Split Thread The validity of classical physics (split from: DWFTTW)

[Dan O.]

Here is an absolute gem of a humberism that everyone else seems to have missed.

I figured he was just talking about the cases where water washes through a dip with enough force to evacuate the overlying water. These can be quite fun in a kayak.

Of course, real scientists have different thoughts...



There must be a treadmill involved

 

[humber]

No conflict there, then, Eh Humber?

What is quite rather interesting is the way that you will all trawl through my old posts for the most meager of scraps.
Inter alia, you will find other remarks that will resolve the conflict that you preume exists. I stated that DDW cart was possible, though I doubted that condition could be sustained.
I then went on to say that in variable wind, the situation would be otherwise, and I could think of several means by which I could do that.

 

[humber]

Maybe the fact that he is considered an expert in his field means that it is you who is inconsistent concerning definitions, not him. A sane person would accept that and try to learn from it.

Lionel Milgrom thinks he's an expert. Perhaps you can learn QM from him.

I have read Drela's paper, and there is no support for you. I know why.
Perhaps you would like to point out where you find it for your views.
I think that you should all be more active, than retroactive.

 

[jjcote]

I have read Drela's paper, and there is no support for you. I know why.

I am guessing that you mean that his paper does not state that the treadmill in still air is equivalent to fixed ground with a wind. That's not surprising, since it's not what the paper is about, although the equations work equally well in either case.

Do you think there is support for the original question, that sustained steady-state DDWFTTW is possible (or more specifically, "achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty")?

 

[humber]

Here is an absolute gem of a humberism that everyone else seems to have missed.

Wow! A scoop! Too bad it's wrong.

Now, over a very short distance (a few feet, maybe) this can be true, but it's not how rivers actually work.

Hundreds of meters, easily. No matter it is still not steady flow.

Certainly, the bed of a river can be uphill for a some distance, but in that case, the water pools behind the high point of the uphill portion.

Does the pool have infinite capacity, or is it a case of what goes in, must come out? Even rivers have trouble carving granite.

That pool, depending on the size of the low area can be anything from a slightly wider or deeper and slower piece of river to Lake Superior.

Or simply a deepening, widening or narrowing of the river.

The surface of the water in the pool is going to be level, if the pool is big enough, but the water (the upper part, anyway) will still be moving, although if the pool is a large lake, the current can be so slow as to be imperceptible.

That's right. All rivers are level and as smooth as glass. You astound me with your knowledge.

Poor Humber, the only person in the world who really understands physics, against all of us poor deluded souls. He doesn't even really care about it, yet he makes hundreds of posts trying to correct all of our misconceptions.

You are amusement while I wait in airports.

I figured he was just talking about the cases where water washes through a dip with enough force to evacuate the overlying water. These can be quite fun in a kayak.

Wrong again. Not at all correct. Try to keep your own thoughts as yours.

It was a reference to personal experience. Right out of the water.
Also, some artificial training runs bear witness marks that show it can happen, or at least partially.
But of course you can't make your point without agreeing that water running down hill is not at all like a steady flow. Thanks for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humber the only time wheel slip is mentioned in Drela's paper is when he says "if wheel slip is negligible", in other words in the case of the cart going directly downwind faster than the wind wheel slip (as spork pointed out) is a bad thing. He also said that it would not be difficult to make a DDWFTTW land vehicle:Since for this case t ≃ 1, achieving net = 0.6 or more is realistic. This confirms that the
DDWFTTW condition V/W > 1 is achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty. His cart seems to me to be a lot like spork's and JB's. So here we have a paper that says it is possible, there was one outdoor test that we have seen that showed it worked in a "real" wind. The only problem you seem to have left is the treadmill equivalency. You promised before Christmas to have a proof of why it does not work. Just because you do not like the proposed equivalence does not count as proof. Something testable would be nice, or some sort of link.

 

[humber]

I am guessing that you mean that his paper does not state that the treadmill in still air is equivalent to fixed ground with a wind. That's not surprising, since it's not what the paper is about, although the equations work equally well in either case.

Yes, that's right jjcote. Why is it in this thread, and why was it offered as support for the treadmill?.

Do you think there is support for the original question, that sustained steady-state DDWFTTW is possible (or more specifically, "achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty")?

Not really. I did mention that I thought it may be possible by purely conventional means. That is, all of the energy comes from the wind, with the wheels providing the reactive force as expected.

Drela moves rather quickly from one idea to the other, interconnecting each with expressions like "should hold" and "if sufficient". There are a lot of 'n' factors that may have a wide range. "Fudge factors" is one term used for this sort of thing. It seems rather speculative to me.

I said that he is inconsistent. It seems that he agrees that it is the relative airmass over ground that is the source of the energy. Yet, in this paper he uses "wheels driven by the ground", but the analysis uses the difference between the velocity of the air and that of the cart, as you (I) would expect.

I still wonder how he overcomes the energy problem. (Not mentioned.) It is one thing to waive a finger in the air and get 150% windspeed travel, only to find that it's 95% in reality. Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is not going to be that easy. That last few percent is everything.

To make a cart that exceeds windspeed, if only on average, is not difficult in variable wind. But I think steady wind demands that the laws of thermodynamics be broken on the way.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Somehow humber's "line of reasoning" is 100% identical to that of the over-unity crackpots.

1) Deny the facts, no matter what
2) Twist and falsify what people say and say they are wrong
3) Discredit any proof that is given
4) Claim to know "the truth"
5) Claim to have evidence
6) Never ever explain what "the truth" in #4 is, wiggling around
7) Never ever show the said evidence, wiggle out even more

That's all he does. He asks for evidence, just to discredit it when shown. He talks about how good he knows, can explain and that he come up with proof "any time soon". However, he fails to make any consistent statement, can't explain anything at all and never show any evidence at all. I call that a deluded liar.

Oh, and let's not forget that he always projects onto others.

What a waste of oxygen.

 

[humber]

Yes, another language would help. Try English. Mathematics would be even better.

I will make it clearer. You are duplicitous.

Nothing you write is clear.

Clear enough for a big green NO!.
I saw both those references. The later paper (1961) indicates more support for me than for you, though I did not post it because it is not relevant to steady flow, supportive or not. You appear to take gravity into account when the question is the angle of the treadmill, but not when is is a water channel. Inconsistent and duplicitous.

In your universe, does a boat need to have the same frequency distribution as the water in order to say it is traveling at the same speed as the water?

Not done with humberverse yet? That reply indicates profound ignorance of the world, and none at all concerning mensuration. The mean path between collisions at any physical level affects the outcome. A mainstay of thermodynamics.

Now, where did that come from? All we know is that humber said it so it must not be true.

In "Danoworld", anything that moves in the water is just like a boat. All water is the same. There are no differences in the behaviour of boat and sediment.
Everything travels at waterspeed or greater, always.

In certain regions accustom to intermittent flooding, sediments carried by the water will settle out to form mud flats. As these flats dry they can crack and curl. When the area floods again, some of these curled dry layers of sediment can temporarily float on the surface of the water forming sediment boats.

More legerdemain. Yes, there are temporary sediment boats, but why does the sediment form in the first place, or become stratified according to water velocity?

 

[jjcote]

I still wonder how he overcomes the energy problem. (Not mentioned.)

Yeah, he covered that in a separate document.
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...30930722-wind-powered-sail-less-boat-ddwe.pdf

 

[humber]

humber the only time wheel slip is mentioned in Drela's paper is when he says "if wheel slip is negligible", in other words in the case of the cart going directly downwind faster than the wind wheel slip (as spork pointed out) is a bad thing.

Yes SD, but wheelslip was not mentioned until I raised it. When I did, it was incorrectly applied to the treadmill and cart. In the case of Goodman's cart, it may well be of use.
Drela's cart has no physical existence. Should that be done, and the realities of construction and real roads and winds come into play, you may think otherwise. Wheelslip is a minor issue, but give the amount of attention it has received, it seemed justified to highlight it.

He also said that it would not be difficult to make a DDWFTTW land vehicle:Since for this case t ≃ 1, achieving net = 0.6 or more is realistic. This confirms that the
DDWFTTW condition V/W > 1 is achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty. His cart seems to me to be a lot like spork's and JB's.

His cart is like the one I made when a boy (as have many others), and like Bauer's, though the idea predates him.
As I said to jjcote, this paper seems quite speculative. A lot of interdependent variables, that are given a very quick sensitivity analysis.
Details are everything when working close to the margin of what is thought possible. The analysis is straight forward enough, so why in the past 60 years has it not been done and dusted?

So here we have a paper that says it is possible, there was one outdoor test that we have seen that showed it worked in a "real" wind.

Now honestly, how can you tell how fast that cart is going? Not only against the ground, but relative to the unseen wind? Have you been calibrated?
One "just so" run of Spork's cart? That's it?

The only problem you seem to have left is the treadmill equivalency. You promised before Christmas to have a proof of why it does not work. Just because you do not like the proposed equivalence does not count as proof. Something testable would be nice, or some sort of link.

Yes, that is correct. The treadmill is nonsense. (Have you not noticed that the treadmill applies equivalency, then a dose of "Gallilean Relativity" on top of that?)
Drela does not lend support to this, and even in his cart paper, you can see that it is straight forward wind drive.

Yes, I did say I would provide support, but backed away because of some of the intervening posts. The problem is that evidence does not seem to matter. Spork's defense of his ideas is nothing more than the usual adolescent BS.
I need a knockout blow. That means visual evidence, because it seems that so many of you are impervious to reason, or equivocate over meaning. This is the standard ploy. Take a look at the Homeopathy thread.
So, I have a plan. It's underway, I assure you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

humber you are still missing some points. spork, JB and others who have made these carts have strongly pointed out to you that wheel slip is detrimental to this system it is not "of use" in any way. Drela also pointed out that wheel slip is a bad thing. His assumption for the cart was that the wheel slip was practically zero.

I can pretty much guarantee you that you never made anything like that cart since you still do not understand how it works. Your continued inappropriate references to the second law of thermodynamics show that. You did not understand the purpose of the outdoors test. It was not a test to show that the cart could run faster than the wind. The treadmill already showed that, there are only a few uneducated people who do not understand the equivalence. The purpose of the outdoor test was to show that in a strong enough wind the cart could start on its own. You could always ask JB whether he was outrunning the wind when he chased down the cart.

We have already waited for that knockout punch for a least two weeks past your promise date. So far you have not even landed a jab on spork or JB.

 

[humber]

It's amazing... you say something very stupid about a topic you claim to know about (that someone "proved the axioms" of arithmetic) - something which is impossible by definition, oxymoronic, senseless, that makes it obvious you don't understand the meaning of the terms you're using - and then when confronted, instead of admitting your error you insult me.

That is not accurate. I like to insult you, regardless. Actually, I recall that you said you liked the fact that the JREF forum was not so polite.

What an obtuse individual you are. Do you think that there are some things that are not "axiomatic"? That reality is a tautology?
There is a world that depends upon mathematics, I suppose.
Yes, Russell and Hilbert hoped to prove the whole lot. Godel says otherwise.
Some remain as axioms, some not. Some are considered axiomatic, but cannot be proven to be so.

[/QUOTE]
What are you trying to accomplish? You've attained negative credibility - so much so that when you (rarely) slip and say something that's true, people tend to disagree with you just because you said it.
[/QUOTE]
Definition:- A slip is where I catch you out with no escape. The meteorological balloon is not evidence and you know it. But..

There you go, you need to solve two equations, as I said.

I think you're a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger.

I think your a flawed example of a human being.

 

[humber]

humber you are still missing some points. spork, JB and others who have made these carts have strongly pointed out to you that wheel slip is detrimental to this system it is not "of use" in any way. Drela also pointed out that wheel slip is a bad thing. His assumption for the cart was that the wheel slip was practically zero.

As I said SD, not important. I disagree that is cannot be beneficial. That is my point of view.

I can pretty much guarantee you that you never made anything like that cart since you still do not understand how it works.

Now, that you cannot say. I did, and my father remembers it.

Your continued inappropriate references to the second law of thermodynamics show that. You did not understand the purpose of the outdoors test. It was not a test to show that the cart could run faster than the wind. The treadmill already showed that, there are only a few uneducated people who do not understand the equivalence.

That you may say, but it may not be true. The treadmill does not say anything at all about windspeed travel. You have just demonstrated that I do need visual evidence.

The purpose of the outdoor test was to show that in a strong enough wind the cart could start on its own. You could always ask JB whether he was outrunning the wind when he chased down the cart.

And how would he know? Do human beings have inbuilt anemometers?
Are we infaillible when it comes to estimating speed, regardless of perspective?
In fact, if you understand how vision works, it is inferred.

We have already waited for that knockout punch for a least two weeks past your promise date. So far you have not even landed a jab on spork or JB.

Then you will have to wait. I told you that.
Oh no? Getting Spork to say that the cart is a balance after trenchant denial? Using "hovering"? Not being able to reconcile the truly equivalent view from the ground with that from the belt? They MUST agree.
Showing that all claims to academic support are false or subject to interpretation? Fittng his experiment? Failing to do any further tests other than those that will support him ( always an excuse)?

 

[Dan O.]

I will make it clearer. You are duplicitous.

Humber, do you need to be reminded of the forum membership agreement?

 

[Clive]

Humber, you've clearly indicated that you don't accept testing a cart on a treadmill is essentially equivalent to testing the same cart running directly downwind at wind speed on the ground. So, in this post I'm going to give you a step by step description of how we could transition through a number of stages, starting with a cart running downwind in real wind on real ground, and ending with the cart on a treadmill on the back of a suitable vehicle (still moving downwind at wind speed).

1. Start with some flat area of ground with a real wind blowing over it at a suitable speed for testing a cart. You can supply the additional details yourself if you like. In other words, this is meant to be an excellent ("perfect" if you will) real world test environment. Say we want to see what the cart does at wind speed and rather than hoping the wind will accelerate it from rest to the required speed, we decide to run alongside, holding it until it reaches wind speed. At that point we let go and move aside to observe what happens using whatever other equipment might be necessary.

2. Now we do some earth works. We'll effectively create a long bridge by digging two parallel trenches in the direction of the wind, with a suitable depth and width and distance between them (as will become clear later). We then also dig out the lower section of earth between the two trenches so that what remains is effectively a long "bridge" at ground level. I'll assume that is still strong enough to support itself and the cart, etc. (This is a thought experiment after all!) Now we can do more testing as we did in step 1, but now while running down the length of this "bridge". Hopefully you agree step 2 is just as valid as step1 in terms of any tests done in this fashion.

3. We're pretty tired now - lots of running, and then lots of digging and more running. So now we arrange for a suitable powered vehicle to run underneath our bridge (i.e. still in the same direction as the wind). This vehicle is constructed so its width fits neatly across the fully excavated lower region between (and including) the two trenches. There is a deck area on the vehicle that fits snugly under the earth bridge, and above the wheels on each side there is a higher platform that is level with the surface of the ground and also completely covers the trench area on each side of our vehicle. This is convenient because in our testing we can now stand or kneel on that instead of running, and let the vehicle carry us along at the required speed as we accelerate the cart along the strip of ground that forms our long bridge to wind speed before releasing it, and so on.

4. We realise our earthen bridge is actually quite a bit wider than the cart and so trim away half of it's width on the left (as seen when facing downwind). We place a treadmill on the newly exposed part of the deck of our vehicle. Wow - good planning means the width of the treadmill fits neatly and the top belt (a material that is essentially identical to our "ground" in terms of rolling friction, etc.) is also level with the surrounding ground. We also arrange for the belt speed to vary as the vehicle moves so that at all times the belt does not move relative to the ground that still forms the "bridge" to its right. That is, the belt moves backwards relative to the vehicle at the same speed the vehicle moves forward, so the working area of the belt does not move relative to the ground at all. So now we do more tests. We note that the exposed treadmill belt is effectively an extension of the bridge. We can kneel on either side, on the left side we can place the cart on the treadmill. On the right we can place the cart on our bridge made of earth. I expect to see no difference in how the cart performs but perhaps you do? I'm looking forward to hearing all about it if that is the case.

5. Finally we remove the remaining strip of earth bridge exposing the right hand side of the deck with the treadmill still on the left. Now we can kneel beside the treadmill on either side, and conduct more tests on the back of our vehicle as it moves up and down the trench.

Now, I've probably bored you silly with all that detail - after all the final stage is almost identical to a scenario we've discussed earlier. But in any case, hopefully you were able to follow along easily enough.

Assuming all this is in fact clear enough, do you accept that testing the situation where the cart is running downwind (and at the speed of the wind) can be achieved equally well in any of those five stages, and that it makes no difference whether it is on the real ground or (when applicable) on the treadmill belt? If you don't accept this, then please describe (as precisely and completely as you can) exactly where you think things go wrong and why, and also which of the previous (or later??) stages would be acceptable to you.

There's more to follow if you agree that stages 1 to 5 as described above basically don't change anything significant in terms of testing the cart as described...

 

[Dan O.]

Wow! A scoop! Too bad it's wrong.
Hundreds of meters, easily.

It's been confirmed by satellite data to be just 12 meters short of 1000 over a distance of 200 NM. But of course, you are using a perverted definitions of "uphill".

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's been confirmed by satellite data to be just 12 meters short of 1000 over a distance of 200 NM. But of course, you are using a perverted definitions of "uphill".

Hello Dan,

i would say, not only of the definition of uphill.

Greetings,

Chris

OT: Is that your cat in your avatar? Looks great!

 

[Brian-M]

Hi Brian. Surely you're not trying to explain the physics of this to humber at this stage are you?

Apparently, I'm a glutton for punishment. But on the other hand, I might end up with some new Humberisms to chuckle at.

My all-time favorite is...

"Captain! Missile approaching starboard"

"Don't be hasty Jenkins, we could be moving towards it, and less of your "starboard"
fascism."

Here's a clue. The prior history of the object is important. I know, it's not in the formula.

(Bolding mine)


In case you can't tell, the spaceship example is intended to be ironic. The real irony is he doesn't realize the two situations are identical..


He does go on to explain further, so I've put it in this spoiler so as not to spoil your lunch...

I thought a bit before answering this, but I don't know if you could be more obtuse, Dan O.
Momentum is conserved, right? So the sum the momentum in one case is 10 times that of the other? Redistribute at collision time. There you go.
The fact that the final velocities of the combined masses are different doesn't matter, as long as the observer is satisfied concerning the relative velocities? They are different events, as events. You also have the observer "following" one mass or the other.

The collision is some thing that happens in the journey of the objects, there is no start or finish. There is no prior expectation of a result.
It is not a problem of maths, but of "the world" I really don't know why you make any distinction. Should those masses carry on, they may hit the surface of the planet with different effect. They have same mass but different initial velocities as they approach.

The collision happens. The observer can only ever witness it.
Collisions involve a larger level of momentum. They are different.
The effect will be manifest in the world. Stuff happens independently of the observer. Everything is relative, you say, but you impose an arbitrary observer?
Annihilation of a small mass at impact releases more energy than a little on of the same velocity. Observer or not.
Is this why you thing that there is a wind? That the nature of the objects and how they react can simply be abstracted to simple one-off events?
I notice this in this thread. Tests and machines are analysed from the middle, or some place of convenience.
Many magnetic over-unity devices forget the history of ,say, a steel ball.
They think only of it being pulled towards the magnet, but if they don't do exactly that again, then all is forgotten. It's free.

That's too easy.
How can I tell if the astronaut hit the spaceship or vice-versa?

It depends upon my knowledge of the history of the objects. If I am a "suddenly" free-floating observer, and I see them moving towards each other, there is no question. It is moot. They hit each other.

On the other hand, if they are in my view but a fixed distance apart, then I can tell by various means. They are both fixed in my "frame" so I can see what is happening of course, but I could use other means.
For example, how much energy was required to achieve the velocity at impact?

I could apply the same forces to each, for the same time. If force is applied to the astronaut, then the velocity at impact will be greater than if I had done the same to the space-station. Knowing the impact velocity and the masses, will allow me to infer which was which. If I can make a distinction, they are different. Time has an arrow, so I can do the same for objects that are moving by but closing in on each other. Then I can tell as well.
There is more information available than just velocity, and if I use only that, I get only part of the picture.

 

[humber]

It's been confirmed by satellite data to be just 12 meters short of 1000 over a distance of 200 NM. But of course, you are using a perverted definitions of "uphill".

There's a stream in Wales that contradicts that. The water runs like a sheet over a flat, hard sedimentary bed. There is no pooling.
Just your definition of what is possible. Second hand assumptions. None relevant to the point about the speed of objects in steady flow.
All these examples do, is illustrate how variable conditions really are, and how far you are given to circumlocution.