5
   

I don't understand how this car works.

 
 
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:05 am
@spork,
Quote:
it's actually true that we can in principle generate far more power on a moving platform than a windmill can generate on a stationary one.


I'm going to be the skeptic here. I'm not saying more energy isn't generated (maybe involved or harvested are better words there) within the prop/cart/wheels system (N.B. I am not in the least satisfied with that phrasing), but I am skeptical that more energy can be extracted to an external system using this scheme over a fixed-base turbine.
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:11 am
Bill's post reminds me of something else critics will occasionally throw out in an attempt to ridicules:

"If what you are saying were true, an airplane flying downwind could drop a cable down to the highway with a wheel and generator , drag it along and use the produced electricity to go even faster. (rolling eyes)"

We''ll, yes ... they finally got something right -- in principle.

JB
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:17 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are wrong on several points, including the limits with fixed and variable pitch propellers.


George, I'm still waiting to learn something from you regarding the limits of these two class of prop.

JB
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:23 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Repost of a question for BILLRM that he seems to be avoiding:
Quote:
Bill, are you familiar with the basic 'Work', 'Energy' and 'Horsepower' calculations?

Ex: 'Work = force * distance'

If you are capable of working with these I propose that you and I walk through a short series of them together where you can check my work to your satisfaction.

If you are not capable of working with these, I propose that you really should learn how to before you claim the vehicle violates the laws of nature.

So, can you check my work on these simple calcs or not?

JB
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:26 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Repost of a question for BILLRM that he seems to be avoiding:
Quote:
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
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 07:33 am
@sirclicksalot,
Quote:
I am skeptical ...


Run the numbers and you'll see it's a fact.

If instead of running the Blackbird at 3x, we use a generator to drag it down to about 1.5x or 1.8x (been a while so I don't remember the exact optimum point), we can produce something over 150%(even close to 200% as I recall) of the electricity from that generator than the same size turbine in the same true wind.

Of course that in no way makes it practical, just interesting.

JB
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 08:35 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Second, note one of the biggest indications that this is a hoax is the behaviors of yourself and the other supporters of this device/theory.


That's one of the biggest indications that this is a hoax? That's one of your biggest arguments? If so that is the most pathetic thing I have heard in a very long time.

This comment is like Lady Astor saying, to Winston Churchill at a dinner party, "Sir, you are drunk." Winston replied "Madam, you are ugly, and in the morning I shall be sober."

So with regard to the behavior on this list, you are saying "You supporters are acting rudely." Poor baby Bill, to that I reply, "Bill, you are clueless, the cart works, and in the morning I shall regain my temper."

The cart and the facts of the matter don't care about behavior. Bill, while your mistaken attempt to use psychology may convince yourself, it convinces no one else.

The biggest indication that this is a not a hoax is the number of independent builders of the device who have demonstrated over decades that the cart works exactly as advertised.

Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is the large number of independent cogent explanations and analogies explaining the observed cart behavior, none of which violate any fundamental physical laws. A significant corollary to this is the speed with which invalid explanations and analogies are flushed out by other competent supporters; that is one thing that could never happen in a successful hoax. I.e. The basis for the hoax would be false to begin with; therefore pointing out flaws in alternate explanations would threaten the house of cards that supports the hoax. In the case of the cart, the opposite happens because leaving mistaken claims unchallenged actually threatens the valid claims of the cart.

Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is that the deniers have to resort to ignorant speculation about motives behind the behavior of the supporters (and of the unsuccessful deniers for that matter) to support their case, instead of addressing the actual issue in a cogent manner, even though the denier's (N.B. that's singular) behavior in steadfastly refusing to address the issue in a cogent manner can be considered by some to be far more rude than any other behavior in the matter.

Another of the biggest indications that this is not a hoax is the deniers continuously and shrilly claiming that fundamental physical laws are being broken but never, ever, ever putting together any cogent explanation, such as correct force and energy balances, to support this unfounded claim.

Another possible indication that this is not a hoax is the absence of any deniers willing to put their money where their mouth is. My presumption here is that because they know their limitations, they know they cannot back up their denials with cogent debate in the face of overwhelming evidence, and they therefore shrewdly refuse to back them up with anything tangible like money. The closest anyone has come to taking the bet is Richard Jenkins spending his own resources to show up at the tests at El Mirage, but as a skeptic and not a denier, and who in the end by posting his experience and observations showed to the rest of the world that, in addition to claiming the current land speed sailing record holder, Great Britain also has the lock on the the most gracious, subtle, dry and witty people on the planet.

That the supporters are willing to back up their claims with tangible bets means of course means nothing because such bets are also used elsewhere e.g. as part of con games. However, it is logically fallacious to assume that the fact that such bets may be part of a con in any way identifies the cart as a con, and only a fool would attempt to make such an association.
0 Replies
 
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 08:44 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Quote:
Run the numbers and you'll see it's a fact.

If instead of running the Blackbird at 3x, we use a generator ...

So you're beating the Betz limit, right?

Did you calculate and if so do you remember the final velocity of the wind after the cart passes through it?
0 Replies
 
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 08:55 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Quote:
Run the numbers and you'll see it's a fact.

Thanks, I'm not so skeptical now.

I do prefer the qualitative explanation first. It looks like the cart in this mode runs through more wind in a given time, so is this analogous to putting a converging nozzle in front of the fixed-base turbine?
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 09:19 am
@sirclicksalot,
Quote:
Thanks, I'm not so skeptical now.


That is correct - this device can beat the Betz' limit in a couple ways:

A: It processes a (slightly) larger diameter of air than it's rotor size, while a turbine processas a (significantly) smaller diameter of air than it's rotor size. This of course is due to the fact that we have a low pressure area on the input side of the device while a turbine has a high -- thus it draws in more surrounding air rather than encouraging air to go around it as a turbine does.

B: It can remove more energy from the air it does process by slowing it further than can a turbine (no, I don't remember the final number regarding that speed, but I might be able to find it)

And yes, it does process more air than a stationary turbine just by the fact that it's moving.

JB
0 Replies
 
spork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 09:21 am
>>"I do prefer the qualitative explanation first. It looks like the cart in this mode runs through more wind in a given time, so is this analogous to putting a converging nozzle in front of the fixed-base turbine? "

It's a bit like that. The moving platform allows the prop or turbine to process much more wind than a fixed turbine that must wait for the wind to come to it. At the same time, the relative velocity of the wind is higher. Interestingly, this works both upwind and downwind.

We're not claiming this is necessarily practical; but I have no doubt at all that it can be demonstrated in the real world (although perhaps not to BillRM's satisfaction).

EDIT: it looks like JB beat me to it.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 11:41 am
A update on the NALSA website, it still contain no information on the Blackbird.

The NALSA Yahoo group does not have any thing on the Blackbird either and this is somewhat strange as it would seem that the Blackbird group had jump into any web base newsgroups feet first concerning their project and had been doing so since the beginning of 2008.

They must be doing constant google searches looking for any group where Blackbird or DWFTW is commented on.

Very strange group indeed and a very unpleasant group beside.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 11:47 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

A update on the NALSA website, it still contain no information on the Blackbird.

The NALSA Yahoo group does not have any thing on the Blackbird either and this is somewhat strange as it would seem that the Blackbird group had jump into any web base newsgroups feet first concerning their project and had been doing so since the beginning of 2008.

They must be doing constant google searches looking for any group where Blackbird or DWFTW is commented on.

Very strange group indeed and a very unpleasant group beside.
I'd say they are a very pleasant group, rightfully proud of their achievement, and hopefully not too offended by ignorant red-herring-a-minute trolls like yourself.
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 11:56 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
A update on the NALSA website, it still contain no information on the Blackbird.


Enjoy that while it lasts. LOL

Quote:
The NALSA Yahoo group does not have any thing on the Blackbird either and this is somewhat strange as it would seem that the Blackbird group had jump into any web base newsgroups feet first concerning their project and had been doing so since the beginning of 2008.


It's a simple device -- using long established principle. It's not a lot of fun talking about the device with people who know how it works. A few simple calcs (which you studiously avoid) and the conversation is over. Notice how when you went there and brought it up all you got was a virtual yawn? You think if it works it's magic and the laws of nature will need to be updated while the folk on the NALSA site say "3x? cool -- can you make it faster?

No, while we're very willing to discuss the vehicle with folks who drop in here and have actual questions, you're the prime entertainment here ... not the vehicle.

JB
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 11:57 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Repost of a question for BILLRM that he seems to be avoiding:
Quote:
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


0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 11:58 am
@ThinAirDesigns,
Repost of a question for BILLRM that he seems to be avoiding:
Quote:
Bill, are you familiar with the basic 'Work', 'Energy' and 'Horsepower' calculations?

Ex: 'Work = force * distance'

If you are capable of working with these I propose that you and I walk through a short series of them together where you can check my work to your satisfaction.

If you are not capable of working with these, I propose that you really should learn how to before you claim the vehicle violates the laws of nature.

So, can you check my work on these simple calcs or not?

JB
0 Replies
 
spork
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 12:07 pm
>> "Very strange group indeed and a very unpleasant group beside. "

Yeah, one of the strangest things about us is that we don't care for trolls that insult us, and try and make ridiculous demands. When will you be coming out to disassemble our cart with "your team"? Will you be bringing a check so we can settle that bet?

Please just ignore this if you're too scared to address it (as you have with all the hard questions).
0 Replies
 
ThinAirDesigns
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2010 06:10 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
A update on the NALSA website, it still contain no information on the Blackbird.


An update on BillRMs team to tear the Blackbird down -- still no team.

JB
spork
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 12:33 am
Bill tells us it should take a "3rd party" no more than 6 months to build a copy of the Blackbird to prove to him that it really works (yeah I'm sure the "3rd party" union has folks lining up to do that). But Bill won't even assemble his dissassembly team in 6 months! Nor will he come see it for himself, build the inexpensive working model I describe in detail in my build videos, take my bet, or even agree to an actual responsive conversation on the topic (either because he knows he isn't capable of such a conversation or because he knows where it leads). Either way - it sounds pretty trollish to me. But what do I know, apparently I sound like every perpetual motion nut he's ever heard of.
sirclicksalot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2010 05:57 am
@spork,
Quote:
[BillRM will not] agree to an actual responsive conversation on the topic (either because he knows he isn't capable of such a conversation or because he knows where it leads).


The evidence is quite compelling that it is because he is not capable. First, when challenged to produce a force and energy balance demonstrating his objections he instead asked his challenger to produce one for him to review, but then he never reviewed it. Second, since my responses to his posts have begun focusing on his lack of skills, he has not responded to anything I have posted; perhaps he has set me to "ignore" and does not see them, but in any case he has not shown any skill in a technical sense.

BillRM knows enough jargon to throw a few technical phrases around but he does not have the slightest understand what the phases mean or have even a basic understanding of high-school physics. Words and phrases like force and energy and balance and power and balance and velocity and speed are beyond his ken in their technical sense. Instead he focuses on the behavior of people, whom he frustrates with his nonsensical banter, as a reason to not believe them.

BillRM can provide no more of a cogent rationale that the cart cannot work as he could that it can work. That is what I personally find objectionable: he has taken a side in an issue about which he knows, and can know, absolutely nothing. A bot spewing random phrases would contribute as much if not more to this topic as BillRM has done.
0 Replies
 
 

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 10/19/2021 at 12:28:39