5
   

I don't understand how this car works.

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 06:05 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Quote:
You do know the meaning of the word "theoretical" don't you Bill? LOL



LOL and I know that any claim/statement that 10,000 the amount of energy that a 6 mph wind could produce could be tap from that wind even in theory point out the complete nonsense that theory have to be.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 06:11 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
OK address and phone number by way of the system email.

And I will need time to get a team together and the second condition the craft need to be taken out and run at over wind speed and then turn over at once to the control of this team.

Otherwise devices to allow such a run could be removed from the craft.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 06:12 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are wrong on several points, including the limits with fixed and variable pitch propellers. An airfoil won't produce lift if it is stalled.


Think about that George.

If you are designing for maximum speed, you will set the fixed pitch propeller at the same place that the variable pitched propeller would be set for high speed.

Then the only advantage of the variable pitched propeller is that they may be more efficient at lower speeds.

But talking about the "limits", there isn't much difference.
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:08 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
That Dr. Kammen had now seen the light and had released a public statement to that effect.


When you show me where I said the above, I'll happily provide you a link to it.

JB
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:16 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
So we are back to a Noble prize winning physicist who is of the opinion that your theory that would allow such a craft as the Blackbird to go over wind speed is nonsense.

He had not had a change of heart.

Kind of ruin your and others claims here that anyone who have a good grounding in physics would see that this theory and the mathematic behind it is solid.
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:26 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
OK address and phone number by way of the system email.


There is no such system in operation on this site -- I know ... I just tried.

You know how to reach me:
A: Smart people figure it out quick without help.
B: I've already told you how right here on this thread.

Quote:
And I will need time to get a team together ...


Yeah, I figure you need a LOT of time. I'll give you a couple months at most ... after that there are no guarantees that the vehicle will be in running shape (we may reconfigure for a upwind faster than the wind record. If you're serious (and you're not), a couple months will be fine.

Quote:
...and the second condition the craft need to be taken out and run at over wind speed and then turn over at once to the control of this team.

Otherwise devices to allow such a run could be removed from the craft.


I have no objection whatsoever to the vehicle being run in your presence, but you'll need to be here when it's run for other reasons.

How about you come to our upcoming NASA test at Ames Research facility in about a month. (Yes, I said "NASA", not "NALSA").

I would love for you to spew your nonsense as you and the NASA engineers ride along next to the craft at multiples of wind speed. Oh, and NASA has no doubt that it works or how it works BTW.

So, can I plan on you for the NASA test? (NOT!) The NASA facility is less than a mile from our shop so your "team" can tear it down right after.

I'll be watching my email and listening for the phone.

JB
spork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:27 am
@BillRM

Kammen has denied that he ever denied DDWFTTW is possible. That leaves you all alone - without even a rather dim noble prize winner (sort of ) to lean on.

You claim you're willing to bet, but you won't take my money. You won't tell me your native language so we have a better chance of proper communication. And you aren't willing to discuss how and why the vehicle actually does what it does. How can you claim to be anything other than a troll!?
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:27 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
He had not had a change of heart.


Yes he has. Read what I WROTE rather than make shi* up.

JB
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:41 am
@spork,
Hello spork would you care to give me a link to that statement?

And I am still hardly alone in any case as he is not the only physicist who have problems with your theory just the only one that I know of that is a holder of a Noble prize.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 07:51 am
@BillRM,
First of all, it is a Nobel Prize... not a Noble prize.

Second, Dan Kammen didn't exactly win a Nobel prize. The IPCC shared a Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore for work in global warming. Saying that Dan Kammen is a Nobel peace prize winner (because he was part of the IPCC) is a bit a stretch, but OK.

Even so, the committee that he was on won a Peace Prize. This is the prize that Nelson Mandela and Jimmy Carter won (neither of whom have weighed in on this issue).

Nothing against this guy, he has an impressive resume (by the way, he doesn't list the Nobel Prize his organization won on his on-line resume).

This Nobel Peace prize is doesn't mean much on the scope of this discussion.
0 Replies
 
spork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 08:29 am
@BillRM:

>>"Hello spork would you care to give me a link to that statement?"

Sure. A GA Tech professor contacted both Kammen and Allain and got the following quotes which he posted here:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/06/downwind-faster-than-the-wind/comment-page-5/#comment-80830

From Rhett Allain:

yn3 | 07/11/10 | 8:08 am |

"Honestly, this whole DWFTTW stuff is wild. I don’t see how it works, but there is some video evidence that it does work. Perhaps they faked it, but I just don’t see why anyone would go through the trouble to fake it. When this stuff first started coming around, some readers of my blog asked me to look at it – and I did. I tried to explain how I didn’t think it would work in terms of energy. It is clearly possible that I am wrong. People say that it has to do with difference in speed of the wind and ground or something like that. I don’t get it.
Does that mean it doesn’t work? No – it just means that I can’t really comprehend how it works."

From Kammen:

Posted by: yn3 | 07/9/10 | 4:06 pm |

“I direct a renewable energy laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley where I am a professor. I have never commented on the substance of a claim of about wind-powered propulsion. Energy conservation is not violated by v_vehicle > v_wind because the energy in a volume of air may be harnessed in a variety of ways. That does not mean that it can be accomplished, however. The specifics of a system to accomplish this claim are critically important, however. This not an area where my laboratory is active at present.”

>>"And I am still hardly alone as he is not the only physicist who have problems with your theory just the only one that I know of that is a holder of a Noble prize. "

You're pretty darn alone. It's down to you and a few other wacky conspiracy theorists. Or perhaps you'd like to post links showing me where any reputable source claims it's impossible.

But why bother? You claim you're willing to bet. I offered you a pretty nice wager at 10:1 in your favor. It seems even YOU aren't terribly confident it doesn't work. What's left to talk about?
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 08:56 am
@georgeob1,
gerogeob1:
Quote:
You are wrong on several points, including the limits with fixed and variable pitch propellers.


I always like to learn -- enlighten me on the points where I am mistaken.

Quote:
An airfoil won't produce lift if it is stalled.


A: Nothing I have said relies on a stalled airfoil.
but more importantly ...
B: you have again made a false statement.

The lift to drag ratio of an airfoil goes all to heck when stalled, but there is still lift produced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)
"At the critical angle of attack, separated flow is so dominant that further increases in angle of attack produce less lift and vastly more drag."

Now, back to those "several points" I am wrong on ...

JB
0 Replies
 
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:25 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
And I am still hardly alone in any case as he is not the only physicist who have problems with your theory just the only one that I know of that is a holder of a Noble prize.


You are alone and have nothing relevant in common with educated skeptics. Educated people without the background to understand the cart have the sense to keep their mouth shut about whether it works and only ask questions. Other educated people with the background but who still deny this works at least have a rationale for why and can explain why they think so, even if their explanation has a flaw they haven't seen yet. Once they see the flaw, or are convinced it exists by the evidence, they either admit it or dance about what they said in the first place.

Bill, you on the other hand have neither the background to understand whether or not the cart is possible nor the sense to be quiet ("A man's got to know his limitations" - Dirty Harry). Ultimately I don't care if you post (I'm not trying to silence you), but you can offer nothing to this discussion that contains an iota of cogent physics, and I want to ensure other people know to ignore everything you say because otherwise the value of this forum is diminished. You would know neither a force and energy/power balance nor the differences between force, energy and power if they bit you on your butt, the same butt which you couldn't find with both hands, a flashlight, a map, a can of beans and an audio-direction finder.

Poor baby Bill. The parts required to demonstrate the principle involved cost somewhere between $27 and $80, plus access to an exercise treadmill which goes for at most $20 for a day pass at a commercial fitness center. However, the knowledge to understand why those parts demonstrate the principle is so far beyond you that nothing short of a brain transplant can make it accessible to you.

So if you really desire to have the knowledge to either prove or disprove the principle, eat the can of beans and hand the audio-direction finder, the flashlight, and the map to a two-handed brain surgeon.
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:30 am
@sirclicksalot,
To all: please excuse the overuse and extension of the "two hands and a flashlight" metaphor. It's one of my smarter brother's pet phrases and a personal favorite of mine.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:54 am
@spork,
Right Spork as this group is the only one I had come across with so one sided support of your position and anyone who question that can look at the wire magazine comment section.

As far as Allain is concern he spend a lot of time dealing with you people and got tired of it and did not wish his blog to be completely taken over with the subject. With special if polite comments about your strong arm methods.

However his position is clear your theory does not hold water as far as he can tell and if the Blackbird does work then there are things going on that we do not understand.

In fact that was similar to comments I had made on this thread.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 09:59 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
if the Blackbird does work then there are things going on that we do not understand.

Wait. I thought there was no possibility whatsoever that it can work?
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 10:03 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
... if the Blackbird does work then there are things going on that we do not understand.


No, things going on that YOU do not understand. We understand it just fine.

JB
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 10:12 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
With special if polite comments about your strong arm methods


Yes, it's true that people on the internet consider going out and BUILDING the device under debate and proving it works to be "strong arm tactics".

Rhett and Dan and Wayne (each in academia) were very, very brave (and condescending) until we built it and talked an independent, experienced and reliable third party into testing it -- then without apology they turned tail and got all 'I don't have time to deal with this' fuzzy.

Very amusing to watch actually.

JB
0 Replies
 
spork
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 10:16 am
@BillRM

You asked for a link, and I provided it. Both of your sources have backed away from thier position that it's impossible. You can theorize why that is, but you've failed to provide me a single reference for any educated person that still doubts it (although I can still give you a list of such idiots).

You claim you're positive it won't work. You say "I'm willing to bet...". But that's bullshit just like every single thing you post on this forum. I offer the bet you want and I hear nothing but crickets. Is this getting embarrassing for you (yet)?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 10:41 am
@spork,
Sorry, but Allain had not back away in any way from the position that your theory does not made any kind of sense at all to him with special reference to his wish to keep the law of the conservation of energy.

He had not seen the light for your free energy device.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 06:02:27