The Wind Powered Sail-less Boat

I don't have the energy at the moment to read the utter ******** Boston posts. If anyone finds anything in one of his posts that deserves a response from me please let me know. Thanks in advance.

 

sounds like you refuse to once again provide the math to define your baby
why is that

does something happen with frictions at delta T that doesnt work out so hot

 

It's not "analogous", it *indentical":

The sail of the ice-boat takes a spiral/corkscrew path downwind an angle to the wind. No part of the ice-boat sail goes directly downwind.

The sail of the cart takes a spiral/corkscrew path downwind at an angle to the wind. No part of the cart sail goes directly downwind.

Only the chassis must move directly downwind to pass the test -- the sails are free to follow the same angled path as an ice-boats sail ... and they do.

Yes, the same as our cart's sails.

This is your mistake, not ours -- you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that our cart's sails are one one long continuous broad reach and see the same apparent wind any other sail would see on on long continuous broad reach.

Bauer succeeded with his first cart, but do your research ... this device wasn't invented by Bauer. It precedes him by some unknown period. Even the engineeers who were there for the build and test (we've spoken to them) confirm that it showed up on some student applicants resume at MD.

You missed the mark on this one.

JB

 

I've provided it many times. If anyone here asks, and that person seems to have a genuine interest and even a remote possibility of understanding, I'll provide it yet again.

 

Spork, Please post it, as I would rather get to the point than read this interminable debate. - - - and be prepared to post same regularly, or bookmark a link so you can find it and just post the link....

 

Fair enough. I think the best way to convince people DDWFTTW is possible is to start with some straightforward analogies. I can start that way or start with energy arguments if you prefer. Your call. In the meantime these two videos were made by a friend in the process of this debate. I find them extremely good. Take a look at them and then let me know your prefered approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7vcQcIaWSQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-trDF8Yldc

 

spork and ThinAirDesigns have made it their business to run around stirring **** in every boating forum online they can find, ostensibly with the idea of getting their derivative little cart on to Mythbusters.

How trolling the internet, and swearing at people is supposed to accomplish this is unknown, but that's what they claim.

They deny it, of course, but it's EERIE how effective their tactics are at giving them a chance to strut around virtually and call other people stupid. Gee, has anyone ever seen that before on the internet, or before that Usenet and BBSes?

Anyways, I recommend ignoring them. They've got a device that's been around for at least 50 years and simply isn't that interesting. It works fine, and if you don't understand why, it's worth while sorting out for yourself how it works. Discussing it with these guys will NOT help you out, there, if their track record is any indication. It's like the Monty Hall Problem -- not always intuitively obvious, worth understanding, but ultimately uninteresting.

 

you guys are funny
rude as all hell but funny because your ethics are so bad
writing a paper on someone elses fifty year old work
Is Bauer’s name even going to be on it
and then running from forum to forum talking out your buts cause you havent even worked it out yourselves yet
no wonder you refuse to present any hard data or analysis
you dont have it

did you guys enroll in some algebra classes yet

key thing is its not steady state or at least has yet to be shown to be
and the larger the device the more likely it is to just oscillate

have a great day kids
your poor presentation and lack of detail or ability to express a working knowledge of someone else's invention is not real impressive
B

ps

as least I can admit the guys got something

and yes your five year old probably knows this stuff better than you do as well

admitting the things got potential and awaiting further analysis
and generally taking the cautious approach
is a lot more respectable than prevaricating till someone else explains your BS for you

go read the paper I noted and it will explain the hole friction balance thing for you
you guys could seriously use the primer

feel free to start the hugging and kissing
you got me up to a maybe


B

and next time try not to flip out when you get called on your skills

 

You have the floor, whichever way you feel will best resolve the debate - I will quietly watch....

 

Amolitor

I couldnt agree more
they have no clue how it works and they are struggling to make good on someone else,s work
and really old work at that

they have expressed no clue whatsoever concerning the oscillation problem
they are in for a big surprise when they build bigger and bigger models
and they have been roundly thrashed for there lack of working knowledge
you should read the physics forums
oh there is a learning curve but not a very steep one
all you have to do is look past what they are mumbling and go look at the math
soon as you give up on listening to em
it gets pretty easy to see its no big deal
yup
the piss poor explanations fooled me for a while into thinking it was impossible
once I read the paper I noted
and actually did the math
it becomes probable but yet to be experimentally observed in a controlled environment
and there is the observable problem of an imbalanced oscillation in the laminar flow

oh
we should right myth busters and clue em in on the shenanigans going on round here
maybe recomend they use Francis Reynolds if he is still with us
now he actually deserves the credit along with Mr Bouer
certainly not these guys

 

hey Masalai
how was your holidays
planning a bash for the new years
I gotta throw some pictures of our party on as we have some ragers

so ya
they were completely unable to detail the workings of someone else's invention
but
the guy who invented it had a few friends who wrote some articles on it
so I looked em up
they arent bad and contain some pretty basic mathematical principals of how it works
in the end
I was wrong
I think Bouer came up with something but never really tested it thoroughly
he just seems to have considered it a toy `
so I will give it a probable and await some actual test results
with any luck not from those two clowns
maybe someone with some scientific sense as Ild like to see if the oscillation problem is solvable
and those guys dont even know what the oscillation problem is yet

 

Boston:
>in the end I was wrong

Well, there's the key. How are you feeling about that "blown out of the water" proof you produced now smarta**?

>I think Bouer came up with something

As previously stated, Bauer didn't come up with it

>but never really tested it thoroughly

He test it enough to win his bet -- all he needed.

>he just seems to have considered it a toy `

Same as us.

JB

 

Poor Loser

So Boston now admits he was wrong.

Can't face it. Now uses a last ditch weapon saying: its "somebody else's invention" - (they never said they invented it anyway) - and makes up a "problem" with it that only he knows about. Not very honourable is it?

A true gentleman would own up and admit defeat!!!

Maybe a Japanese would fall on his sword!

 

We've been flawless in our credit to others.

Pop quiz from our MythBusters Video --

-- What's the first picture you see on the screen?

-- How many seconds into our video is it before we state that others have done it?

-- In the video which cart is first shown operation?

-- Which cart do we say inspired us to build ours?

-- Do we say we designed our small cart or do we toss credit to someone else?


We throw credit around like Christmas candy.

Boston throws bad math around over the course of a few hundred post thread and then blames Rick, Windmaster and others for their bad explanations.

I'll take our ethics over Boston's anyday.

JB

 

the only bad form being shown here is you guys
skulking from forum to forum with your horrendous comprehension of the device
you two are still full of it

you guys couldnt explain it any more than that five year old you mentioned
and my math skills are definitely not in question here

feel free to point out were my math was wrong
jerk

and yes the BS you and others presented was seriously flawed
that geared cart model presented way back was pathetic
as were your explanations of the invention you are trying to abscond with

are you seriously going to try and write a paper on some fifty year old research thats not even your own
and then wave it in front of every one you can think of pretending it is

no wonder you guys get such harsh treatment wherever you go
your arguments are week
and your ethics non existent