comes to a device (any device) powered by the relative motion of two mediums, to call one medium the "thrust source" or 'energy source' is just not correct. Is a sailboat wind powered or water powered? Is a watermellon seed squeezed between the fingers and popped across the room powered by the thumb or the forefinger? It's easy to show that all such examples are powered *equally* by both mediums -- any other conclusion is merely bookeeping.
This is incorrect. A sailboat is wind powered, not water powered. Your watermelon seed analogy doesn't apply. Your device on the treadmill in your video is 100 percent treadmill powered. The treadmill is the only energy source in the system. Everything else is converting that energy into various kinetic energies, wind pressures, and heat (from friction losses). The results of your treadmill powered experiment can't be applied to a wind-powered equivalent.
Energy conversions are not bidirectional. You can't run them in one direction and claim that all results would apply equally in the other direction. For example, if I use 200W of electrical power to turn a motor at 1000 rpm, I can't claim that applying 1000 rpm to the motor (as a dynamo) will generate 200W of electricity. Friction losses aside, all conversions move from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state, and thus can't be simply reversed.
Rocket:
>A sailboat is wind powered,
>not water powered.
That's really interesting Rocket. Allow me to setup a scenario and then ask a related question.
The forcast has called for a winds to be calm and the forcast is correct. You are floating down the Mississippi in your sailboat with your sails stowed. The river is flowing at 10mph.
You're hot and thirsty and you know there is a bar on the banks of the river 10 miles downstream. What's the fastest way to get to the bar?:
A: leave your sails stowed and drift the entire 1 hour trip to the bar?
B: hoist your sails in an attempt to speed your trip to the cold refreshement?
JB
Again with the Imperial...
Capt. Renault
You changed the scenario by making it a river (i.e. You added anither energy source, the kinetic energy of the water). Try it with a lake.
Better yet, let me ask you this: Is a land sailer (on wheels) wind powered or road powered?
Rocket's right. And what if the bar were upstream? Then the river is a source of drag, not propulsion.
Not sure why you didn't wish to answer the question, but I'll answer it for you.
The correct answer is -- B: hoist your sails
The thirsty sailors on our boat see a 10mph headwind across the bow, in spite of it being a calm day. If they hoist the sails and tack downriver, they will get to the bar in much less than the 1 hr drift would have taken.
Rocket:
>You changed the scenario by making it a river
Yes I did, and I did that do demonstrate that a sail boat is NOT wind powered as you claim, but rather is powered by the relative movement between wind and water.
If the air moves and the water is still, we can set sail. If the water moves and the air is still, we can set sail just as effectively. The sailboat doesn't know the difference.
>Try it with a lake.
Excellent idea, how about we try it with a *very big* lake called the ocean.
On your sailboat mid Pacific and you've been becalmed for several days. Awakened early one morning by the brisk rocking of the boat you rush up on deck, hoping a change in the weather has arrived. All the indicators on your boat are pointing South and indicating 10mph. "Lucky me" you think -- "south is just the direction I wanted to go." You excitedly set your spinnaker (or other sail of choice) and smile as the wind fills it.
And now the question(s):
*Without external reference*, how do you know that you have air blowing to the south at 10mph and not an ocean current pushing the boat at 10mph to the north?
How do you know if the boat is wind powered or water powered? Can you feel the difference? Does the boat behave differently? Can you instrument the boat in such a way that you can tell? Is there any experiment you can perform to answer my question?
JB
Rocket:
>Better yet, let me ask you this: Is
>a land sailer (on wheels) wind powered
>or road powered?
As previously stated, it is powered equally by both. This is one of the most basic tenets of physics.
If I build a giant dry lake bed that I can move around at will and place a land sailor and craft in the middle, the craft and the sailor can spend the entire day scooting around in the blowing silt and neither will be able to tell if the wind is actually blowing or if I'm simply shifting the lake bed around on a day that is calm.
It the exact same situation as the ocean and sailboat example -- without external reference, *there is no way to know*.
It's just the way it is with inertial frames of reference -- they are absolutely indistinguishable from one another.
JB
That's easy. First question: Can I feel the difference? No.
Second:Does the boat behave differently? Yes. If it's a south-blowing wind the boat goes south. If it's a north-going current the boat goes north.
Third and fourth: Yes, I can throw a buoy overboard and check its motion relative to the boat. If I'm in a current there will be none. If I'm in a wind the buoy will fall behind me.
Also the ocean current is an energy source. Why do you keep adding these?
Ralphthedog:
>Rocket's right.
He can't be right OR wrong -- as he never answered the question.
JB
So next you're going to say that your wheeled land sailer is powered by the rotation of the earth?
Rocket:
>Better yet, let me ask you this: Is
>a land sailer (on wheels) wind powered
>or road powered?
As previously stated, it is powered equally by both. This is one of the most basic tenets of physics.
You're starting to get a little ridiculous, and constantly changing the question by adding your own variables.
I asked if a land boat on actual non-moveable land is powered by the wind or by the land.
"You changed the scenario by making it a river (i.e. You added anither energy source, the kinetic energy of the water)."
Ah - but this changes nothing. You assume the lake is still and the river is moving. But Galileo, Newton, and Einstein tell us there is no such thing as any absolute notion of what is still and what is moving. Things only move relative to other arbitrary things we choose to measure them against.
We can say a sailboat is water powered, wind powered, or both. It simply depends what we choose to measure its speed relative to.
Rocket:
>I asked if a land boat on actual
>non-moveable land is powered by
>the wind or by the land.
But the land is ALWAYS moving -- do you think the earth is sitting still?
That's the point.
JB
Yes, and relative to the sun, you are travelling 29.658 km/s right now. But most of us who travel the earth are interested in our speed relative to the road underneath us, and the road isn't moving.
JB, sit still in the middle of the road and tell me how long it will take you to get to work.
Are you claiming that the earth's rotation or orbital motion are contributing power sources to a sailboat?
>But the land is ALWAYS moving -- do you think the earth is sitting still? That's the point.
This is a troll, no?
Monkeyfilter: sit still in the middle of the road and tell me how long it will take you to get to work.
I think we're through here. Let's move on.
Ralphthedog:
>So next you're going to say that
>your wheeled land sailer is powered
>by the rotation of the earth?
Nope, I'm going to keep saying the one and only correct thing -- any object that extracts energy from the relative motion between two objects is extracting energy *equally* from both objects.
It's absolutely impossible to effect one object and not effect the other object equally.
It's the law.
JB
If I'm at the airport, and I stand on one of those really long conveyer belts. I am not treadmill-powered. I am just riding on it. Just like a boat on a river. It's not river powered, just riding on it. A person standing on a boat is not boat-powered, they are just riding on it.
But if, while I'm at the airport, I hold a device stationary against the conveyer belt, and this device (through gears and assembly) turns fan to cool me off, that device is certainly treadmill-powered. That exactly what you have. It's a treadmill-powered fan. It's just a strong enough fan to push itself up the conveyer belt if you let go.
No, no, I thought we were just getting started?!
JB, this is getting tiresome. My car does not extract energy from the road. Quite the opposite: the road is a source of friction that slows my car; were it riding on a cushion of air there would be less friction, my car would move forward with less effort.
The point that you are redundantly and inarticulately trying to put forth is the law of relativity of motion. This is a given, and something we all understand. What R88 and I are trying to get you to see is that if the surface upon which an object travels is static to or contrary to the forward motion of the object, it does not contribute to its energy "equal to the object's energy source"; indeed, it does not contribute energy at all, it reduces the momentum of the object, and in a substantial way.
Also, you don't "effect one object", you affect one object.
my irritation level is revealing itself...
Certainly I must be insane, I am allowing myself to continue in this farcical debate. But we knew that.
Let's look at this lovely statement:
"any object that extracts energy from the relative motion between two objects is extracting energy *equally* from both objects."
Okay. I'll play along. A land sailer is moving across the salt flats directly downwind, and the wind is blowing at a steady 15 MPH. The speed of the land sailer is a bit less, due to drag, but let's not quibble.
So, according to JB's law, both the wind and the salt flats are equally contributing the energy required to move this vessel at < 15 MPH. I don't know what the salt flats are doing, but the JB law says they are doing something equal to a wind force of 15 MPH.
Suddenly, the wind increases to 30 MPH. In order to remain an equal partner, the salt flats must increase their participation. So, they start ... doing something ... in the range of 30 MPH ... and they do...um, what? What do they do? Do the salt flats start retreating toward New Mexico?
The salt flats, the wheels of the vehicle, the drag of the vehicle...these are all constants. The only thing that changed was the wind. But for "the relative motion between two objects ... extracting energy *equally* from both objects" to occur, the salt flats must step up to the change.
I don't think that happens.
Ralph:
>JB, this is getting tiresome.
Ralph, it's just a tiresome for me when you won't read and respond to what I write.
>My car does not extract energy
>from the road.
That's right, it does not.
I specifically stated:
>any object that extracts energy from
>the relative motion between two objects
>is extracting energy *equally* from both
>objects.
Your car doesn't get its power by extracting energy from the relative motion between two objects.
JB
When I opened this post, the wind blew me back in my office chair at least five feet from my beer.
I was thirsty, dangit!
Ralph:
>So, according to JB's law, both the wind and
>the salt flats are equally contributing the
>energy required to move this vessel at < 15 MPH.
>I don't know what the salt flats are doing, but
>the JB law says they are doing something equal
>to a wind force of 15 MPH.
Both the air and the salt flats are losing kinetic energy relative to each other. The land sailor is taking momentum from *both* the air and the entire world and using it to motivate itself across the flats.
It's impossible for the land yacht to affect the momentum of the air without also affecting the momentum of the earth *exactly* the same amount.
It's the law (and not my law BTW)
JB
So if we all drive our cars to California at the same time, we slow the rotation of the earth?
To your insane point, the "land yacht affect(s) the momentum of the air"...
The land yacht does not affect the momentum of the air, the air affects the momentum of the yacht. The air couldn't give a fuck whether there's a yacht in it's path or not. Hey! Let's place a thousand land yachts in the path of the wind. The wind will stop! Bullshit. It will not, it will push the yachts, and any excess wind will find a way around the yacht's sails and move on down the road.
"The land sailor is taking momentum from *both* the air and the entire world and using it to motivate itself across the flats."
Again, this is utter bullshit. The momentum of the entire world is not doing anything to motivate the land sailor across the flats. As I said before, sit your fat ass down on the salt flats for a week, and tell me how much you've moved. Even with a 40 MPH tailwind.
"Again, this is utter bullshit."
If you substitute intuition for physics you guys are right. But in the formalism of physics, work, energy, and momentum have specific meanings that are not governed by out intuition. Energy, like velocity, is a relative quantity. What JB is saying is correct, regardless of whether it seems meaningful intuitively.
I'm reasonably confident that JB will agree this discussion is a tangent that has nothing to do with "how the cart works". It has only to do with the formalism of the bookkeeping when doing the analysis.
"Also, you don't "effect one object", you affect one object."
"The air couldn't give a fuck..."
"Again, this is utter bullshit."
How do you expect people to take you seriously Ralph? I mean seriously - you guys are going to make corrections to minor spelling errors, and whine about people signing their posts, and then come back with rock solid arguments like this!?
It appears discussing basic physics on this forum is a bit like addressing the flat earth society.
Ralph:
>So if we all drive our cars to California
>at the same time, we slow the rotation of
>the earth?
Actually, you affect the momentum of the earth even if you drive to Califoria all by yourself. Every time you walk across the room you do the same. Sorry ... I didn't make the rules.
>The land yacht does not affect the
>momentum of the air, the air affects
>the momentum of the yacht.
One cannot happen without the other -- again, not my rules.
As an interesting note of support, check out this link. It a page from Windpower.org.
Excerpt from start of third paragraph:
"The wind turbine rotor must obviously slow down the wind as it captures its kinetic energy and converts it into rotational energy. This means that the wind will be moving more slowly to the left of the rotor than to the right of the rotor."
You can choose not to believe it and call it "utter BS", but ignorance is a choice and not a necessity. To extract energy from a moving object you must slow it down.
>Hey! Let's place a thousand land
>yachts in the path of the wind.
>The wind will stop!
The layout of wind farms are now carefully studied to optimize the output of the entire farm rather than just the individual turbine. This is because contrary to your opinion, upwind turbines can slow the wind enough to affect the performance of the one in it's shadow.
JB
It is true that when you stand on the ground, the ground is exerting the same amount force against you (directly up) as you are against it (directly down). Otherwise, you'd be sinking. That's Normal Force.
And when a car accelarates, the road exerts force in an equal and opposite direction than the force exerted by tires. Otherwise the road ravel up like a cartoon road.
But a car doesn't recieve energy from the road, the car spends energy on the road. You can't extract energy from Normal Force. A machine that can extract energy from Normal Force would be a perpetual energy machine.
Knickerbocker:
>But a car doesn't recieve energy
>from the road, the car spends energy
>on the road.
Your are absolutely correct. I certainly have never claimed otherwise.
I repeat: An internal combustion engine powered car does not propel itself by extracting energy from the relative motion between the air and the earth. The DDWFTTW cart does (as do sailboats, ice-boats and land-yachts)
JB
JB, extracting energy from Normal Force is perpetual motion. Nothing can do it. You claim to do it.
"JB, extracting energy from Normal Force is perpetual motion. Nothing can do it. You claim to do it."
JB makes no such claim.
Yeah, he claims that cars don't, but his vehicle, and sail boats, ice-boats, and land-yachts all do. Nothing does.
How do you expect people to take you seriously Ralph? I mean seriously - you guys are going to make corrections to minor spelling errors, and whine about people signing their posts...
heh, that's cute. Teenage girls and pre-teen boys sign thier posts. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't like a grown-up?
"heh, that's cute. Teenage girls and pre-teen boys sign thier posts."
Well, I guess you've got me there. Your compelling argument has won me over. I no longer believe my eyes when I see my cart go directly downwind faster than the wind - first hand. And I no longer believe in the most basic laws of physics that most of us hopefully learned in high school.
The level of discussion on this forum is really quite astonishing. You guys seem far more interested in spelling, insults, arcane points of forum etiquette, and misquoting others, than in trying to follow some reasonably straightforward descriptions to learn why you see what you see on a youtube video. I guess it's easier to simply pretend it's not happening.
Good luck with that.
Dude, you complained that you couldn't take us seriously, and in the same breath, defended childlike behavior. Do you want to be taken seriously? Then talk like a grownup. And this isn't about winning you over. It's the reverse. You are here trying to win us over. It's wise to follow community norms while you undertake such a task.
And the science behind the machine maybe totally valid, but descriptions are not "reasonably straightforward". The descriptions are bad science. Movie science levels of bad. Scam levels of bad.
There's four possible reasons that I can see.
1) It's real, you guys understand it, but can't explain the science very well. (Good at science, not good with communication)
2) It's real, but not for the reasons you believe.
3) It's fake, and you know it.
4) It's fake, and you don't know it.
Charitably, we start with reason 1. But when you continue to stand behind the crazy descriptions, it leads people to one of the other reasons. You guys seems sincere, so I think it's a mixture of 2 and 4.
Knicker:
>Yeah, he claims that cars don't, but his
>vehicle, and sail boats, ice-boats, and
>land-yachts all do.
Never, ever have I claimed that. You just continue to strawman and misquote.
JB
Knicker, to support my assertion that you are throw up a strawman (intentionally or not) regarding a "normal force" powereing sailboats, etc. Just read the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force
It's easy to see with only a little attention that the relative motion between two object IS NOT a normal force.
JB
I'm in no one's camp here, I'm just trying to understand what is happening physically. But sorry, RtD, you are actually wrong here:
>>So if we all drive our cars to California at the same time, we slow the rotation of the earth? … The land yacht does not affect the momentum of the air … etc.
Yes, in fact it does. And of course, when you drive back, you increase the rotation, i.e. there is no loss of energy.
This is different though, when you e/affectively strap down the device to a treadmill. You're basically giving the system an infinite energy source. Still not convinced it models the road test.
"There's four possible reasons that I can see.
1) It's real, you guys understand it, but can't explain the science very well. (Good at science, not good with communication)
2) It's real, but not for the reasons you believe.
3) It's fake, and you know it.
4) It's fake, and you don't know it."
You forgot the 5th option - the correct option:
5) It's real, we understand it, we've explained it correctly and simply, but you are unwilling or unable to follow a straightforward explanation.
And no, it's not my job to win you over. I'm willing to do you the favor of helping to chip away at your ignorance, but not if you fight me.
Fluker:
>1) It's real, you guys understand it, but
>can't explain the science very well. (Good
>at science, not good with communication)
The proper and technically correct explanations have been given: (and I'll summarize again)
Traditional sailing rigs achieve downwind VMGs greater than 1.0 regularly. They do this while on a broad reach to the wind with the keel/skate/wheel forcing the sail to take an angle path through the wind.
Weve separated the sail from the vessel chassis and simply used the gearing of the cart to force the carts sail (prop tip) to take the *exact* same angle through the air as above and thus achieve the same resultant thrust.
We can talk about all sorts of side trips, but the above is 100% correct. When you take into account all the evidence for traditional sailcraft with VMGs greater than 1.0 for more than a century now, it's pretty easy to see that a sail, constrained to work at an angle to the wind can still produce thrust with a downwind VMG of 1.0 and greater.
It's a brainteaser -- it's *supposed* to be unintuitive, but in the end the answer really is that simple: we've packaged tradition sailing gear, working as traditional sailing gear works, into a package that doesn't look like traditional sailing gear.
JB
>Fluker:
>>1) It's real, you guys understand it, but
I assume you meant that to Mr. Knickerbocker.
JB and Spork: The statement you made that caused this slight derail was the claim that the device you showed on the treadmill wasn't powered by the treadmill alone. I still assert that you are wrong on this count.
If there is no wind in the room (i.e. the doors and windows are closed and the air is relatively static before you start the treadmill), then the only source of energy (kinetic, rotational, or otherwise) in the entire experiment is the treadmill. Once you start the treadmill and hold the cart so that the treadmill turns the wheels, which turns the propeller, you create a relative airflow over the propeller blades. That wind is not an energy input to your device, it is an energy output. You can't claim that such a device is wind-powered, as you did. A sailboat is wind powered. Your device is treadmill powered. I understand your argument that the wind is relative, and that a moving object in static air has the same forces on it as a static object in moving air, but that is not the same thing as saying the energy sources are interchangeable. Learn some basic thermodynamics to augment your basic physics knowledge.
I have built a new device. It can peel an apple in less than three seconds. It works, I swear.
To prove this, I have posted a video of the apple peeler in operation. However, the video does not show the peeler peeling an actual apple, it instead depicts it peeling an orange.
As far as the three-second timeframe, well, my video does not employ the use of a clock, just take my word for it, it does the job in under three seconds. I haven't sped up the frame rate of the video, trust me.
Further, the peeler doesn't peel the orange entirely by itself, the orange actually does an equal part of the work by rotating in a direction opposite to that of the peeler. This works on apples, too, but I won't post a video of that for obvious reasons. And I also won't get anyone to verify my data.
*goes on to communal web log, expounds*
Topic: driving to California affects the rotation of the earth.
In an arcane, impractical sense, yes, this is true, just as my body has a gravitational force that affects the earth in an infinitesimal, unmeasurable, meaningless way.
While some might see the statement "The land sailor is taking momentum from *both* the air and the entire world and using it to motivate itself across the flats" as theoretically true, it is impractical and impossible to factor in whatever unimaginably small bit of motivation that might be provided by the entire world.
If I drop one crystal of sugar into the Pacific, technically that ocean is now a syrup. But only a fool would start referring to this body of water as the Pacific Syrup, and only a fool would claim in a serious voice that the movement of the earth has an affect on a vehicle travelling across its surface.
Let's deal with pragmatic realism, please. Also, a working, verified demo of your contraption would be appreciated. You still haven't come up with that.
There exists a simple, time-honoured test to settle contentions such as this;
The Device shall be cast into a very deep body of water. Should it sink, never to be seen again, the Device shall deemed to be operating properly within the laws of Nature and God. Should it float, the Device shall be retrieved and burned as a work of Witchcraft.
Rocket:
>JB and Spork: The statement you made that
>caused this slight derail was the claim
>that the device you showed on the treadmill
>wasn't powered by the treadmill alone. I
>still assert that you are wrong on this count.
Rocket, would you mind directing me to the post in question.
Thanks
JB
RTD:
>I have built a new device. It can peel an
>apple in less than three seconds. It works,
>I swear.
>To prove this, I have posted a video of the
>apple peeler in operation. However, the video
>does not show the peeler peeling an actual
>apple, it instead depicts it peeling an orange.
Turns out the confusion is yours -- to continue your analogy, we never said it was an "apple peeler", we said it was a "fruit peeler". We all know that apples and oranges are both fruit.
Back to our claim - we have been very clear that our device is powered by relative motion between air and a rolling surface (commonly called "wind"). Turns out a treadmill is a just peachy, accurate, controllable and repeatable way to generate this relative motion commonly called "wind".
The fact that you see an orange and don't see "fruit" is a weakness in your abilities, not ours.
JB
"Learn some basic thermodynamics to augment your basic physics knowledge."
My basic thermodynamics is plenty solid. I'm sorry that yours is too limited to follow a reasonably simple analysis.
You fellas have a lot of words but precious little results. Are you ever going to adequately demonstrate you contraption? Credibility would follow.
You forgot the 5th option - the correct option:
5) It's real, we understand it, we've explained it correctly and simply, but you are unwilling or unable to follow a straightforward explanation.
This is the 5th possible reason that you haven't explained clear and simple? I gave you four possible descriptions are bad, and you think the reason that your description are bad is because they aren't bad? This demonstration of your reasoning skills explains a lot.
I'll break it down again as simple as I can. If:
A) The science is valid
- AND -
B) No one is convinced by your descriptions of the science
- THEN -
C) Your description are poor.
B is obviously true. So the only way for A to be true is for when C is true. So improve you communincations skills, figure out whatever the hell it is that you actually want to say, and spit it out.
JB: Here's what you said: There is a trap here you are falling into and it's a common one. When it comes to a device (any device) powered by the relative motion of two mediums, to call one medium the "thrust source" or 'energy source' is just not correct.
The source of thrust in your treadmill experiment was the prop. The prop was powered by the coupling to the wheels which were turned by the treadmill (the energy source). The thrust source is not an energy source; it is an energy conversion device turning rotational kinetic energy into thrust. It is not powered by the wind; it is creating the wind.
spork: You're getting confused about who you're talking to in this thread. I'm the one who agrees that DWFTTW is possible, and that your device can do it. (I also think it's neither a "myth" nor special enough for you guys to be making such a big deal about it). Racing yachts do it all the time.
You guys are simply not doing a good job of explaining the science, and you often mix up terms of force, motion, and energy in your explanations. You (or JB, or both) lost some credibility with the "sailboat is equally powered by the water" tangent, and you would have been better off restating that better.
"You fellas have a lot of words but precious little results."
On the contrary. It seems we're the ones that designed and built the thing. We demonstrated it and video taped it. We posted the video and have explained how it works. You have... whined about how you don't understand it. So tell me again about who has a lot of words and who has the results.
"Are you ever going to adequately demonstrate you contraption?"
There is no such thing as an adequate demonstration for someone that chooses not to believe or understand.
"I'll break it down again as simple as I can. If:
A) The science is valid
- AND -
B) No one is convinced by your descriptions of the science
- THEN -
C) Your description are poor."
Interesting. However there's a problem with one of your assumptions. PLENTY of people understand our descriptions. We can point you to them. The fact that YOU are not able to understand doesn't make our description poor - it makes your comprehension poor. Let me know if I need to break that down any more simply for you.
"spork: You're getting confused about who you're talking to in this thread."
On the contrary. I'm paying no attention to who I'm talking to. I'm simply responding to statements that are made.
"I also think it's neither a "myth" nor special.."
You're welcome to that opinion. I would agree if it weren't for the 10's of thousands of posts of heated debate including PhD's and professors on both sides of the issue.
"You guys are simply not doing a good job of explaining the science, and you often mix up terms of force, motion, and energy in your explanations."
I'm sorry if you're unable to follow. But I guarantee that I have never confused terms of force, motion, and energy. Unless you at least try to point out such an instance, there's no reason to even address that ridiculous claim.
"You (or JB, or both) lost some credibility with the "sailboat is equally powered by the water" tangent"
Again, I can only do the explaining, not the understanding for you.
This place is called "Monkey Filter" but the filter clearly isn't working.
Can you please point me to the video that adequately demonstrates your device. Thanks in advance.
Does a sailboat tacking in to the wind derive any energy from the water? Does it do this by using the keel in the same way a wing generates lift?
Rocket:
>You (or JB, or both) lost some credibility
>with the "sailboat is equally powered by
>the water" tangent, and you would have
>been better off restating that better.
There's nothing to restate. The sailboat IS powered equally from the relative motion between the wind and the water. It reduces the momentum of both the water and the wind the exact same amount and use that change in momentum to motivate itself.
The fact that this reduces our "credibility" to you simply demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part regarding what motivates a sailboat.
JB
"Can you please point me to the video that adequately demonstrates your device."
There are a number of videos under my YouTube name of spork33. Between them I think you'll find the cart fairly well demonstrated.
"Does a sailboat tacking in to the wind derive any energy from the water?"
Yes.
"Does it do this by using the keel in the same way a wing generates lift?"
Yes.
PLENTY of people understand our descriptions.
yeah, we understand them, and that's why we call out the incredibly bad science claims made in these descriptions. But the only two people falling for your descriptions are you and JB. If you think there's anyone else here who is taken in with your poor descriptions, please link to them (it's the time link in "posted by [username] at [time] UTC").
I mean, for god's sakes, JB even claimed that fluid will flow from low pressure to high pressure. You guys say that kind of crap, and think that you are communicating well? That's science? He may have been trying to communicate something that makes sense, but what he said was time cube crazy.
Knicker:
>If you think there's anyone else here ...
"Here" is a very key word.
"Here" we have been told that the laws of conservation of momentum are "utter bullshit", that the wind affects the momentum of a sail but not the other way around, that driving to california doesn't affect the momuntum of the earth, that thrust reversers don't actually reverse thrust and that turbine powered vehicles can't powere themselves directly upwind, etc. etc.
I think that speaks volumes for "here".
JB
Knicker:
>JB even claimed that fluid will flow
>from low pressure to high pressure.
Holy Cow Knick -- that's what every prop in the world is designed to do ... force fluid to flow from low to high.
You folks "here" need to get out more.
JB
JB, fliud has never EVER flowed from low pressure to high. NEVER. Pumps, including non-positive displacements pumps (lie a prop), all create flow flow by pressurizing the water. Fluid ONLY flows with a Delta P (a difference in pressure* ), and then it ONLY from high to low pressure.
This is the very base of all fluid mechanics. Obviously you either
A) know very little science
B) can't communcate worth crap
* I shouldn't have to explain what Delta P is, but I also shouldn't have to explain that fluid always flows from high pressure to low pressure. ALWAYS!!!!
posted by Mr. Knickerbocker at 04:50PM UTC on December 14, 2008
Argh, that should be "fluid flow" not "flow flow". This time cube science is starting to get to me.
From my earlier post:
---------------------
There is a clear way to distinguish between a prop and a turbine -- look at the direction the fluid flows though the spinning blades. On a turbine, the flow is from the high pressure side to the low pressure. On a prop, the flow is from the low pressure to the high pressure.
On our device, the air flows through that spinny pinwheel thingy from front to back, from low pressure to high pressure and thus it's clearly a prop.
---------------------
My statement above is true beyond rational argument. The very definition of prop vs turbine is the direction of flow through the disk.
Kinker:
>JB, fliud has never EVER flowed from low
>pressure to high. NEVER.
You really shouldn't use "never EVER" so loosely as it's easily shown that your wrong.
JB
...it's easily shown that your wrong.
Heh.
Knickerbocker said: "fliud has never EVER flowed from low pressure to high. NEVER... Fluid ONLY flows with a Delta P (a difference in pressure* ), and then it ONLY from high to low pressure."
Oooh Oooh! I've got this one. I'm going to offer my patented $100K bet that you're wrong (as usual). In fact I want to offer 10 to 1 odds in your favor. You pretty sure about that statement knickerbocker?
Again...Can you please point me to the video that adequately demonstrates your device. I do not wish to search your videos on YouTube only to pick the wrong one. So, be specific, please. Please choose the one that demonstrates DWFTTW in actual wind, not using a treadmill or other simulation, and one that perhaps shows wind speed as indicated by an on-board wind sock, streamer, or other simple device. Thanks in advance.
"Please choose the one that demonstrates DWFTTW in actual wind"
Please tell me exactly what you mean by "actual wind" so I can be sure to point you to the right video.
Is there anyone here not associated with spork or JB that can more clearly explain the principle here? I understand it's related to how a sailboat can tact in to the wind, but I don't see it yet for this device. I tried to give my understanding, but I'm sure I missed the boat (HA!).
Rocket88, you mentioned you believe DWFTTW is possible? Can you or anyone else explain?
Holy cow you guys are dumb. I can't you are intentional asserting that crazy shit. Fliud has NEVER EVER flowed low to high. You can ride your magic unicorn to deliver that check, spork.
I remember in nuke school the instructor telling us to be careful about describing how a pump works. "If ever say fliud flows from low to high, you'll get a zero for the exam. Getting something that basic wrong means you should be flunked out of school." I couldn't imagine anyone would actually saying something so dumb, even on accident.
Then these yahoos show up, not only are the saying it, they mean to say it. I'm disgusted that I tried discussing science with someone who'll say that. Fluid cannot flow low to high. ever ever ever ever ever. ever.
Ever?
Can you please point me to the video that adequately demonstrates your device. Thanks in advance.
I hate typos when I'm criticizing someone. That always happens. always always always.
"Is there anyone here not associated with spork or JB that can more clearly explain the principle here?"
I can explain it perfectly clearly to anyone that wants to understand. To those that simply want to ridicule, you get ridiculed.
"Fliud has NEVER EVER flowed low to high. You can ride your magic unicorn to deliver that check, spork."
Does that mean you're accepting the bet? Yes or no?
"I couldn't imagine anyone would actually saying something so dumb, even on accident."
And yet I did. So are you taking the bet? Yes or no?
"I'm disgusted that I tried discussing science with someone who'll say that. Fluid cannot flow low to high. ever ever ever ever ever. ever."
Rather than be disgusted you should just take my money and show me what a rube I am. How about it?
"Can you please point me to the video that adequately demonstrates your device. Thanks in advance"
Happy to. Since you've been kind enough to offer a definition of "actual wind" by way of the wiki article, I can offer you the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHsXcHoJu-A
Now you can STFU and decide you're willing to learn something, or you can take my bet. Let me know.
RalphTheDog - diggin' a hole. You gotta love it.
"I remember in nuke school..."
There was this one time... in band camp...
"Holy cow you guys are dumb."
Here's a blog where the author calls us bozo's and ridicules us in much the way you fools are:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/12/windpowered_perpetual_motion.php
And here's the apology that now appears on the top of that blog:
"(NOTE: It appears that I really blew it with this one. I'm the bozo in this story. After lots of discussion, a few equations, and a bunch of time scribbling on paper, I'm convinced that I got this one wrong in a big way. No excuses; I should have done the analysis much more carefully before posting this; looking back, what I did do was pathetically shallow and, frankly, stupid. I'm sincerely sorry for calling the guys doing the experiment bozos. I'll follow up later this weekend with a detailed post showing my analysis, where I screwed up, and why this thing really works. In the meantime, feel free to call me an idiot in the comments; I pretty much deserve it. I'm leaving the post here, with this note, as a testament to my own stupidity and hubris in screwing this up.)"
Spork, the video you referenced again chose the treadmill simulation to try to prove your point.
I would like to see your device in action, traveling downwind faster than the wind, on a road or in a parking lot, or what have you, not in a simulator.
It would need to show that it had started from a standstill without a push, that its downwind momentum had met wind speed and exceeded it without outside assistance, and had therefore established a relative headwind that provided momentum enough to overcome drag and to propel the craft forward at a speed faster than the wind.
The URL you provided was the same video that has been robustly questioned by skeptics all over the web, and it shows no reliable indication of wind direction and could well be a hoax.
Listen, I'm not claiming that you are a phony nor am I disbelieving that your device might work. I'm just saying that you are doing an inadequate job of documenting your experiment. Others here have said the same. Your rejoinder has been, time and again, that if we can't accept what you are saying as true and your evidence as adequate, then we must be idiots. That's not a good way to make a point, or to convince anyone of your sincerity or believability.
Now, again: Can you please point me to a video that adequately demonstrates your device?
I officially pronounce this thread to now contain 93.4279054% as much wanking as the Daisy_May thread.
MonkeyFilter: "Holy cow you guys are dumb."
"Spork, the video you referenced again chose the treadmill simulation"
The treadmill is not a "simulation". The treadmill simply provides the controlled conditions that sceptics claim Goodman lacked in his video. There were claims that the road was not level, the wind was not steady, the vehicle was not going *directly* downwind, it was being towed... By doing these tests under the controlled conditions of a treadmill in a closed room, these and other concerns are addressed.
"I would like to see your device in action, traveling downwind faster than the wind, on a road or in a parking lot, or what have you, not in a simulator."
The treadmill is NOT a simulator any more than the road in front of your house is a simulator. I've posted parts lists and build notes. I'm even building 10 of these for people that have asked for them. We've spent countless hours building, testing, documenting, and answering questions - only to be attacked. I strongly encourage you to build one from the plans I've posted it you want to do a test that we haven't done.
"It would need to show that it had started from a standstill without a push"
Done, in the video I reference.
"...that its downwind momentum had met wind speed and exceeded it without outside assistance"
Done, in the video I reference.
"... and had therefore established a relative headwind that provided momentum enough to overcome drag and to propel the craft forward at a speed faster than the wind."
While there is a relative headwind, it does *not* provide momentum that assists the vehicle. But again, this faster than the wind performance is shown in the video referenced.
"I'm just saying that you are doing an inadequate job of documenting your experiment."
What do you mean by "inadequate"? It more than convinced me; and it's not my job or intention to prove it to every jackass that doesn't understand the most basic principles of physics (see above).
"Your rejoinder has been, time and again, that if we can't accept what you are saying as true and your evidence as adequate, then we must be idiots."
With out question some here are idiots. They don't even seem to understand the principle of a bet. Instead they say "you're wrong, send me a check" before even accepting the bet.
"That's not a good way to make a point, or to convince anyone of your sincerity or believability."
And attacking me isn't a good way to coax a coherent description out of me.
"Now, again: Can you please point me to a video that adequately demonstrates your device?"
If you don't like it - build your own. I'll post the plans if you like. If you don't want to build your own - don't. Serious questions will get serious and truthful answers. Stupid attacks will get the offer of a very generous 10 to 1 bet (if only the idiots understood how a bet works).
"Holy cow you guys are dumb."
How dumb would you have to be to not accept a bet with a 10 to 1 payout on something you're absolutely certain of?
So I just called Ralph on the number posted on his business website. I figured I would offer to discuss this "in person" as this would clearly offer greater opportunity for understanding. Ralph told me he doesn't appreciate being called at home. Clearly a troll - not someone looking to understand.
So I offer this observation... Someone other than JB or myself posted this blog referencing our video. We were directed to it, and showed up offering explanations. We were attacked and given demands as to what we have to do, describe, document, etc.
Let's keep two things in mind:
1) I have nothing to prove or to sell.
2) Fuck you.
Apologies for any cross-posting I may do with this comment.
I am feeling quite violated. Just moments ago, at my home, I received a rather vile telephone call from "spork". Rather than leaving our debate here, he chose to find my personal information, telephone me, and harass me at my home. This is beneath contempt.
From his caller ID, I could, if I chose, to out him here and ask all of you to return his favor. I will not do this.
But please, you new "wind" people, and your claims: You have gone far enough. And now you have gone too far. Much, much too far.
Please go away. Our disagreements about wind are fair game. Harassing me at my home is quite another. If you think my opinions are folly, that is fine and fair. But to call me at my home with harassment? You are vile.
I am shocked, appalled, worried, and feel thoroughly violated.
Please, please, control yourselves.
Wow, okay, everybody please calm down. I've not been following the thread, I have no idea about the science, and I am not going to get involved. Ralph is certainly not a troll, and tracking down his phone number and calling him up seems a bit of a disproportionate response to a disagreement on the interwebs - I'm not surprised he doesn't want to be called at home. Email would have been more appropriate. Everyone, stop with the swearing at each other. This started off being an interesting discussion; civil discourse please.
"I am shocked, appalled, worried, and feel thoroughly violated."
My apologies for calling you internationally (on a business number YOU posted on the internet) on my dime to offer to explain and describe our experiments in person.
If you'd like in on the generous bet I've offered, I'll select one of your statements for that bet. Hopefully, my $100K in your pocket would make you feel less violated.
"tracking down his phone number and calling him up seems a bit of a disproportionate response"
I clicked on his name, and then clicked on his posted website. I don't think that qualifies as "tracking him down".
It *does* tell me for certain that he is a troll that doesn't care to gain an understanding of this.
A direct phone call is a big big step up from a message board. Like I said, an email would have been more appropriate. Once again, Ralph is not a troll, he is a much-valued long-standing member of this community, and I am sorry the discussion has degenerated to this. If it is to continue, please can we take this combative tone out of it.
Spork, thanks to caller Id and the internet, I have your name, the name of your spouse, your mailing address and your telephone number.
Considering that you have just violated my personal space, it is tempting to paste that info here and let the hell begin for you.
I will not as that is not in anyone's best interests, and it would be nothing but a spiteful reaction.
My best to you, Mary and Monica.
"A direct phone call is a big big step up from a message board."
I've called Jack Goodman, Andrew Bauer (reached his wife), and several of Bauer's colleagues to discuss this. All were extraordinarily friendly, and actually seemed very happy to hear from me. They *each* asked me to keep them updated on this whole thing. But I guess that's the difference between someone with a genuine interest and someone that simply wants to make unreasonable demands from the anonymity of their keyboard. Please do tell me what any of you have contributed, and how it is that JB and I haven't done enough.
"If it is to continue, please can we take this combative tone out of it."
Snark begets snark. Surely at least one of you on here that's ridiculed our understanding of physics would like to take my money - no?
"Considering that you have just violated my personal space"
If you don't want to be contacted I would suggest you not post your "business" phone number on the internet. If your interest here had anything at all to do with this device, that's what we'd be discussing right now - on my dime.
Dude -- chill.
I'm still waiting for ANYONE here to stand behind the statements they're so sure of.
I stand behind my statement that you need to chill...
"I stand behind my statement that you need to chill..."
I'll chill when these fools that choose to attack me and make demands do the same. This is quite a little forum you guys have here. You're welcome.
In any online forum, calling someone at their home and harassing them -- do you think that this is acceptable? I do not, I feel you have gone beyond any measure of civil discourse, I refuse any further communication with you, and encourage my sisters and brothers here to do the same.
"calling someone at their home and harassing them"
You have an interesting definition of "harassing". Again, you're welcome.
"I refuse any further communication with you"
Excellent - it makes perfect sense.
"and encourage my sisters and brothers here to do the same"
That would be a great excuse for them to not stand behind their absolute (and incorrect) statements about physics. I see you've already chosen that option.
I should point out that earlier today I called another member of another forum that happens to be making a video that he plans to post as a response to ours. He too was glad to hear from me. He had to go after about 15 minutes - but then called me back to talk about it further. He is a non-troll.
Scrambled eggs and toast. And really, really good coffee.
Scrambled eggs and Eggos. I bought Eggos on a whim a couple of weeks back -- they were massively reduced at Fortino's. Never had them before. I'm a bit disappointed -- they don't retain their heat for very long, and they're much too airy.
To be honest, I think everyone involved in this interesting thread has been very open-minded with the exception of spork and JB. It's one thing for you two to be overly sure of your device and your claims...I have no problem with that. The trouble is, you have been just as overly sure of your explanations, terminology, and behaviour in this thread. That is nothing but arrogance and stubbornness. When we tell you that, in this forum and in most other community websites, phoning someone at home (even if they make that number available) is considered beyond the pale, please accept that as fact and apologize for the transgression. Why do you continue to claim you have done nothing wrong when the members of a community tell you that you have violated that communities' standards of conduct? We know more than you on that subject, at least, and you need to recognize it. I can't believe that you have much internet experience when you use Ralph's discomfort with your phone call as a reason to call him a troll. In my opinion, you now have two things to apologize to him for.
I started out enjoying this discussion, and changing my opinion of your claims as I learned more about the subject (note: I learned much more by researching independent websites on the subject than from your explanations here. What does that tell you about my ability to learn and your ability to explain adequately?)
I have no more interest in discussing this or any other topic with either of you and request that you leave this thread and this site after apologizing to Ralph.
Not wanting to further a discussion via an unsolicited phone call is hardly trolling, spork.
This thread has gotten ridiculously out of hand. Thanks for stepping in, mothy; I've been at work and am about to go pick up my kids so this was a surprise. I'm going to eek it because while this whole thread started out so well, it's turned into a flamefest complete with namecalling (on both sides) and overstepping personal boundaries.
My experience of scientific debate doesn't involve calling people fools, calling their theories "bullshit" nor trying to convince someone by ridiculing them. This is a goddamn mess.
Spork, despite your example of a receptive forum member, I know few (myself included) who appreciate calls at home. I think you overstepped the mark. JB/ThinAirDesigns, while perhaps having a flawed method of putting forward his ideas, remained civil until older members started having a go about how he signed off his comments (big whoop, people). RtD, Mr K, you have also been combative in this thread. There's no straightforward blame in this, and I'm sorry that someone used MoFi to access and use your phone number for a purpose other than intended. Please, Ralph, don't stoop to the level of outing someone online - I have had that happen to me and it's even more invasive than your phone call.
Let's end this discussion now - it would seem there is no right answer for the purpose of this thread. Spork and JB, thank you for joining to discuss your invention, and you are welcome to drop the subject as this post will soon no longer be open to new comments.
I find it intriguing that people feel I owe someone an apology. I have been insulted and attacked by people unwilling to even backup their own claims. So if there is to be an apology - I'm waiting for it.
All this, and I didn't even have to pay five bucks!
"To be honest, I think everyone involved in this interesting thread has been very open-minded with the exception of spork and JB."
Let's have a look:
RalphTheDog:
"Again, this is utter bullshit."
"Again, this is utter bullshit."
"The air couldn't give a fuck..."
Mr. Knickerbocker:
"heh, that's cute. Teenage girls and pre-teen boys sign thier posts."
"How do you expect people to take you seriously when you can't like a grown-up?"
"Holy cow you guys are dumb"
"I couldn't imagine anyone would actually saying something so dumb, even on accident."
"I'm disgusted that I tried discussing science with someone who'll say that. Fluid cannot flow low to high. ever ever ever ever ever. ever."
rocket88
"Learn some basic thermodynamics to augment your basic physics knowledge."
And let's keep in mind - quite apart from the insults, these guys are absolutely, demonstrably wrong. I can hardly believe how you guys behave when some little brainteaser challenges your intuitive view of the world.
MonkeyFilter: Quite apart from the insults, these guys are absolutely, demonstrably wrong.
...this thread to now contain 93.57986411% as much wanking as the Daisy_May thread.
I TOLD you this would not end well...
"...this thread to now contain 93.57986411% as much wanking as the Daisy_May thread"
So the wanking has only increased by about 0.152% since your previous tally. Not bad.
"I TOLD you this would not end well..."
When a thread starts by questioning my honesty, integrity, and understanding of physics, I think it's fair to say it didn't even start well.
MonkeyFilter: 2) Fuck you.
« Older Glowing shrooms | Alarming! Newer »
To post comments to a thread you must login or create a profile.
