| General > General Technical Chat |
| Newton's third law problem. |
| << < (45/55) > >> |
| fourfathom:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on November 28, 2022, 10:47:33 pm --- --- Quote from: IanB on November 28, 2022, 10:28:21 pm --- No, don't keep that in mind. The formula is also for moving vehicles. Stop this ridiculous behavior of changing what people say and then pretending to agree with them. --- End quote --- Where in that equation do you see the vehicle speed ? --- End quote --- If you had bothered to read Nominal's post for content, you would have seen this: --- Quote ---The reason there is no vw term in (1) is that the fact that the contact to ground, even if rolling, allows the mechanism to balance static forces with forces against the ground. --- End quote --- He should have written "no vv term", (there is a vW term in equation 1, but no vv), but from context the meaning should have been obvious. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on November 28, 2022, 10:16:45 pm ---OK so you agree with the correct equation for power available to any wind powered vehicle. --- End quote --- Finally! Yes, thank you. Have you finally realized your error? --- Quote from: electrodacus on November 28, 2022, 10:16:45 pm ---Keep in mind that first equation is only for a stationary vehicle. --- End quote --- Nope, you need to learn to read. --- Quote from: electrodacus on November 28, 2022, 10:16:45 pm ---All you did is add the efficiency while I took the ideal case with 100% efficiency to be generous. --- End quote --- No, I wrote down the correct equations. What you do, is take the amount of drag a vehicle experiences, and somehow equate that with the available power. That is beyond stupid, replacing the entire field of aerodynamics with a singular concept, "drag", that somehow explains all phenomena. You must be a troll, or someone on the autistic spectrum with severe learning and understanding difficulties. Nothing else can explain this denseness. Any wagers on which one it is, anyone? |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: fourfathom on November 28, 2022, 11:02:42 pm --- If you had bothered to read Nominal's post for content, you would have seen this: --- End quote --- I had read his entire post. I know what I was asking. He is getting confused by the two equations and how they apply. If you look at the original post here the main discussion is about the direct downwind verizon as that is simpler to debunk. There is only one equation that describes wind power available to a vehicle for any type of wind powered vehicle but applies also to a stationary wind turbine and also to power needed to overcome drag. They are all one and the same thing as is all about elastic collisions between an object and air particles. So a vehicle driving at 120km/h in a day without wind will need the same amount of power to overcome drag as a vehicle driving at 20km/h with a 100km/h headwind. It is always about the wind speed relative to vehicle and if vehicle is stationary you will remain only with the wind speed in that equation. It is irrelevant if air, vehicle or both move is all about the relative speed between the two. So if a heavy car at 120km/h hits a stationary lightweight motorcycle the energy of the impact will be the same as if motorcycle drove at 100km/h and collided head on with the car driving at 20km/h. |
| electrodacus:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on November 28, 2022, 11:15:14 pm ---No, I wrote down the correct equations. What you do, is take the amount of drag a vehicle experiences, and somehow equate that with the available power. That is beyond stupid, replacing the entire field of aerodynamics with a singular concept, "drag", that somehow explains all phenomena. You must be a troll, or someone on the autistic spectrum with severe learning and understanding difficulties. Nothing else can explain this denseness. Any wagers on which one it is, anyone? --- End quote --- That is correct the equation is universal it can calculate the power required to overcome drag and that is also the same with ideal case available wind energy. That is not stupid it is the reality. If you have a stationary vehicle and release the brakes wind will accelerate that with the amount of power provided by that single equation. Also if you want to know what is the amount of power to overcome drag so same vehicle wants to move upwind the equation will provide minimum power required to start moving assuming drag is the only loss. I guess you need to do the experiment as you do not understand the concept that from any reference frame the result will be the same so it is irrelevant if air particles collide with vehicle or vehicle collides with air particles. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: electrodacus on November 28, 2022, 11:15:28 pm ---He is getting confused by the two equations and how they apply. --- End quote --- Nope. They are perfectly in agreement with the experiments that you claim are misconstructed or exhibit some special slip-stick hysteresis or magical energy storage pixies. They are also perfectly in alignment with my old University Physics textbooks on Classical Mechanics. I have done the work and passed those courses without problems. (Modern/quantum mechanics too, but that's not relevant here.) The only thing there that can be discussed – among physicists – is how balancing static forces against the ground means the relative wind speed is irrelevant. To laymen, the analog to keels and hydrofoils in sailing vessels provides the concept and the practical example. Nothing can affect the misconceptions your kind of people have. You refuse to acknowledge or even perceive anything that is contrary to your preconceptions, and instead disregard them as being "wrong" somehow. That really reminds me of the people who insist that despite hundreds of millions of murders, communism is still a viable political system; it's just that because they themselves have not been in the lead, nobody has implemented it truly correctly yet. Their argument, too, is that until you can prove it would not work when they are in charge, it is proven to work and everybody else is wrong. Invalid logic, irrational thinking, and evasive random argumentation, just to prop up your ego and misplaced beliefs of your own 'understanding'. It is horrible, and yet interesting, in the pathological sense. There are those who interview monsters, so why not engage with delusional lunatics pushing irrational concepts? |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |