- #946
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 5,117
- 20
Still 55 (now 54) posts to go to reach 1000... Hope we'll get there :shy:
vanesch said:Still 55 (now 54) posts to go to reach 1000... Hope we'll get there :shy:
atyy said:Ok, here's a little help. I probably missed it since your equations were spread out over many posts. What is the justification that 0<k<1 physically exists?
swerdna said:I put my TT and cart together again to show a visiting friend and made a video with the TT running at a slower speed for those that want to compare calculations at different speeds (as suggested by mender post #940). I have also replaced the “large” tether arm with a thin bar. Are there any other tests anyone wants done while it’s together again? (that don’t involve me having to buy tachometers).
mender said:That's 12.3 for the cart, 10.2 for the turntable and a ratio of 1.21 - another coincidence?
swerdna said:Would it be okay if I just fitted a different size wheel to the cart?
Do the videos have to show the start-up period or can I just film when the cart is up to speed?vanesch said:That's even better, because that changes the effective "gear ratio".
swerdna said:Would it be okay if I just fitted a different size wheel to the cart?
swerdna said:Do the videos have to show the start-up period or can I just film when the cart is up to speed?
mender said:My tests showed a different break even speed for different advance ratios, so a different size wheel should also take the cart out of the "null" ratio.
swerdna said:Not sure if it was just more “run in” or because I re-washed the bearings but the cart is running more efficiently in this video -
In the first video it takes about one and a third revolutions of the cart before it “hovers” while in the second video it takes less than one revolution. You should find the TT speed is the same in both videos. The terminal speed in the second also seems much faster to me but I haven‘t measured it.
schroder said:A very nice mechanical heterodyne!
ThinAirDesign said:Me:
Tsig responds:
It matters not how "loosely coupled" the other relationships are -- that's the entire point of the example; there's a solid relationship between the deck and the turbine. The deck moves and the turbine spins.
It doesn't matter that the sun shone and the photosynthesis caused plants to grow which were eaten by herbivores which were then eaten by the carnivores which died and became crude which was refined and burned to make the steam to drive the turbine which moved the freakin' deck. The only relevant point is ... power the deck however you wish and in the end as long as the deck moves, the turbine can't tell the difference.
No you don't. To analyze the wind turbine you need not look any farther than what the turbine can see -- the wind. It matters not what creates it.
To analyze the DDWFTTW cart, you need not look any farther than what the turbine can see -- the wind. It matters not what creates it.
JB
Where the power is coming from.A.T. said:To see what?
tsig said:Where the power is coming from.
Subductionzon said:No, you can't. Now that would take an over unit device. His point about the cart working is that it does not care where it gets its energy from. There is a lot of energy in the wind that could be harvested to power the cart. There is also a lot of energy from the treadmill producing a relative wind that can power the cart. A lot less energy is harvested by the cart than there is in the actual system.
JB, I know a way that a sail cart could beat the prop cart, we just don't limit the cart to directly downwind. Of course if it is a directly downwind race the cart would win hands down.
vanesch said:The problem is that even the notion "relative velocity" is distorted by schroder. Some posts back, when I asked him if he disputed the claim that if a cart was going 2 m/s to the left, and a tread was going 10 m/s to the right, the velocity of the cart wrt the tread was 12 m/s, and for sure he disputed that (see post 755). He claimed that the relative velocity was 8 m/s. (ok, it might have been mph instead of m/s). At that point, I still thought that there might be a misunderstanding about the actual setup - or that he was just trolling.
But it becomes more and more clear that it was not a misunderstanding concerning the setup.
Schroder doesn't understand what it means "relative velocity", or how to obtain it when you have the individual velocities, as he confuses this with mixing frequencies of 2 and 10 (in other words, he gives himself the liberty to alter signs at will in the velocity composition).
I have never met anyone who has such a profound confusion. It is a remarkable phenomenon, and a true challenge to find out how to tackle it, pedagogically. Have you EVER met anybody who disputed such an elementary claim with such vehemence ?
(especially somebody who claims to be an engineer ?)
From the wind (relative movement between air and ground). Explained many times in this thread, just read back.tsig said:Where the power is coming from.
Proove it! No it isn't:tsig said:The cart is producing more energy than is put into it.
tsig said:How are you going to harvest the energy when you are going at wind speed? There is no relative energy.
spork said:I can't for the life of me figure out why you're trying to come up with these bizarre and exotic explanations for something that has been explained using everyday classical physics. Even if you managed to determine this was a mechanical heterodyne, you'd still have to then come up with the mechanism that allows it to go faster than the belt, wind, or TT that's pushing it. Why not simply accept the well proven conclusion from the people who've designed, built, and tested them? Seriously?
vanesch said:- in the frame of the car, a simple calculation which has been presented under several different aspects already shows easily that, under conservation of energy, we can have net forward force (the trust by the propeller working on the air being larger than the drag necessary on the wheel to provide for the power).
EDIT: more to the point, could you go through a step-by-step calculation as there have been many in this thread, and tell us what step exactly doesn't work ?
schroder said:Saying that you can extract energy from the headwind, in order to move against the headwind, is nonsense.
schroder said:Saying that you can extract energy from the headwind, in order to move against the headwind, is nonsense.
tsig said:Just take it outside in the wind see if it moves, Why do you not want to test it in the wind?
Where the power is coming from.
How are you going to harvest the energy when you are going at wind speed? There is no relative energy.
The cart is producing more energy than is put into it.
schroder said:Because, spork, you have it all wrong!
The way I see it, the original “inventor” of this cart did it as a joke, a spoof, and he himself admitted that it will not work.
The original outdoor video is a hoax, as the propeller is turning as a wind turbine. The only chance to see the actual direction of the propeller turning comes right at the end of the video, when the cart slows down. It would be hard to doctor the video at that point, and have the propeller reverse direction, so they did the next best thing; have the cart go off camera until it is stopped, and then pan back on it showing the prop spinning as a prop! It is so obviously a hoax that it really is a joke!
The reason why I am interested is because of what is happening on the turntable. It is a really beautiful example of mechanical heterodyning and it is not to be ignored. This cannot and does not happen outdoors, so why do you insist it does? You have been playing around with these carts for years now, and if anyone is in a position to know this is a hoax, it is you!
schroder said:Once the cart (if ever) exceeds the velocity of the wind, it is going against a headwind! Saying that you can extract energy from the headwind, in order to move against the headwind, is nonsense. The next time I do my weight training, maybe I will use that same principle: extract energy from the weights I am lifting in order to lift even more weights!
Anyone with a normal functioning brain can see this is nonsense!
I have pointed out the step where the calculation is wrong. It is where Silly Atom Man “DECIDES” to extract energy from the force of the propeller, to drive the propeller!
schroder said:It is where Silly Atom Man “DECIDES” to extract energy from the force of the propeller, to drive the propeller!
schroder said:The reason why I am interested is because of what is happening on the turntable. It is a really beautiful example of mechanical heterodyning and it is not to be ignored. This cannot and does not happen outdoors, so why do you insist it does? You have been playing around with these carts for years now, and if anyone is in a position to know this is a hoax, it is you!
The Dagda said:I must admit I don't even understand what application the word heterodyne has to this?
spork said:I think you do. The answer is NONE. This has nothing whatever to do with a heterodyne - mechanical or otherwise.
Good to see you’re still “with us”. Don’t see how two videos where everything is the same except the efficiency of the cart can give the same mathematical results when the observed results are so different.schroder said:You are back to a perfect 2.4 again! In the first video after putting the TT back together again, it is obvious that you are not getting a clean drop out of the forward revolution of the cart. This is a perfect analogy to a partial carrier drop out and the ratio can be almost anything at all. You need a clean and complete drop out of the CW rotation of the cart, a sharp transition, as we see in this last video. A very nice mechanical heterodyne!
Can you please give me the distance from the center of the TT to the center of the track of the wheel as well as the diameter of the small wheel? Thanks!