Downwind Faster than the Wind - Successful Run by manned cart

[halfway]

no_way:

I said "The earth surface seems to be a default reference in most conversations that are mechanical in nature. "

Did I say, prop analysis or yacht analysis. NO. I said mechanical.
Is a piece of plywood a prop? No, neither is it a yacht.


As you seem to confirm, later in your post, each type of system does have its default situation. So it seems your answer has proven the point. There is an assumed default in different situations.

(The time delay issue is due to your posts popping up much later than posts created after you. This system has a time warp issue where answers appear sometimes before the question. Maybe you should apply your frames to this software)

 

[spork]

As I said earlier. A sail is a sail.

True. It's also a wing. As is a prop. As is a turbine.

It has no knowledge of the water. It just plays with the air molecules that arrive near its surface.

True.

Therefore it can not choose how to "work" in a different way in different situations if the apparent wind is the same.

It doesn't ever have to "choose". It just does what a sail does. And that doesn't change for any given apparent wind. What it does in some cases is to behave as a prop. In others it behaves as a turbine.

Thinairdesigns, Spork:

On your invitation I went back and tried to find posts from before the big cart projects. I turned up a references to the "hang gliding buddy" proof. That is the exact explanation I have for the concept. However, he has far more variables, as my proof just assumes 45 degree tracks/helix and a known aerofoil spot values. Just enough to prove it as oppose to optimize it. But the conditions still hold. The date of the post was Jan 2009. However just after, you post the Mark Drela analysis, that is the cause of the problems and the energy prop pushing issues. How can you go from a correct proof to the wrong one and then never mention poor "buddy" ever again. His brief life of fame and honour lasted 16 minutes.

First of all you should go back another 3 years or so. You can see all sorts of analogies and proofs I've used to explain why this is possible and how it works. Every one of them correct. Drela's is right as well (and no different than the energy analysis I did).

I bet the cart would have been different.

If what? If you built it? I'm sure it would. But we designed an built it based on sound physics and analysis. That's why it's already demonstrated something in the neighborhood of 3X windspeed directly downwind. We're quite eager to have a race when you build your DDWFTTW machine without doing every single aspect of it completely wrong (and even dangerous) as we have.

Spork: "Yes it's a team. That doesn't mean JB is me."

I really refer to concepts, that you seem to both support. If however there is any division in the ranks of the team, could you make it clear so that we know which points you disagree on.

You weren't refering to "concepts" when you said one of my team members was mean to you. Take that up with him. Don't take it out on me.

 

[halfway]

spork: "Every one of them correct. Drela's is right as well "

NO, it plainly is not. I showed, long ago, how it could not be a proof as it starts from false first lines and then fudges it with inefficiencies.

spork: "sound physics and analysis"

Yes, you did put up the graphs so we do have a full reference for later of your so called "sound" analysis.

Anyway it seem like it is a done deal. The proofs that are right, have surfaced. It looks like the concept is believed, and we have Oracle and the land yachts to set the targets.

So all that is left is your bad engineering and terrible safety. That is something for your conscience. I said my piece and will back my statements whatever happens.

 

[spork]

spork: "Every one of them correct. Drela's is right as well "

NO, it plainly is not. I showed, long ago, how it could not be a proof as it starts from false first lines and then fudges it with inefficiencies.

Wrong. You clearly are not capable of that.

So all that is left is your bad engineering and terrible safety. That is something for your conscience. I said my piece and will back my statements whatever happens.

I'm sorry to see that you're such a poor engineer and poor sport that you can't even recognize good engineering and design from your safe and comfy position as a failed sideline quarterback. But still, we look forward to racing your properly designed and built DDWFTTW vehicle.

Talk is cheap. Really badly wrong talk even cheaper.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Talk is cheap. Really badly wrong talk even cheaper.

The word is much misused - particularly by Ms Halfway herself - but I think the most likely explanation for her increasingly bizarre arguments is that she is a good old-fashioned troll, posting gibberish in an attempt to stir up debate. I don't propose to waste any more - well, much more - time on her.

 

[halfway]

spork: "Take that up with him. Don't take it out on me."

But to directly quote YOU: "I'll be happy to discuss ... But not just for the abuse."

So you were expecting abuse. As I said, criticism of your project was plain to see before you arrived. It was not abuse in any way. That came when your team player arrived.

Spork: "Talk is cheap. Really badly wrong talk even cheaper. "

If it is so bad. Just walk away. Do you engage with every street person with a paperbag and a bottle? By engaging you must have had a purpose? But like your project that has got lost, some where between a demonstration of 1.25 times, and a land speed record, you are just floundering.

----

I can not see that your team tactics of coming onto different web sites and throwing around abuse, or in your case referring to it as a downside from the start, has any merit as a marketing strategy. I would not have allowed you to represent the company. Allowing team members to start the insults with their first post, and then preen and display over the next ones, would be the first issue I would address.

----

I suppose officials that oversee these attempts also have a responsibility. I wonder how they approach the safety issue.

----

Ubergeekian: That is now 4 times.

But it still does not change anything. Other than your image.

----

My purpose is over. I never expected to prove the case by using the "team's" own posts from history, but then life never quite goes as planned. But the target has been reached.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Spork and JB:

Excuse me if this has been mentioned before and I have missed it. One test the sceptics seem to think is important is the release of a free floating balloon which gets left behind as the cart exceeds windspeed, apparently the telltales are not enough for them.
I wonder if you have plans to demonstrate in this way later?

We have two goals before we close out the project

A: A NALSA ratified DDW record greater than 2x WS

B: Some video footage that best shows the vehicle in action.


We have spent many hours discussing "B" and kicking around the options. There is no perfect solution -- especially when 'free floating' is involved. If you release a free floating balloon and don't keep it at the right altitude you end up with problems -- if it drifts low, the gradient has it moving slower than the wind that you are actually racing. If it drifts too high it's hard to get good camera perspective. We truly don't really know how hard it will be to get a balloon to drift in the window we need.

We've though about those small RC lighter than air blimps -- they come with fans that both propel them and control vertical position. If you simply disabled the fans that influence lateral movement and leave the vertical control fans you could drive along beside and keep the 'balloon' at the right height. Of course the fact that there are batteries and fans aboard would leave open the argument to the critics that you didn't really disable the right thing and were cheating.

The concept I've been leaning toward lately is a combination of the smoke idea and the balloon idea -- attach a smoke canister to a slightly positive helium balloon and light the canister. Travel ahead of the BUFC in another vehicle and release a series of these combos while traveling at WS. As the canisters burns, the balloons rises slowly and creates 'smoke stripes' or 'smoke columns' of sorts. Of course the stripes would not be dead vertical but would have some forward lean due to gradient but even that is visually educational. The BUFC would then be seen working it's way forward through a series of these stripes while the stripes could easily be seen to be drifting downwind.

What'cha think?

JB

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I suppose officials that oversee these attempts also have a responsibility. I wonder how they approach the safety issue.

Fortunately for us, the NALSA BOD member responsible for determining if we were safe to run under the NALSA permit in Ivanpah has designed and built speed record setting land yachts for many years now. As a nice plus, he is capable of differentiating between 1/4" plate and "thin sheet" and is also able to recognize a full fillet weld from "tacking".

A competent NALSA designer, builder and race tech inspecting a craft in person beats the bleating of distant trolls any day.

My purpose is over.

No it's not.

Bookmarked.

JB

 

[spork]

spork: "Take that up with him. Don't take it out on me."

But to directly quote YOU: "I'll be happy to discuss ... But not just for the abuse."

So you were expecting abuse.

No, I was not "expecting" abuse, I had already been treated to some. And your ostensible excuse is that you felt you had been abused by a member of my team - so I deserved it. You're really not much for logic are you?

As I said, criticism of your project was plain to see before you arrived. It was not abuse in any way.

Nonsense. Talking about our "bad engineering" is demonstrably wrong and intentionally abusive. You've apparently got a chip on your shoulder because you talk about things (that you don't understand) while others DO things (that you don't understand).

If it is so bad. Just walk away.

I'll do as I please. And at the moment I please to demonstrate how wrong you are - consistently. But it seems there's not much need for that here since it appears to be common knowledge.

Do you engage with every street person with a paperbag and a bottle?

At least you seem to recognize your part in this.

I would not have allowed you to represent the company.

That really works out quite nicely - as you don't have a company - or at least not one in a position to fund such a project.


Well, I must say... we've met some truly unpleasant people along the way - but we're still surprised every time. At least we've met some darn interesting ones - and they never seem to toss out baseless insults. Hmmm???

 

[Pierrome]

We have two goals before we close out the project

A: A NALSA ratified DDW record greater than 2x WS

B: Some video footage that best shows the vehicle in action.


We have spent many hours discussing "B" and kicking around the options. There is no perfect solution -- especially when 'free floating' is involved. If you release a free floating balloon and don't keep it at the right altitude you end up with problems -- if it drifts low, the gradient has it moving slower than the wind that you are actually racing. If it drifts too high it's hard to get good camera perspective. We truly don't really know how hard it will be to get a balloon to drift in the window we need.

We've though about those small RC lighter than air blimps -- they come with fans that both propel them and control vertical position. If you simply disabled the fans that influence lateral movement and leave the vertical control fans you could drive along beside and keep the 'balloon' at the right height. Of course the fact that there are batteries and fans aboard would leave open the argument to the critics that you didn't really disable the right thing and were cheating.

The concept I've been leaning toward lately is a combination of the smoke idea and the balloon idea -- attach a smoke canister to a slightly positive helium balloon and light the canister. Travel ahead of the BUFC in another vehicle and release a series of these combos while traveling at WS. As the canisters burns, the balloons rises slowly and creates 'smoke stripes' or 'smoke columns' of sorts. Of course the stripes would not be dead vertical but would have some forward lean due to gradient but even that is visually educational. The BUFC would then be seen working it's way forward through a series of these stripes while the stripes could easily be seen to be drifting downwind.

What'cha think?

JB

I would have thought if you get the NALSA ratification, you're certainly doing those few eccentric doubters a favour (favor) by taking the trouble to provide further demonstrations. But, as they say "any publicity is good publicity" so might be worthwhile. Could look good too.

I have certainly achieved what I wanted to achieve when I started this debate on this forum, in that it has encouraged people to think deeply and maybe learn a little more about the process of sailing, which is usually just taken for granted!

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

I would have thought if you get the NALSA ratification, you're certainly doing those few eccentric doubters a favour (favor) by taking the trouble to provide further demonstrations. But, as they say "any publicity is good publicity" so might be worthwhile. Could look good too.

I certainly don't expect any video we produce to convince the "we didn't go to the moon' crowd. I'm really just looking for the perfect visual demonstration that folks who understand it would want to show their friends.

JB

 

[Tommyrot]

I think the smoke canister idea might work, there's no way I can think of that you might be able to fake the wind!
The dust cloud kicked up by the chase car in one of your videos showed it quite nicely.

 

[spork]

The dust cloud kicked up by the chase car in one of your videos showed it quite nicely.

We thought so too - but it turns out that only works for sane people.

 

[Tommyrot]

We thought so too - but it turns out that only works for sane people.

I forgot what you're up against for a moment!

For some people, nothing will convince them.

 

[RAI]

My mind is make up.

Don't confuse me with facts.

 

[spork]

I forgot what you're up against for a moment!

For some people, nothing will convince them.

Some sayings come to mind:

- Assistance is futile
- The greatest impediment to learning anything is already knowing everything.
- There are two kinds of people in the world - those who need no explanation, and those for whom no explanation can help.

 

[halfway]

Spork:

Just to be clear this is a post about your actions, your teams actions, and not the cart or the theory/proofs.

----

Cambridge dictionary:
abuse noun ( RUDE SPEECH )
rude and offensive words said to another person

Since when did criticism of engineering become "rude and offensive words".

----

Spork: "No, I was not "expecting" abuse, I had already been treated to some. "

Between post 358 and 402 I made only one post that references you, but the comment was about the cart.


"Another good point, we are talking about a linked system. Why all the sensors on essentially the same drive chain. Why not measure the axial thrust on the prop shaft bearings (fixed side) and just one point in the drive linkage. Even the chain tensioner would have been appropriate. That is the source of the noise. All that complexity on the rotor hub is just extra failure methods. The efficiency of the drive chain can be done in the workshop. The ratchet spanners (translate: wrench) should not be active during the real tests so it should be a fixed linkage with just a chain tensioner."


That is a pure question. Asking why the sensors were mainly put on the moving bits, when all thrusts could have been found from fixed locations.

By post 391, you had already lost the plot, about engineering issues vs. people and started hammering on about fictitious scenarios involving me. Without any countering of a single engineering argument. Even after that, I concentrated on the cart.

----

However, the CART had been treated to some severe criticism in response to Thinairdesigns opening attack on my name (where he made no reference to an single technical point). If you can not differentiate between an inanimate cart and yourself, then that could be the problem. See the definition of abuse above.

----

Spork: "as you don't have a company - or at least not one in a position to fund such a project."

How can you have a sentence that self conflicts. That is also totally based on an incorrect theory. Or should I tell the accountant immediately?

----

Spork: "In the meantime, I'm delighted to see the interest here. I notice this crowd seems brighter (and far more civil) than we find on a number of the other forums."

Yes, but it fell rapidly once your team had arrived. Which has been noted in other threads. Kind of begs a question.

 

[spork]

Get help.

This is the very first post you made after my arrival: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2475737&postcount=371

It consists primarily of baseless insults. It is clearly intended to be offensive. I'm sorry your life isn't panning out as you had hoped.

 

[halfway]

spork: "It consists primarily of baseless insults."

Seem you now understand it was not "abuse". It is now "insults" and is "intended to be offensive".

Again "insults" are something that has to occur to a person. You can not insult an object. Like a cart.

The whole post is addressed to Thinairdesigns. It does not even mention a team. It certainly does not contain an insult to a person. Or a description of that person as a farm animal or any of the other method that can be used to insult some one. It certainly has no abusive language.

Just plain old criticism, that you obviously do not agree with. We run a system of free speech over here. But it seems dissent is not allowed in your world.


It DOES mention Mark Drela but only in the case of believing him, it does not describe him as a inherently faulty person, instead just infers that the analysis, he put his name to, is incorrect.

 

[spork]

spork: "It consists primarily of baseless insults."

Seem you now understand it was not "abuse". It is now "insults" and is "intended to be offensive".

I see no such thing. You're clearly a little person that gets his jollies insulting those that actually DO stuff. Your post was insulting and intentionally so.

The whole post is addressed to Thinairdesigns.

Perhaps, but you don't take into account that you are completely clueless. You attack my design and engineering throughout.

We run a system of free speech over here. But it seems dissent is not allowed in your world.

More cluelessness. I never suggested in any way that you don't get to be just as much of a little bitch as you please. I'm simply pointing it out.

It DOES mention Mark Drela but only in the case of believing him, it does not describe him as a inherently faulty person, instead just infers that the analysis, he put his name to, is incorrect.

You IMPLY that his analysis is incorrect. The reader can do the infering. But frankly, anyone that is capable of the most basic math and physics can see that his analysis is solid while yours is pure B.S. Anyone that doesn't have those capabilities can rely on the fact that Drela is one of the most renowned aerodynamicists on the planet, while you're an internet crank turned failed armchair quarterback.

Spork: "as you don't have a company - or at least not one in a position to fund such a project."

... That is also totally based on an incorrect theory. Or should I tell the accountant immediately?

Interesting use of an implied lie. Do tell us about this company of yours. Or do you insist on remaining an anonymous internet crank that lies about his accomplishments?