No relation to Guy. I live in Oklahoma, but know Spork. He is right and everyone else is wrong. I have seen the device work - it is real.

Edited by author 10-26-2008 02:47 AM
Wow. Lots of words. Some of it right. None of it uncertain. Sounds like you're wanting to take my bet. Unless you're just trolling like our other friend, you can take my $100K - since you're so certain this cart can't work.

Of course if you wanted to understand how it *does* work, I'm more than happy to explain it - in any number of ways. But if you're certain it can't (as it seems), you should really just take the bet - and take my money.

A sailboat is not powered by the wind it’s ultimately powered by relative airflow. The wind certainly makes up a large part of this relative airflow. The wind causes the initial motion of the sailboat but as soon as the sailboat starts to move its relative airflow is cause by a combination of the wind and its own motion. This is why sailboats and iceboats can sail faster than the wind but they cannot sail faster than the relative airflow that is influencing them.

Sailboats, iceboats and the “vehicle such as THIS “ that you mention cannot go directly downwind faster than the wind. Drag is in the direction of the relative airflow that caused it so the more a vehicle moves as a result of drag the less drag it generates. With no outside force
opposing its motion a vehicle will accelerate to the speed of the wind (as a result of drag) where its drag will be zero. There is an aircraft that shares this dynamic. The faster it goes the less drag it generates until it reaches top speed where drag is zero. A balloon does not move readily with the wind if it did there would be no difference in velocity between the balloon and the air and thus no relative airflow and thus no aerodynamic force to accelerate down wind. The balloon is held in the flow by its own inertia.

When a vehicle moves as a result of lift it does not lose any of the relative airflow that caused it to move and now has more relative airflow as a result of its motion due to lift. A sail boat cannot sail directly downwind faster than the wind using only drag but it can sail faster to a point downwind using lift by jibing. This fact has nothing to do with the prop cart despite the fact that it has a lift-generating propeller. The propeller on the cart is powered by the carts downwind motion and that motion is due to drag. The faster this cart goes the more it gives out of power and if it had no rolling drag at all it would totally give out of power when it reached the speed of the wind. The only way to increase its power is to slow it down. The cart is propelled by drag and drag will only be at its maximum when the cart is being held still in the wind. If the propeller helps it go downwind faster it only helps it to give out of power faster.

Ahhh - still trolling I see.

Demonstrate what exactly? You didn't like my descriptions and terms, and you refused to propose your own.

My money is here Spork, I can write the cheque today.

Demonstrate and you will get it or name a secure independent escrow that holds your 100,000 and he will get mine but you will still need to demonstrate or come up with the cash yourself.


Guy



Guy

What's wrong - no stupid "give me money for nothing" comments?

>> Demostrate or pay.

You seem to be forgetting a critical factor. There is no agreement in place. You refused to accept mine or produce your own. There is no "demonstrate or pay" to it. I haven't "agreed" to pay. I "offered" to pay simply to prove that you wouldn't conduct this transaction over this public forum as you insisted we do.

Post your address or STFU

Ive refused nothing.

Demostrate or pay.

Thank you for agreeing to pay, I have given you the address to post the check so I assume its on the way.

My home address it is publicly available in a myriad of places but I would like the check sent to the address I have given you please.

Thanks


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 09-18-2008 03:52 AM
Post your address and the check is on it's way.

This is swell. How many times do you want to go around this loop?

Demonstrate or pay as you said you would.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 09-17-2008 11:41 PM
>> I offer a simple thought.

I'll offer a simple thought as well. You were so sure it couldn't be done, that you *appeared* to be willing to put $100K on it. But when the rubber meets the road, you just want to flap your gums about it again.

>>
Of course, none of this proves or disproves the possibility of making vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind. However it does demonstrate that THIS vehicle cannot.
<<

In fact the only thing it actually proves is that you can't understand aerodynamics. So here is where it stands now...

1) For anyone that actually wants to know how and why Jack's vehicle can and does work (rather than just explaining confidently that it can't), I'll be happy to explain it in ways that are easily understandable.

2) I realize "Guy" doesn't have the money to take my bet (or even a home it seems), but I'm going to improve on the bet. I'll prove it can be done with the actual cart seen in the video. Not another type of cart, and not one *like* it, but with the actual cart used in the YouTube video.

Of course it would be smarter to ask to see my cards rather than take my bet, but that's the deal.

If there is anyone but Spork and his alter ego left spectating this sad exposition, I offer a simple thought.

On the presented video of the cart accelerating from zero to being faster than the wind, consider the moment when the cart is moving at the same speed as the wind. At this point there is no relative movement between the air and the cart and thus the only relevant forces on the cart are the thrust of the propeller, tending to accelerate the cart, and the drag on the wheels tending to decelerate it.

The drag on the wheels is the sum of the load they deliver to turn the propeller and the total friction in the system.

We know that the thrust output from any propeller is less than the input to the propeller. Thus the drag on the wheels is more than the thrust from the propeller by the sum of the friction losses and the propeller efficiency losses.

The deceleration forces are greater than the accelerating forces, the cart must inevitably be slowing. It can never go faster than the wind.



Jack makes a startling comment in his description. He states that, if the gearing is reversed so the propeller turns in the opposite direction, then the cart will go up wind.

But in both cases (the cart travelling faster than the wind and the cart going up wind) the relative airflow passes the cart (and thus the propeller) in the same direction. The direction of rotation of the propeller would be the same in both cases! The gearing therefore needs to be in the SAME direction.

The reference to a change of direction is a profound logical gaffe.
The truth is that, if the gearing is sufficient to overcome the starting forces then the cart, as configured in the video, will go up wind (whichever way round it is pointing).

There have been many vehicles made, both land and water based, that demonstrate this.

Of course, none of this proves or disproves the possibility of making vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind. However it does demonstrate that THIS vehicle cannot.

Guy

>> You have really lost the plot haven't you?

Let's see... I'm toying with an internet troll that claimed he knew for sure that it was physically and theoretically impossible to build a wind powered vehicle that goes directly downwind faster than the wind. Then that troll claimed he would accept a bet to that effect, but refused all possible scenarios in which that bet could be carried out. When given the option of suggesting his own rules and such, that same troll simply refused. Finally, to call his bluff, I tell this troll I'll simply send him the money - all he has to do is provide his address. And the troll refuses even that!

So no - I think I'm following the plot just fine. Short version: you're still a useless internet troll that wants to make bold innaccurate claims, but you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

You have really lost the plot haven't you?

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> You have it.

I have the address of the skateboard park where you go to gawk at young boys. Are you telling me that's also your residence?

You have it.

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Please post your mailing address.

Please send the check.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> now when will I get my 100,000?

When you send me your address.

>> I've never been at all secretive.

Right, you just refused to even tell me what country you live in. You still refuse to give me your address to send the check to.

Fine with me, now when will I get my 100,000?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I've never been at all secretive. You have always been able to look me up.
It is you who has no name.

Now when can I expect my 100,000?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I've gone ahead and sent a link to this discussion to your employer. I just think they might enjoy this forum as much as you.

Finally we're getting somewhere. It seems you're a managing director for the Corus Group (in the steel tubes division). You live in the U.K.

You sure are an awfully secretive troll for someone who claims this entire thing has to be conducted directly on this forum without any direct contact even via email.

Will you post your true address for me to send the check to, or should I?

OK please send it to

Guy Glover
Adrenaline Alley
Arnsley Road,
Corby,
Northants
United Kingdom
NN17 5QW

Thanks

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Sorry, that's not the deal. We're going to do this on-line in the public forum as you specified. Once I send you the money you can do whatever you want with it. Hell, you even have an excuse about taking payment.

Friggen uber-troll

OK, that would be good.

I have a charity I would like to donate it to.

Adrenaline Alley
Arnsley Road,
Corby,
Northants
United Kingdom
NN17 5QW

I will let them know it is coming.

Thanks

Guy




< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 09-16-2008 04:12 AM
>> I just wish to get on with it in whatever is the easiest way for you.

You're right. Perhaps I should just send the money. How should I make out the check, and where should I send it?

>> What do you want me to do to help you?

All of the things you said you were going to do, when you complained that my approach was insufficient. But we're past that all now. Just tell me where to send the money.

What do you want me to do to help you?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I believe we have sufficient in the exchange of emails for an enforceable agreement. Of course if you want to help by suggesting something more formal please go ahead. I am open to anything however I appreciate that the more I say the more you will try to cloud the matter with insults.

I just wish to get on with it in whatever is the easiest way for you.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> Amazing trollmanship.

I think it just shows that if you do what you love, and play to your strengths, you really can achieve amazing things.

Hmmmm ...

You would like Sport to demonstrate what?

Spork defined the task and you didn't like the definition. You said *you* would come up with one in ~7day ... that was TWO MONTHS AGO.

You're just making yourself look silly by now saying "I'm happy to pay once you have demonstrated".

Amazing trollmanship.

JB

No excuses here, you offered a demonstration for 100,000. I have the money, happy to deposit it with an escrow, please name one who holds your 100,000 (but I don't see the need).

You said some time ago it would take you a month. So demonstrate within a month from now please, I'm happy to pay once you have demonstrated.


Guy



< replied-to message removed by QT >

"Guy":
>No more excuses, just your demonstration.

ROFLAO! "demonstration"? Demonstration of what? Demonstration for what?

Suddenly, "the money is here" and "all you have to do is your demonstration" is good enough.

A non-troll makes the contacts, negotiates the agreements, opens escrow with mutually agreed upon agent, etc.

A troll won't make contact, never completes his counter offers, and avoids escrow altogether with the words "the money is here".

One of these two parties appears willing to move forward, but is sure as hell isn't you "guy". Big words until it's time to actually do something and then fffffttttttt.

JB

Oh I see, your new excuse is that we don't have to have an agreement of any sort (the agreement you've be drafting for many weeks). I don't have to know what country you live in. We don't have to use an escrow account. I should just post a video on YouTube or something and you'll send my $100K in SecondLife?

F'in troll!

Cut the crap Spork.

The money is here, all you have to do is your demonstration.

No more excuses, just your demonstration.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Ahhh - very clever is this troll. His new excuse is NO excuse. I had no idea it would be as simple as telling him my name.

Yo' BubbleBoy. I've got an idea. We could have a little side bet. What do you think his next excuse will be?

Edited by author 09-11-2008 10:53 AM
O.K. Troll Glover. My name is Dave Atkins. What country are you from? Please post all the info (acct number, bank name, address, phone, etc.) for the escrow acct. Also please post the exact details of the proposed contract.

It's unclear to me how we're going to sign contracts if you're completely unwilling to contact me directly through the email address I provided.

Oh - wait - no it's not. You've never had $100K, and have clearly had no idea what you're talking about on this thread. You're a troll that can't or won't put your money where your mouth is.


Incidentally, it seems clear there IS no public here. We can know this because:

A) Only you, me, and BubbleBoy have responded to any of this
B) They would have laughed you out of here long ago.

The money is here waiting for you but you have to conduct this in public where you started it Your refusal to do so makes it clear to me that you do not intend to stand behind your words.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> So, "Guy" won't use the email address Spork provided to exchange personal contact information.
 
Nope. Because then he'd be cornered into putting his money where his mouth is.

So, "Guy" won't use the email address Spork provided to exchange personal contact information.

If two people are serious about consumating a 100k bet, they will give each other their private info, cell phone numbers, etc. to make it happen (after all, these individuals aren't going to publish an escrow account number, etc. here on a crawler harvestable site).

It appears that Spork is willing to do that. It appears that the "Guy (AKA "troll)" won't even tell Spork what country he lives in let alone drop a note to the provided email to get the Sporks information.

It's pretty simple -- "Guy" doesn't want this thing to happen or that email address would have been pinged just after it was posted.

That's the only one real answer I can come up with to the "why won't "Guy" ping the email address" question -- If you have another one "Guy", I'd sure love to hear it.

JB

Still trolling I see.

I thought you had gone away!

The draft agreement was nearly complete but I began to suspect that you were not going to stand behind your words and so finishing it off would be throwing away good time after bad.

If we don't know who you are how is any agreement enforceable?

Guy


< replied-to message removed by QT >

How you comin' with that escrow acct there Guy? You got your $100K in there yet?

In the absence of any comment concerning my proposed treadmill methodology and suggestion to contact the Chief Executive of RORC I assume they are acceptable to you.

We cannot rely on only one potential source of independent observers, do you have any suggestions of others?

Best regards,

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 08-20-2008 08:19 AM
Classic troll.

>> It was his decision to do this in public...

It's hard to make a public offer of a bet in private

>> I have responded openly.

On the contrary. You refuse to even tell me what continent you're on.

>> He did not make anonymity a condition of his public offer - if he had everyone would have laughed.

I told you I wouldn't put my personal info on this forum, and I provided a means of contacting me directly to share all info. And yes, everyone is laughing - at the troll.

>>It is implicit in his proposal that he identify himself at some point

And yet you refuse to contact me to proceed.

>>I intend to see the agreement I have with him through to completion.

You have no agreement. You've said you don't like my words, but have failed to produce your own. You've said you don't like my arbiters, but have failed to provide your own.

You have no agreement, you have no money, and you have no intention of being anything more than a troll.

>> I am using my own name...

And are unwilling to tell me what continent you are on, or this demonstration would have to take place on.


Classic troll!

"Most private contact information" = his name?

It was his decision to do this in public, I have responded openly. He did not make anonymity a condition of his public offer - if he had everyone would have laughed.

It is implicit in his proposal that he identify himself at some point (without that nothing can happen) - until he does there has to be significant doubt that he is willing to stand behind his own words.
I intend to see the agreement I have with him through to completion. I am using my own name and fully willing to conduct the entire exercise in the particular public arena he has chosen.

I have taken the step of responding in my name, he has not reciprocated. I find it strange that you attempt to portray my wish to know his name as a reason for doubting my seriousness.


Guy



< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 08-20-2008 03:24 AM
>> It intrigues me that, while I am the one to do you the favour of accepting your challenge...

Classic troll. You *pretented* to accept my challenge because that's what trolls do. If you really had the ability and intent to accept my challenge, it would be because you think you could win. But if you really wanted to do me a favor you'd just send me the money. Classic troll.

>> but you wont tell us your name.

I posted an email address to exchange all necessary personal data. You won't even tell me what country you're in. Nor will you contact me via the email I posted. Classic troll.

>> I am the one who is deadly serious here.

You're a serious troll - and I'm embarrassed to admit I got sucked in by your silliness.

Guy:
>I am the one who is deadly serious here.

Guy to Spork:
> ... you wont tell us your name. Please do so.

Why would you be expect to be taken seriously when you continue to ask a question that has already been addressed. That's not the sign of "serious", but rather the sign of "troll". Seems to me that Mr. "Serious" would have been using the email that Spork provided to get your questions answered.

I can't imagine why you would expect someone to post private contact information on a public forum -- after all, you wouldn't even take the first step of providing an email address as he requested ... Spork took that first step when you would not, so how does that make you serious again?

Action says "serious" like nothing else -- so far, by giving you a private email to use Spork has demonstrated such. Why not just cut the crap and make the contact?

JB

I did explain why I had not.

I am the one who is deadly serious here.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Guy ... just an observation. Just because party "A" says they don't have a deadline, doesn't mean that this releases party "B" from being judged by their actions.

When you say you will do something by a certain time and without update repeatedly do not do it, it's fair to assume a lack of seriousness.

JB

It intrigues me that, while I am the one to do you the favour of accepting your challenge, you continually throw childish insults at me. This one is particularly bizarre as only a few days before you stated that you had no deadline. Don't worry, the agreement will come in good time.

Having chosen this place to offer your challenge, to strut your confidence and to throw insults about but you wont tell us your name. Please do so.

On to more substantive matters.

Following your lead on sailors as a source of independence, I was introduced to the Chief Exec of RORC on the Squadron lawn last week. We don't know each other and I suggest I se the introduction to contact him and ask him if he would nominate an independent observer. RORC are a highly respected world wide in the highly sensitive role of adjudication racing yacht ratings and are ideally suited t the task. I suggest that we finds several more similar sources both to aid the logistics an to allow there to be a small panel.

On the matter of the test itself, I would be happy to accept your preference for the treadmill methodology and have an approach that accommodates my inertial concerns (not a frame of reference matters). My proposal is that the cart has a flexible tether attached to the rear. The cart is placed on a stationary, level treadmill and the treadmill is then accelerated up to steady speed. To pass the test the cart should move forward (against the direction of the movement of the treadmill) until the tether becomes tight preventing it moving further and off the end of the treadmill, from which point it continuously exerts a tension upon the tether. Assuming that this is acceptable to you I will have it drafted into the proposed agreement.
Best Regards,

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 08-18-2008 11:01 AM
Wow. That Guy can sure talk a mean physics game.

JB

>> I aim to have a first draft as you requested within 7 days.

Well, 7 days has now become 4 weeks. Clearly Guy is a troll. He was plenty confident of his position to call people scammers and to call others' intelligence into question; but in the end Guy is clearly not as sure of his position as he claimed to be.

I'm officially done being waltzed around by this troll. If anyone ELSE actually has the conviction they claim to about this thing being completely impossible, the offer still stands. Or if $100K sounds like too little or too much, I'll be happy to consider any other proposal.

Guy,

Here's an email address. Send me your contact info.

Th3in22Air8De8sig9ns@aol.com (remove the numbers; use only the letters)

>>It appears that the two you propose have, by your own admission, a preconceived opinion of the outcome.

I never admitted any such thing. I know that one of them does have an opinion on the matter because we've discussed it in the distant past. The other one I imagine will agree it's possible only because he's intelligent and an aerodynamicist. He's a friend of a friend. I don't think I've ever met him.

>>That would appear to exclude them as independent.

Once again, we're back to you. You didn't like my statement of the bet and arrangement, so I invited you to make your own. You don't want people with any intlligence to decide on this, so again I invite you to name them yourself. I imagine it will go about the same way as the first plan did.

>> opinions of mathematics and physics will just get in the way.

Yeah - facts can be inconvenient.

>>Are you going to tell us your real name?

Yes, as I said I'll be happy to share my name, address, credentials, etc. with you. Just give me an email address. I won't post all this on a public forum (do you even read my posts?).

Are you even going to tell me what country you live in? This is the third time I've asked. As I said before, I'm in the S.F. bay area of CA.

Listen, if you really want out of this thing, just say so. The sandbagging is getting tiresome.

It appears that the two you propose have, by your own admission, a preconceived opinion of the outcome. That would appear to exclude them as independent.

The issue is not what may or may not be possible but whether or not you provide a machine that moves the way you say it will. This needs people who have judgement and integrity opinions of mathematics and physics will just get in the way. It is said that the USA has some of the best judges that money can buy, which probably rules them out as well.

Are you going to tell us your real name?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>>While I am working on this could you consider how we should select an individual (or panel?) to be the independent assessors.

I have two people in mind that I think will agree to it. One was the navigator on the winning boat from the most recent sailing race around the world (the Volvo cup). He was also the founder and CEO of one high-tech company in Silicon Valley, and the CTO of another. The other is an aero professor at Stanford.

I suggest you do the same. Find one or more people that you're confident can understand the math and aerodynamics involved. But I warn you, if you choose someone with these qualifications they will almost certainly tell you it can be done.

>> Do you have a particular deadline for some reason?

Nope. It's just that when you missed your own suggested deadline by more than a factor of 3 I assumed you had "lost interest".

>>While I am working on this could you consider how we should select an individual (or panel?) to be the independent assessors.

Sure.

>>Please can you let me know your real name.

Happy to. But so far you've been unwilling to even tell me what country or state you live in. Do you have a contact method by which we can trade personal info?

Hi all,

Sorry for vanishing for some days, when I got back from my business trip I discovered that a long standing obstacle to my participating in an offshore sailing passage had been removed and I had to drop everything and rush. I have just arrived back at my home port and have downloaded my email for the first time for 2 weeks.

I have an outline structure of the agreement in place and I will work to flesh it out. Do you have a particular deadline for some reason?

While I am working on this could you consider how we should select an individual (or panel?) to be the independent assessors.

Please can you let me know your real name.


Thanks


Guy


< replied-to message removed by QT >

So what's up? Of ALL those people on here that are so sure the video is a hoax, no one wants to take my money? I don't think people were quite as sure as they thought they were.

Edited by author 08-07-2008 12:00 AM
>> " ... this is an obvious hoax"

I guess we can say that about Guy's agreement to take up this bet. In the time I've debated this thing I've found a number of people that are absolutely convinced it's not possible. I've also found a bunch that have been convinced, even when some of them thought they could never be convinced. I've only ever had one person actually take me up on the bet (that doesn't include every idiot that says "yeah - I'll take the bet - send me the money"). In that one case, this person was unquestionably the most ubnoxious and condescending of anyone I've debated the topic with. Once he agreed to the bet he went to raise the money. As part of his due diligence he of course did the necessary research for the first time (because simply insulting me wouldn't satisfy his backers). And the most astonishing thing happened. He found it was possible and asked if I'd let him out of the bet. Neither of us had yet put the money in escrow, and I obviously let him out (not that I could force his hand even if I wanted to).

But the interesting thing of course is that even in that extreme case, this guy didn't hide. He admitted he'd learned something.

I overestimated Guy.


EDIT:

Look at this - I just went back to look at Guy's first claim that he'd accept the bet. Here it is:

"Yeah, OK.

Ill take your money.

Whats the easiest way for you to send it to me?"

So it looks like he's in the category of people I mentioned above - people that don't even understand how a bet works.

>> I aim to have a first draft as you requested within 7 days.

Well, it's been 21 days. It looks like this one got away. I suspect he did go off and do a little research with the added incentive of $100K on the line.

Edited by author 08-04-2008 02:26 AM
The truth of the matter is this - I hope you're right that this has caused Guy to do the research necessary to see that this is quite real. It's not perpetual motion, and it breaks no laws of physics.

There's no shame in getting something like this wrong and later admitting you've learned something. It's not exactly intuitive. It's a little shameful to be stubborn, wrong, and insulting all at once, but I've been guilty of that plenty of times (incidentally, this isn't one of those times - and I'm ready to put my money where my mouth is).

If Guy wants to put the bet aside and learn how this is possible I'm confident I can explain it to his satisfaction. I offered the bet because guy and others aren't asking how it can be done. They've told us it definitely can't be.

Though I'm rather late to this thread party, I have read the entire thread and Guy Glover has been one of, if not *the* most adamant regarding this thread topic. Here's a few quotes from Guy -- we'll call them "Guy's greatest hits":

** " ... this is an obvious hoax"
** "You are right to be confused, you see a video of something impossible."
** "Youre lucky Jack hadn't worked out a way of getting money out of you with his scam!"
** "Oh come on Jack, you repeatedly misrepresent a very simple bit of physics."
** " Jack knows there is another energy source, maybe its being towed, maybe it is rolling down hill, the possibilities are endless."
** " It is blindingly simple and obviously cant work"
** "It is just a mechanism that clearly cant work"
** "... the law of physics that is being broken is the conservation of energy."
** "However low the friction, it will never go faster than the wind."
** "If we dump the propeller and connected its drive to another wheel the cart should go even faster!"
** "The real job of the propellor is to confuse thinking"
** " ... the addition of the propeller slows the vehicle down."
** "It is just a propeller being driven in air. It is not a turbine being driven by the wind."
** "If you can explain to me how you get more energy out of a propeller in thrust than you put into it as drive, maybe I will get my glider to stay up permanently."
** " I am afraid this is an extremely simple issue, there is nothing complicated about the cart."
** "Frankly I don’t understand all the debate about down wind because it is such a simple situation and very easy to model and understand."

Apparently, once the rubber hits the pavement it Guy is not quite as sure of his position. He has been given a chance to quite profitably support his assertions but I see nothing but stalling. Perhaps he's done a bit more research -- the opportunity to put money on the line will do that to a Guy.

In the end, it's the following quote from one of Guy's posts that I find most relevent:

** "If you seek the truth you will learn, if you seek to prove you have nothing to learn you will make a fool of yourself."


I can say I'd love for a fool and his money to be soon be parted, but sadly it looks like it's not going to happen. I sure hope I'm wrong.

JB

>> I aim to have a first draft as you requested within 7 days.

14 days and counting...

For some reason your post of the 15th never arrived here as an email but I have now seen it on the web.

I am now back in the country and will start work on the agreement.
Regards,

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> it will be a week before I can do it.

I'm so excited. It's been one week now, so I imagine I'll be seeing the proposed agreement in short order.

>>In the mean time I asked what time frame you need

Yes - and you may have noticed I answered your question in the very next post.

One of my emails must have gone astray. I will prepare an agreement as you requested but, as I am travelling at the moment, it will be a week before I can do it. In the mean time I asked what time frame you need.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Let's just get the first one going. I'm looking for any taker. It just seemed that you were complaining about my definition buy not offering one of your own - so I put the net out again.

Are you offering a second 100k? We already have an agreement on the first.
I aim to have a first draft as you requested within 7 days.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Just so we don't lose sight of it in all the "details", I'm looking for anyone that wants to take my bet that I can demonstrate a vehicle that is powered solely by the wind, and goes direclty downwind, faster than the wind, steady state. I've got $100K that says it'll work.

Yet another great reason to do it on the treadmill.

I agree, my only concern is to rule out any inertial effects and to have sufficient distance to demonstrate performance in steady state.

Guy


< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 07-15-2008 11:00 PM
>> The definition needs to be somewhat tighter than that, a bicycle would fulfil that description.

I don't see how a bike could fit the description of a vehicle that goes directly downwind, faster than the wind, and powered only by the wind. But that's fine. You've said more than once you don't like my definition, and I've said I'd accept any reasonable definition from you. I'm still waiting.

>> please confirm that you have the cash available.

Of course I have. I'm the one that offered the bet.

>>(I warrant that I have)

Oh well, if you "warrant it" then I guess we're all set. I "warrant" that this vehicle will go downwind, faster than the wind, powered only by the wind, and steady state. Is it settled then?

>>
The problem is that your definition is satisfies by any "vehicle" capable of travelling faster than the wind.
<<

Quit talking about my definition and supply one that satisfies you.

>>I am pleased to hear it, you will find that I am very reasonable.

You're pleased to hear that I'm open to your definition, but we're not making much progress getting a definition out of you. So far all I've heard is that a car, bus, or bicycle is a wind powered vehicle that can go downwind faster than the wind (though I don't know or care how).

>> How much time will you need to demonstrate your vehicle?

If you're satisfied to do it on a treadmill I'll want one month. If you need to see it outdoors we're slaves to the weather. We'd need to find a day with very steady wind going over a perfectly flat slope along a long straight path.

Jack, thanks for the advice on the treadmill. I know you're absolutely right, but I'm not so sure Guy will understand the whole inertial reference frame thing and be satisfied that the scenarios are identical.

I suggest you do the test indoors on a treadmill with no wind. Outdoors, the speed, wind direction and windsheer can be very difficult. You may have to wait weeks to get the right conditions, even then it could be contested. The treadmell test is simple and impossible to fake. If the cart moves forward, it is going faster than the wind.
Jack

>>I guess it would be more usual for the person who lays down
>>the challenge to also define what the challenge is.

>I think "the challenge" is to make a vehicle that goes directly
>downwind, faster than the wind, and to demonstrate it.

The definition needs to be somewhat tighter than that, a bicycle would fulfil that description.

>I guess you think the challenge is to come up with $100K.

I hadn't until I read that, please confirm that you have the cash available. (I warrant that I have)

>In any event, no matter. I have proposed a scenario for the challenge, how
to
>decide the winner,

The problem is that your definition is satisfies by any "vehicle" capable of travelling faster than the wind. I appreciate that it was not your intent but our agreement needs to be clear and enforceable.

>You weren't fully satisfied, so I invited you to offer any reasonable terms
>at all. I will accept them.

I am pleased to hear it, you will find that I am very reasonable.
How much time will you need to demonstrate your vehicle?

Guy

>>I guess it would be more usual for the person who lays down the challenge to also define what the challenge is.

I think "the challenge" is to make a vehicle that goes directly downwind, faster than the wind, and to demonstrate it. I guess you think the challenge is to come up with $100K. In any event, no matter. I have proposed a scenario for the challenge, how to decide the winner, and how to handle the funds. You weren't fully satisfied, so I invited you to offer any reasonable terms at all. I will accept them.

I guess it would be more usual for the person who lays down the challenge to also define what the challenge is. However I recognise it is in my interest to make it as easy a process as possible. I will come up with a proposal. Unfortunately I am travelling all this week and so it may take a few days.

Guy


< replied-to message removed by QT >

Yo BubbleBoy - how about you ixnay with the actsfay. I've got one on the line that wants to give my $100K. But it ain't gonna happen if he learns some physics.

Actually, it's beginning to look like maybe he took the bait but swam away.

Anyone else want to put some money on the outcome you're so sure of?

ThePhysicsPolice

First, before posting a quote from you I want to commend you on your model build with the RC parts. I thought it was quite clever and I so appreciate people who not only calculate, but also *do*. Kudos.

Now to your comments from waaay earlier in the thread.

ThePhysicsPolice:
>Ask any good yachtsman, land or water and he will tell you
>that is what a spinnaker is used for - sailing downwind -
>don't bother tacking it is a waste of time and energy.

Well, I consider Stan Honey (just google that name) as "good a yachtsman" as they come. Just a tiny sample of his accomplishment:
-----------
Stan Honey has navigated in fourteen transpacific races, finishing first six times. As navigator, Stan has set the single-handed, double-handed, and fully-crewed passage records for monohulls to Hawaii. In 1996, Stan and Sally (Lindsay Honey) won the Pacific Cup overall, sailing their Cal 40 Illusion doublehanded. This year Stan will be navigating the Turbosled Pyewacket.
-----------

Stan, as my boss of many years, holds the above statement to be nonsense. In fact, in many high performance sailing endeavours they tack downwind because it's more productive than a spinnaker -- it all depends on the design class your in.

More from ThePhysicsPolice:
>At oblique angles upwind iceboats can certainly achieve
>incredible speeds and as they tack and their inertia can
>continue to carry them at higher VMG downwind briefly but
>then as they continue to tack back to best forward velocity
>their VMG downwind falls well below wind speed and the
>overall end result is a lower than VMG downwind.

This above statement is easily disproven. One can go to the NALSA.org web site (the North American Land Sailing Association) and download gps plots from vehicles during actual sanctioned races. These plots, along with the wind data from the race, show that their VMG exceeds the wind by large margins.

>Argue it as you may these boasts of iceboats exceeding VMG
>downwind almost always EXCLUSIVELY appear in the DWFTTW debate.

There's a good reason for that ... in the iceboat and landsailing communities, it's been done for so many decades it isn't even a topic of debate. They would laugh at you if you told them it couldn't be done.

Is it true they get their fastest speeds upwind? ... yes. Is it true their VMG doesn't exceed the wind ... absolutely not.

>Nevertheless, the challenge still stands for anyone: sailboat,
>land yacht, iceboat, or wind boarder to release a balloon into
>the wind and recapture it or pass beneath it. This challenge has
>yet to be accepted, accomplished and documented in any fashion.
>If it were indeed possible, this debate would be over.

You might want to check out those gps plots before you hold that statement too strongly.

I would happily listen to your arguments as to why the posted data is a fraud -- remember, this is a National sanctioning organization, and the articles aren't even about "downwind faster than the wind" so I find no reason to believe they are grinding an axe.

JB

Oh my, this is gonna get good.

We either get a well defined and executed test, or someone P*s*ies out.

(my money's on the latter)

I sure hope we get to see the definition process done here in public.

JB

All right, I'll tell you what... you should post any reasonable criteria you want. I'll be happy to go with any reasonable scheme you have.

I think we need something that is sufficiently robust to be legally enforceable and clear as to what is being decided.

For example the term "vehicle" has to be well defined (I have several vehicles capable of travelling faster than wind). The conditions for the test need to be defined (for example, can it be given a push to start?). The pass/fail definition needs to be precise - for example does the vehicle have to travel exactly downwind? If not what speed is to be measures (speed of vehicle or VMG downwind?). Are you permitted to try more than once? Who pays the professional and other costs?

Importantly there need to be a time limit upon you to pass the test, I don't want to have to wait to the end of time to get my money.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I'll build a vehicle like Jack Goodman's or borrow his. We will operate it on a day with a steady wind - or use a treadmill if that's suitable to you. The advantage to the treadmill of course is that it produces the equivalent of a steady wind, and we can insure the vehicle is tracking directly downwind. If the treadmill is not acceptable to you, we'll do it outdoors in a "real" wind. A mutually acceptable third party will judge whether it manages to go faster than the wind, directly downwind, powered only by the wind. If he claims it does, the funds in escrow will be deposited to my account. If he claims it fails to do so, they'll be deposited in your account.

OK that's what I had in mind, with one exception.

I suggest we agree on the agreement first and select escrow and judges second. Please send me your proposed draft.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 07-13-2008 11:11 AM
Excellent, I have one on the line. Not a bright one obviously since you don't understand what a "bet" is, but still it's a start.

Here's how I plan to "send you my money":

- We open an escrow and we each put $100K in it.
- We draw up escrow instructions to deposit the sum to the account of the winner of the bet as defined by a clearly written agreement and demonstration.
- There will have to be one or more mutually agreed upon judges, because they will be the ones to issue the final instructions to the escrow company.

Where are you located? I'm in CA. The first order of business is to select a mutually acceptable escrow company and to draw up the terms of the test.

And for what it's worth, everyone that's ever claimed they'd take my bet has started out with "yeah - I'll take your bet - send me the money".

It's kind of embarrassing for them really.

Yeah, OK.

Ill take your money.

Whats the easiest way for you to send it to me?

Guy

Jack's a good man, and he's not looking to scam anyone. I on the other hand am looking for someone to bet me as to whether this works. I've got $100K that says it does. Seems like easy money for those of you that are sure it doesn't.

Just what we need, some video cameras from all angles to check for hidden fishlines. Is that what they meant?

Memberships to the site only cost $4.99 and you get 100% access to all of the live webcams for this price. There are no gimmicks at all. You can see full video with sound for one flat rate of only $4.99. Other sites charge that much per minute for the same exact thing!There are several categories to choose from.

Live Webcams

The wheels are 3.2" in diameter. the wheels turn 2.8 rotations for each fan rotation. The fan pitch is app. 16.3 inches per turn. at 10 mph. the force to turn the fan and misc friction is 402 grams. This was arrived at by reversing the fan, and subtracting out the difference.

I have been working on one of these for weeks. It's almost identical to Jack's.

Unfortunately, I have also been working on a bunch of other things for weeks. Also, my workshop doubles as my living room/bike shop/surfboard repair bay/ebay studio.

I have a lot going on.

Thanks for trying, by the way. All I can say is, if you don't like the result of a recipe, but you changed a bunch of ingredients, it's still possible the problem isn't the recipe.

What kind of RPM were you getting on the helicopter blades at 10 mph? What's their design RPM?

Edited by author 05-21-2007 10:14 PM
[Jack - You need to pitch the propeller so that it blows the air backwards at about .6 of the track speed.]
With the adjustable pitch range I'm able to do that easily. It doesn't make a difference. The more pitch I apply, the greater the force against the scale.

[Jack - Those foam wheels are pretty high loss. I prefer roller blade wheels.]
I actually have 4 sets of wheels (one set are skateboard composition - the same as Rollerblades) but I selected these for their best traction on the treadmill. Don't be fooled because they are foam - they are actually 17 years old and as hard as wood except for the very surface which bites the textured treadmill perfectly. Without the blades on the cart it has so little friction it hardly registers a couple of grams against the scale at 8mph.

[Jack - Also the propeller your are using does not appear to have any twist in it.]
Neither does Mr. Bauer's. His blades taper at the inner roots but don't appear twisted. Again, I do have a set that are made from stacked balsa strips that look like yours but the results using them were not as good as the airfoils in the photos.

[Jack - I don't know what your are doing wrong,...]

Neither do I but I had a hell of a lot of fun doing it.


Again, I do look forward to seeing videos from others here.

http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/Da...w¤t=MyBauerCart.flv

Were any of them able to explain how the thrust from the propeller is greater than the drag the propeller puts on the wheel?

I can't tell much about your car from the photos. You need to pitch the propeller so that it blows the air backwards at about .6 of the track speed. Those foam wheels are pretty high loss. I prefer roller blade wheels. Also the propeller your are using does not appear to have any twist in it. I don't know what your are doing wrong, the car I made is not marginal at all. The only thing I can think of is that if you don't want to be wrong, it is easier to fail. Don't feel bad, this is a common fault in the science world. I have shown the car to many people, they all thought it was impossible at first. They all changed their theory after they saw it in action. Once they under stood how it works, it seemed logical.

It looks like your experiment may have proved my hypothesis that the cart was designed to go up wind.

But to really reperform the experiment you need to be in Chessapeake.

Neat machine.


Guy

Edited by author 05-21-2007 06:42 PM
One of the things that I find really interesting about this discussion is that not a single poster here yet has attempted to validate/duplicate Mr. Goodman's results. We are talking about an incredibly simple machine, equipment, and testing.

Since I love science projects I took advantage of one of my bouts with insomnia and ventured out to my workshop and in just a couple short hours I built myself this:

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/DarwinAward/CartView4.jpg
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/DarwinAward/CartView3.jpg

It is a cart much like Mr. Goodman's. (Actually it is more like Mr. Bauer's - I will explain later). I scaled it down and specifically designed it for use on the treadmill. It is strictly the treadmill test that I am interested in duplicating the results. I did my very best to approach this objectively and build the best cart I could. If there is hole in my logic I want to learn it, know it and repair it. I did not set out to fail. If it is all possible that such a device will make forward progress on the treadmill then I intend to witness it for myself.

This system was built largely from off the shelf components that make up the working airframe of a remote controlled model helicopter. Every rotating component is supported by sealed bearings. From my experience, I already knew I could decrease some of the drag of the drive components by trading the belt design out for a design that uses a drive shaft. This design is clean and simple, there is no steering system needed since I only intend to run it on the treadmill. Furthermore, this design has a great advantage over Mr. Goodman's because it has completely variable pitch on the blades. This holds it more true to the original Bauer design and allows for a complete range of testing. This design also supports quick mounting and testing of several different blade styles and lengths I had on hand. I installed an RC receiver and only used one channel so the blade pitch could be adjusted in real time. With the adjustable pitch on the blades, it is possible to obtain a cart to propeller speed all the way from -9.5:1 down to 0 and all the way up to 11.4:1.

Initial construction was likely less than 4 hours since so many components were readily available. After some initial playing around with it on the treadmill, I took about an hour more to pull the cart apart and take all possible measures to minimize the friction in the system. The excess grease was spun out of the bearings, axles were trued up, and all blades were balanced. Once retested, the cart was for all practical purposes friction free and vibration free.

I also realized that in order to take good data points the complete test fixture would need to be fitted with guides to keep the cart centered on the treadmill and a method of measuring the force exerted by the cart. Simple guide rails were built to fit over the sides of the treadmill and a second guide rod mounted on the back of the cart that would push against the scale in order to take measurements. A piece of soft foam was placed on the scale platform to absorb any minor vibrations.

Here is a photo of the test setup with the guides and scale:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/Da...CompleteTestBed.jpg

After some more testing, it was found that the pitch range was so extreme that the wheels could not maintain traction on the belt with the force required to spin the highly angled blades at the greater pitch ranges while on a 10mph treadmill. I turned off the treadmill and placed a large fan behind the cart. With a wind source behind the cart I could play with the blade pitch and find the exact point where the blades would start to spin backwards and the cart move backwards toward the fan. Since a design where the blades would spin the wrong way was impractical for the downwind application, I decided that this would be the upper limit of the pitch range testing. For the bottom of the pitch range, I simply selected 0 degrees. The RC transmitter was adjusted so the final cart to propeller speed range was limited to a more practical adjustable range from 0 through 5.0:1 in real-time by only changing the blade pitch.

After exhaustive testing on the treadmill, I did not see the results that Mr. Goodman has documented. The car would not make forward progress on the treadmill regardless of the blade pitch setting. Speeds all the way up to the upper 10mph limit of the treadmill were tested to no avail along with the full pitch range at every speed setting. Three different sets of blades and three different wheel sizes (to regear the system) in almost every combination with speed and pitch were tested as well. I also had a set of blades constructed in a similar fashion to Mr. Goodman's using balsa strips fanned out. I abandoned these as I found that they gave the least efficient results. Since all the airfoils I used likely have origins in some of the more popular airfoil design databases and Mr. Bauer appeared to have used standard airfoils I decided to stick with the mainstream.

BTW, here is a photo of the original Bauer Cart with Mr. Bauer:
http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/Da...ward/bauer_cart.jpg

After quite a few hours of toying with the system (which is my kind of fun!) and trying all possibilities I pretty much have come to the conclusion that any increase in pitch or any increase in treadmill speed resulted in more force against the scale. Never at any time did the cart exhibit behavior indicating that it was getting lighter on the scale. There is some interesting behavior from -2 to +2 degrees of blade pitch where the blades exhibit nearly the same cross sectional drag yet their lift is varying. You can detect the point in the pitch curve where the blades are most efficient - but nowhere near efficient enough to "create" the energy required to move the cart forward. My final conclusion is that the best results were to simply remove the blades.

Here is a quick video of some testing highlights:
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/Da...w¤t=MyBauerCart.flv

Feel free to look over any photos of the device in my album:
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u123/DarwinAward/


--------------------------------------------------------- ----

So here is the challenge I present to anyone who wishes to continue the debate:

Simply prove it.

This situation demands verification of the results. No more debating. The trial phase of this case is over. All the arguments for/against this case have been heard.

If you believe it is possible then go build it and put it on the treadmill. Take good movies and post up the results. If you get it working then please help me get mine working (I'm not kidding or being sarcastic). This machine is dead easy to build. No rocket science here. It's 50 bucks worth of parts and million dollars worth of education. You or someone you know has a treadmill. If not, your local health club has one and for some small bribe your buddy at the desk will let you use it.

Even if you don't believe it is possible give it a go anyway. You will have fun at it I promise. Almost any bearing, gear, belt, pulley, and shaft imaginable can be obtained online from http://www.sdp-si.com/. RC radio gear is easy to find at any online hobby shop. Dust of your video cameras and go for it.


I anxiously await the videos.

Over and out.

If you see something that is clearly a scam that is fooling people I suggest the honest thing is to say so. Jack knows there is another energy source, maybe its being towed, maybe it is rolling down hill, the possibilities are endless.

You will have to explain more about 1 & 2. How can there be some potential energy stored? What form is it in? How can energy be put into a propeller from the wind when the propeller is accelerating the air?

Academia is rolling on the floor laughing. There has been no rush of engineers to examine the possibility of lowering a fifth wheel from automobiles in order to utilise the energy available from the road rushing past and to feed it into the drive train in order to get better vehicle performance.


Guy