That's not how it works. The propeller *never* operates as a windmill. The propeller is *always* a fan. That's why the cart doesn't care when it hits windspeed. The fan works as a fan regardless of the appearance of "still air" when travelling at windspeed. It draws power more like a "roadmill" rather than a windmill, and uses the power from the wheels to drive the prop. It's explained more elsewhere, but let me know if you still have questions.
And regarding another post you made:
I assumed it was running directly downwind rather than tacking. If it tacks back and forth, I can see that.
Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind, Powered Only By The Wind, Steady State.
No, the cart isn't tacking back and forth. It's a straight line, dead downwind. However if you mentally isolate a single prop blade, that blade *is* alternately "tacking" left and right and up and down as it goes around in a circle. That's one way to help understand why it works. Each prop blade is on a continuous tack along a corkscrew path, downwind.
Your "roadmill" explanation of how the car accelerates at windspeed is correct. However the Blackbird (and most devices of this type) NEVER operate in "windmill" mode. It is certainly doable, however it is almost neverdone for complexity reasons and/or for purity-proof-of-concept reasons. In general the initial motion comes from simple wind drag, and below windspeed it is a roadmill supplemented by simple wind drag.
former aerospace engineer? all pretty straight forward?
Cool. Grin. I posted my reasoning elsewhere, but I'll ask you bare... if I run the treadmill sufficiently fast can I induce the plane lift off directly upwards (no forwards motion of the plane)?
I'm the article submitter, and I may as well provide the correct answer to the plane-on-a-treadmill while I'm at it:)
Considering that this is all about an airplane, itâ(TM)s amazing how EVERYONE badly glosses over air effects. A moving treadmill will also generate a drag force on the air above it. The larger the treadmill surface, and the longer it moves, and the faster it moves, the more it will pull the air backwards, generating a wind. This wind can and will apply a force resisting the plane's attempt to thrust forward. And significantly, it also provides a wind across the wings (in addition to the airflow over the wings being produced by the engines thrusting).
So what this problem REALLY boils down to is, can a plane take off from a runway, without moving forwards, when there is a sufficient headwind blowing at it. And the answer is, unsurprisingly, yes. A plane in a headwind can lift directly upwards, with zero forwards motion. In fact a plane can even take off while traveling BACKWARDS (compared to the ground), if the headwind exceeds the planeâ(TM)s liftoff velocity.
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
V_land-V_wind = 0 is saying V_land=V_wind. If the velocity of the air equals the velocity of the ground, then someone standing on the ground sees zero_velocity_air. So what you're looking at is the case where there's no wind blowing. No wind means no power source, which means zero force generated. The "silly result" equation was: F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind) Filling in the zeros gives: 0* v_land = (1-alpha) * 0 * (0). Getting a force of zero and "zero equals zero" isn't unusual when you're looking at the zero power case. The only possibly odd detail is that v_land is free to take on any value. That simply reflects the law of inertia and the fact that you could start the cart at any speed. Zero power provides zero generated force, yielding an any-speed cart in an inertial coast.
P_wheel = F * v_land P_air = F * (v_land - v_wind)
The person who wrote that equation was sloppy. The F on the first line is NOT the same as the F on the second line. This should clarify things:
(For clarity: The wheel and prop are attached to the cart, so ground velocity and air velocity both being measured from the cart frame of reference.)
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind) positive number = negative number
That's the equation for finding the steady-state (peak) speed of the cart. That is a cart experiencing zero acceleration. This means the multiple forces on the cart sum to zero. Prop_Force + Wheel_Force = 0, and of course Prop_Force = -Wheel_Force. It's saying the forwards thrust of the prop equals the backwards drag of the wheels.
"windmill sailboat" which can pull the "faster than the wind directly downwind" trick... in last decade turbines and mills on boats have done it.
Your wording is incorrect. Direct downwind faster than wind is impossible with a windmill(turbine). Vehicles that do it must use the propeller as a fan.
Directly downwind at the speed of the wind has zero potential energy.
Article submitter speaking. Your statement is the common objection, however it requires a very crucial correction: Directly downwind at the speed of the wind has zero potential energy between the cart and the air.
However energy does exist between the wind and the ground. That energy does not cease to exist simply because the cart is moving. How to tap into that energy source while the cart is at windspeed is a tricky engineering problem, not a laws-of-physics problem and not a perpetual-motion-machine problem.
The key to the engineering solution is that the cart is connected to the air via the prop and connected to the ground via the wheels. The energy of wind-moving-relative-to-ground still exists, and by having the wheels and prop driving in the opposite of the way you intuitively assume, this energy becomes visible/accessible in the force and motion of the ground pushing backwards against the wheels. The cart is *in* the wind, driven forwards. From the point of view of the cart, the wheels are extracting power from the ground. At windspeed the prop feels like it's in still air. Propellers are extremely efficient at generating a forwards thrust when driven in still air. The prop can generate enough thrust to overcome the drag of the wheels on the ground because the wind-over-ground is a true and existing source of energy. That energy is contributing to and powering the system.
Skip the Differential Equations. There is virtually zero chance you'll ever see any use for Differential Equations in programming.
As the parent post suggested, Discrete Math. Take any and all the Discrete Math you can get. Discrete Math will teach you to be a better programmer.
Discrete Math nothing like "crazy advanced ugly math" like Differential Equations and Calculus. Discrete Math is stuff like Information theory, Logic, Set theory, Combinatorics, Graph theory, Game Theory, etc. Discrete Math will teach you concepts and techniques that are valuable for designing algorithms and handling data. This is Core Programming material.
The brake can be disabled, but if you forget, a new brake cartridge costs $70, and the blade will usually be ruined. Carbide blades are fairly expensive. And for a dado blade which requires a more expensive brake - total cost could be around $300
Yeah. $370, ouch! That's gotta be like umpteen-times more expensive than the cost of surgery to re-attach one or more fingers. Did I mention.... "ouch"?
the natural language interface with the system, OpenNLP is a powerful library for extracting meaning (semantics) from unstructured data... An example of unstructured data would be the blog post, an article in the New York Times, or a Wikipedia article.
Warning: Other examples of "unstructured data" include 4chan and Conservapedia.
Yep. It's also possible that bullets are unrelated to shooting deaths. It could just be a statistical fluke that people shot with loaded guns are more likely to die than people shot with unloaded guns.
Your comparison to writing code doesn't apply, at all.
There are approaches to making this sort of brain. One option is scanning an existing brain and coping the data into the digital brain. That gives you a mental-clone of the brain-donor. The other way is to start with the equivalent of a blank-slate fetal brain and allow it to develop and self-wire. Then you raise and teach it exactly like an infant.
Both approaches completely avoid the issue that we have essentially zero understanding of intelligent consciousness, and that we don't have the faintest clue how to program for it.
The last thing we need is some sentient silicon running around like a pestilent child lobbing nukes between hemispheres for fun.
If scientists persist in trying to play God with projects like this, they are going to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: War, Famine, Death, and Petulance.
I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.
My point was actually affirming the validity of ad hominem as a basis to decline to waste one's time fruitlessly engaging an argument as if it were reasonable and rational. If you go back and read my previous post more carefully you'll find it would be laughably foolish for anyone to argue I was wrong:)
I think perhaps you didn't fully read my post..... because you're rather earnestly arguing that Santa Claus isn't responsible for the polar shift. Chuckle.
Did they bother to compute the share of pole movement due to continental drift vs. movement/melting of the ice sheet? I doubt it.
The article states that this effect was detected specifically as a deviation from the expected motion due to continental drift.
Is it possible that your "doubt" has become self-reinforcing circle cutting you off from significant information? You to doubt it because you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the article because you doubted it. You assumed the scientists were stupid and incompetent, and as long as you assume they are stupid and incompetent you don't hear or accept any of the the facts and evidence they report.
The effect of continental drift, ice melting, ocean temps, etc is a quite long studied subject (see ref below which mentions George Darwin already looked at polar wobbling).
Trying to prop up the warmist scientific hoax with the Darwinist scientific hoax? We skeptics ain't stupid enough to fall for that one.
Waring: The above post was manufactured in a facility that processes satire. May contain traces of satire.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not how it works. The propeller *never* operates as a windmill. The propeller is *always* a fan. That's why the cart doesn't care when it hits windspeed. The fan works as a fan regardless of the appearance of "still air" when travelling at windspeed. It draws power more like a "roadmill" rather than a windmill, and uses the power from the wheels to drive the prop. It's explained more elsewhere, but let me know if you still have questions.
And regarding another post you made:
I assumed it was running directly downwind rather than tacking. If it tacks back and forth, I can see that.
Directly Downwind Faster Than The Wind, Powered Only By The Wind, Steady State.
No, the cart isn't tacking back and forth. It's a straight line, dead downwind. However if you mentally isolate a single prop blade, that blade *is* alternately "tacking" left and right and up and down as it goes around in a circle. That's one way to help understand why it works. Each prop blade is on a continuous tack along a corkscrew path, downwind.
-
Your "roadmill" explanation of how the car accelerates at windspeed is correct. However the Blackbird (and most devices of this type) NEVER operate in "windmill" mode. It is certainly doable, however it is almost neverdone for complexity reasons and/or for purity-proof-of-concept reasons. In general the initial motion comes from simple wind drag, and below windspeed it is a roadmill supplemented by simple wind drag.
-
former aerospace engineer? all pretty straight forward?
Cool. Grin. I posted my reasoning elsewhere, but I'll ask you bare... if I run the treadmill sufficiently fast can I induce the plane lift off directly upwards (no forwards motion of the plane)?
-
I'm the article submitter, and I may as well provide the correct answer to the plane-on-a-treadmill while I'm at it :)
Considering that this is all about an airplane, itâ(TM)s amazing how EVERYONE badly glosses over air effects. A moving treadmill will also generate a drag force on the air above it. The larger the treadmill surface, and the longer it moves, and the faster it moves, the more it will pull the air backwards, generating a wind. This wind can and will apply a force resisting the plane's attempt to thrust forward. And significantly, it also provides a wind across the wings (in addition to the airflow over the wings being produced by the engines thrusting).
So what this problem REALLY boils down to is, can a plane take off from a runway, without moving forwards, when there is a sufficient headwind blowing at it. And the answer is, unsurprisingly, yes. A plane in a headwind can lift directly upwards, with zero forwards motion. In fact a plane can even take off while traveling BACKWARDS (compared to the ground), if the headwind exceeds the planeâ(TM)s liftoff velocity.
-
UUDDLRLRBA
Unbelievable, Unexplainable, Disastrously Doubly-Long Redundant Long Redundant Bastard Acronym
Bravo. :)
But now you have to finish up and tell us what the initials S.E.L.E.C.T. S.T.A.R.T. stand for
-
Like wise you you put in that magic moment when V_land-V_wind = 0, for another silly result.
V_land-V_wind = 0 is saying V_land=V_wind. If the velocity of the air equals the velocity of the ground, then someone standing on the ground sees zero_velocity_air. So what you're looking at is the case where there's no wind blowing. No wind means no power source, which means zero force generated. The "silly result" equation was:
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
Filling in the zeros gives:
0* v_land = (1-alpha) * 0 * (0).
Getting a force of zero and "zero equals zero" isn't unusual when you're looking at the zero power case. The only possibly odd detail is that v_land is free to take on any value. That simply reflects the law of inertia and the fact that you could start the cart at any speed. Zero power provides zero generated force, yielding an any-speed cart in an inertial coast.
P_wheel = F * v_land
P_air = F * (v_land - v_wind)
The person who wrote that equation was sloppy. The F on the first line is NOT the same as the F on the second line. This should clarify things:
Power_extracted_at_wheel = force_of_ground_against_wheel * velocity_of_ground_against_wheel
Power_spent_at_prop = force_of_prop_against_air * velocity_of_air_through_prop
(For clarity: The wheel and prop are attached to the cart, so ground velocity and air velocity both being measured from the cart frame of reference.)
F * v_land = (1-alpha) * F * (v_land - v_wind)
positive number = negative number
That's the equation for finding the steady-state (peak) speed of the cart. That is a cart experiencing zero acceleration. This means the multiple forces on the cart sum to zero. Prop_Force + Wheel_Force = 0, and of course Prop_Force = -Wheel_Force. It's saying the forwards thrust of the prop equals the backwards drag of the wheels.
-
"windmill sailboat" which can pull the "faster than the wind directly downwind" trick... in last decade turbines and mills on boats have done it.
Your wording is incorrect. Direct downwind faster than wind is impossible with a windmill(turbine). Vehicles that do it must use the propeller as a fan.
-
Directly downwind at the speed of the wind has zero potential energy.
Article submitter speaking. Your statement is the common objection, however it requires a very crucial correction: Directly downwind at the speed of the wind has zero potential energy between the cart and the air.
However energy does exist between the wind and the ground. That energy does not cease to exist simply because the cart is moving. How to tap into that energy source while the cart is at windspeed is a tricky engineering problem, not a laws-of-physics problem and not a perpetual-motion-machine problem.
The key to the engineering solution is that the cart is connected to the air via the prop and connected to the ground via the wheels. The energy of wind-moving-relative-to-ground still exists, and by having the wheels and prop driving in the opposite of the way you intuitively assume, this energy becomes visible/accessible in the force and motion of the ground pushing backwards against the wheels. The cart is *in* the wind, driven forwards. From the point of view of the cart, the wheels are extracting power from the ground. At windspeed the prop feels like it's in still air. Propellers are extremely efficient at generating a forwards thrust when driven in still air. The prop can generate enough thrust to overcome the drag of the wheels on the ground because the wind-over-ground is a true and existing source of energy. That energy is contributing to and powering the system.
-
Long, short, double, long double, whatever.
-
Skip the Differential Equations. There is virtually zero chance you'll ever see any use for Differential Equations in programming.
As the parent post suggested, Discrete Math. Take any and all the Discrete Math you can get. Discrete Math will teach you to be a better programmer.
Discrete Math nothing like "crazy advanced ugly math" like Differential Equations and Calculus. Discrete Math is stuff like Information theory, Logic, Set theory, Combinatorics, Graph theory, Game Theory, etc. Discrete Math will teach you concepts and techniques that are valuable for designing algorithms and handling data. This is Core Programming material.
-
The brake can be disabled, but if you forget, a new brake cartridge costs $70, and the blade will usually be ruined. Carbide blades are fairly expensive. And for a dado blade which requires a more expensive brake - total cost could be around $300
Yeah. $370, ouch! That's gotta be like umpteen-times more expensive than the cost of surgery to re-attach one or more fingers. Did I mention.... "ouch"?
-
It's like a car that's small enough to carry and has been modded to fire bullets, and instead of an ignition key it uses a fingerprint scanner.
-
This is what happens when you don't use bull fertilizer.
Have you ever seen a more pathetic harvest?
-
Perhaps they exhausted the E supply.
The great E famine of 1939 decimated entire novels.
-
the natural language interface with the system, OpenNLP is a powerful library for extracting meaning (semantics) from unstructured data... An example of unstructured data would be the blog post, an article in the New York Times, or a Wikipedia article.
Warning: Other examples of "unstructured data" include 4chan and Conservapedia.
-
Or, maybe vaccines aren't effective period.
Yep. It's also possible that bullets are unrelated to shooting deaths. It could just be a statistical fluke that people shot with loaded guns are more likely to die than people shot with unloaded guns.
-
Lame article.
If you're already infected by malware, that malware can sit there and wait to do stuff any time it wants. Not exactly a big surprise.
-
You should have placed the emphasis where I explain the reason for the pole shift. Chuckle.
-
Your comparison to writing code doesn't apply, at all.
There are approaches to making this sort of brain. One option is scanning an existing brain and coping the data into the digital brain. That gives you a mental-clone of the brain-donor. The other way is to start with the equivalent of a blank-slate fetal brain and allow it to develop and self-wire. Then you raise and teach it exactly like an infant.
Both approaches completely avoid the issue that we have essentially zero understanding of intelligent consciousness, and that we don't have the faintest clue how to program for it.
-
The last thing we need is some sentient silicon running around like a pestilent child lobbing nukes between hemispheres for fun.
If scientists persist in trying to play God with projects like this, they are going to unleash the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:
War, Famine, Death, and Petulance.
-
You gt some new data that point to another cause? great, lets review it.
You overlooked the other cause mentioned in my post.
Perhaps my post should be subject to a recall lol
-
I say that as someone who actually agrees with you that their use of "denialist" is ad hominem and thus an anti-scientific tactic.
My point was actually affirming the validity of ad hominem as a basis to decline to waste one's time fruitlessly engaging an argument as if it were reasonable and rational. If you go back and read my previous post more carefully you'll find it would be laughably foolish for anyone to argue I was wrong :)
-
I think perhaps you didn't fully read my post..... because you're rather earnestly arguing that Santa Claus isn't responsible for the polar shift. Chuckle.
-
Did they bother to compute the share of pole movement due to continental drift vs. movement/melting of the ice sheet? I doubt it.
The article states that this effect was detected specifically as a deviation from the expected motion due to continental drift.
Is it possible that your "doubt" has become self-reinforcing circle cutting you off from significant information? You to doubt it because you didn't read the article, and you didn't read the article because you doubted it. You assumed the scientists were stupid and incompetent, and as long as you assume they are stupid and incompetent you don't hear or accept any of the the facts and evidence they report.
-
The effect of continental drift, ice melting, ocean temps, etc is a quite long studied subject (see ref below which mentions George Darwin already looked at polar wobbling).
Trying to prop up the warmist scientific hoax with the Darwinist scientific hoax? We skeptics ain't stupid enough to fall for that one.
Waring: The above post was manufactured in a facility that processes satire. May contain traces of satire.
-