Krass
Member
TonyT said:
Yesterday I watched a you-tube video of a model boat powered by a windmill driving a propeller.It drags a piece of wood at the end of about one metre of rope so that the axis of the windmill fan always faces into the wind.
Cannot find the link but will keep searching.
It is trivial to install a windmill such that it turns into the wind:
Jeffbloggs
Member
Krass
Sorry if I stepped on your toes. The information/links you provided are really good. Thx again.
-
TonyT
Depending on what browser you are using you can press Ctrl and H to access your browsing history. If you have gmail you can also sign into youtube for the same.
dbindoff
Member
Jeffbloggs <a
href="http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/5720/page/4#post-34794">said:
dbinoff
Install Google chrome for a better online experience. Is safer and faster.
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/
JB I tried Chrome to view and it does work better for those embedded videos etc. tks.
Jeffbloggs <a
href="http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/5720/page/4#post-34794">said:
On Baron Münchhausen, it was him and his horse out of the swamp by pulling his hair, to be precise.
It's funny that you bring him up here, because the Münchhausen trilemma is very befitting here: (and in many instances in our discussions S2S buddy!!)Wiki:
"If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty) (JB notes: also currently the only commonly form of "evidence" accepted in science aka peer reviewed "common sense")
The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.
In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to be accepting the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists are relying on the axiomatic argument. Views that accept the infinite regress are branded infinitism."
And
"This argument runs as follows: All of the only three ("tri"-lemma) possible attempts to get a certain justification must fail:
All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'.
One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity.
One can stop at self-evidence or common sense or fundamental principles or speaking 'ex cathedra' or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install certain justification is abandoned."
According to my recollection, David Hilbert (early 20th c) was the great proponent of the axiomatic foundations of mathematics, I just looked this quote up "With this new way of providing a foundation for mathematics, which we may appropriately call a proof theory, I pursue a significant goal, for I should like to eliminate once and for all the questions regarding the foundations of mathematics, in the form in which they are now posed, by turning every mathematical proposition into a formula that can be concretely exhibited and strictly derived, thus recasting mathematical definitions and inferences in such a way that they are unshakeable and yet provide an adequate picture of the whole science. I believe that I can attain this goal completely with my proof theory, even if a great deal of work must still be done before it is fully developed."
As I understand it, Godel came along and proved that within any axiomatic set there would be open questions for which an answer could only reside in a larger set.. etc
hence David Hilbert's considerable achievements were overshadowed.
As far as I can tell, we are already talking about mathematics and logic in the early 20th century which was way ahead of any formalism in physics or other sciences. e.g. maxwells' equations and Schrodinger and general relativity are all based on mathematics developed centuries before. Even to this day, I don't think abstruse physics of string theory and particles requires anything more modern than Hilbert was dealing with quite easily within his axiomatic foundations. (I could be wrong about this - please correct me if so)
My point is that in order to deal with actual real world phenomena even today, the benefits of applying the extraordinarily abstruse modern mathematical understanding of algebra and logic **has not been demonstrated** (I probably would not know, I admit - even if it has been) i.e. If it has applicability (and to me that would be a very open question), it has not been discovered yet by any scientist/mathematician involved in a field (that I know of). Hence, I suggest that if one wants to employ a 'Godellian' extension type argumentation, it won't relate to currently accepted science and its methods.
As I inferred, I don't rule out the possibility that some towering genius will find applicability for modern maths in the physical world and literally turn everything inside out and after before.
"I'm wondering if I just gave my self away and the art in which I argue. Bummer! ;)"
Yep, the game might be up.
Russell Moore said:
Would anyone care to try and build a DDWFTTW water borne model? Would propeller/s do the same job as the wheels on the DDWFTTW land craft?
It seems that these things have been around for a long time. Here is a clip showing a wind turbine powered prop catamaran. The docking manoeuvre also seems to suggest thrusters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzGCYaJbf0A
Not much point in doing a model after all.
Krass
Member
Diver said:
It seems that these things have been around for a long time. Here is a clip showing a wind turbine powered prop catamaran.
Russell asked about a DDWFTTW (Directly Down Wind Faster Than The Wind) boat. The wind turbine boat you linked can go directly upwind slower than the wind. This is more than a conventional sail-craft, which can't go directly upwind at all. But to go DDWFTTW you need to put a turbine into water, and a propeller into air.
TonyT
Member
Wind propeller driven catarmaran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzGCYaJbf0A
Sailing 101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Sailing_dead_downwind_faster_than_the_wind
Wind powered vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind-powered_vehicle
Jeffbloggs
Member
dbindoff said:
JB I tried Chrome to view and it does work better for those embedded videos etc. tks.
Hey dbindoff
No probs. If you are looking to improve on that again, sign into the google chrome browser with your gmail account, that way all your links/bookmarks, tabs, plugin, tabs etc are shared on whatever device (incl. mobiles) you log into. You also get online storage, picassa, google sketch, documents, spreadsheets and other services bundled in the "cloud" for free.
dbindoff said:
Hence, I suggest that if one wants to employ a 'Godellian' extension type argumentation, it won't relate to currently accepted science and its methods.As I inferred, I don't rule out the possibility that some towering genius will find applicability for modern maths in the physical world and literally turn everything inside out and after before.
"I'm wondering if I just gave my self away and the art in which I argue. Bummer! ;)"
Yep, the game might be up.
Hmmm.... I am not quite sure how I should take what you said. I'm thinking that you are saying that the current science will not agree with my line of argumentation because it doesn't regard non-axiomatic assumptions? If so, then that is not a problem for me, but it is for science!
The reason I say this is that all axioms, or "premise or starting point of reasoning", must all submit themselves to what science likes to call "probability". This instantly leads into regressive or circular argumentation to which there is effectively no end. For me I don't consider this a problem, or a "trilemma" like they call it, but rather in itself, I find comfort in that these ever changing "conceptions" are actually one of the few constants in life.
Life is change. You can either be in control of that "change" or be subjugated by change. Sometimes we have a choice and when we don't choose wisely we miss that opportunity and must therefore deal with the consequences of that faulty choice. There's nothing wrong with "learning" provided that we remain willing to learn. If we are no longer willing to learn we instantly are no longer willing to "live", because as before; life is change, and without adaptation we will demise.
This is not just crucial to understand to survive, it is also crucial to understand to live. Tolerance, acceptance, respect, humility and humbleness are expressions of these principles. I for one know that these traits are precious and rare, hence extremely valuable. Even though I persuade myself that I am striving to my utmost to achieve these, I continually fail miserably at achieving them, and in doing so and realising it, strive even harder to obtain them. It is no longer an option if I should pursue these things, it has become a my sole re-sponse-ability.
As a person the worst thing that I can do is ignorantly claim that "I am right", at best this makes me a fool in the world, because the rest of the world does know better than I, provided they aren't as ignorant as me. And yes this is intentionally a circular argument, because we are all a part of society and it's "culture". There is no unbiased individuality that can see through the smoke screen veil of all the lies we have been taught from birth as fact. As such we will remain victims of our own ignorance until we shun the mindless following of the many over the perpetual cliff of mass delusion.
Only people have the ability to define a problem, that ability is sadly seldom overcome by their ability to find a solution, simply so because their definition of the problem is in error to start with.
Mahatma Gandhi once said:
"As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves."
Regards
JB
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey dbindoff
Sounds good. I'll keep an eye out for it. Don't be shy to tell me on which side of the argument you think I am! 
TonyT
On electrostatics and aerodynamics, every aircraft has these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_discharger
It is a big problem and curiously increases with precipitation.
http://jdchapdelaine.com/charginginflight.htm
