Feeds
Bottom of Page
Makers and Making: The little cart that did but Charles Platt wouldn't admit it.
1 to 15 of 15
Mar 24th 2009 edited
I won't go into all the details (as they are covered in other threads here on the forums), but in short Charles Platt wrote an article published in Make establishing (in his mind) that the 'Goodman downwind faster than the wind cart' was "hot air".
It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved. Several of these devices have since been built and tested through these principles of invariance on treadmill devices.
Platt would have nothing of the 4 centuries old, tested and true principles of invariance and has thus failed to pay a $1,000 bounty he offered to a member of this forum (not me) who then went and produced a working device.
Now, the wind tunnel has spoken -- and it turns out that Galilean Invariance is still invariant in spite of what Platt would like to think.
Here are two videos, the first a 'tour' of the custom wind tunnel, and the second a scene from the movie where the wind is cryin' for it's momma.
The 'tour' of the custom wind tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=simRdTslucs&feature=channel_page
The cart kicking the wind's ass senseless in the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxPegaBWa4o
Sorry Charles -- get your checkbook ready.
JB
It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved. Several of these devices have since been built and tested through these principles of invariance on treadmill devices.
Platt would have nothing of the 4 centuries old, tested and true principles of invariance and has thus failed to pay a $1,000 bounty he offered to a member of this forum (not me) who then went and produced a working device.
Now, the wind tunnel has spoken -- and it turns out that Galilean Invariance is still invariant in spite of what Platt would like to think.
Here are two videos, the first a 'tour' of the custom wind tunnel, and the second a scene from the movie where the wind is cryin' for it's momma.
The 'tour' of the custom wind tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=simRdTslucs&feature=channel_page
The cart kicking the wind's ass senseless in the tunnel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxPegaBWa4o
Sorry Charles -- get your checkbook ready.
JB
Mar 24th 2009
It might be possible to take you seriously if you were interested in science rather than insults.
"It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved."
Um, no, it wasn't. Using this kind of "logic" does not lend credibility to whatever else you have to say.
And that's too bad; The DWFTTW topic is interesting. I'd certainly like to see some scientific investigation of it sometime.
(BTW-- Galilean Invariance is not actually invariant. Charles Platt knows this, and you should too. Look it up.)
"It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved."
Um, no, it wasn't. Using this kind of "logic" does not lend credibility to whatever else you have to say.
And that's too bad; The DWFTTW topic is interesting. I'd certainly like to see some scientific investigation of it sometime.
(BTW-- Galilean Invariance is not actually invariant. Charles Platt knows this, and you should too. Look it up.)
Mar 24th 2009 edited
Windell, you're wrong on every single count:
A:
I could never ever find enough time to throw out enough insults to begin to even the deck against insults thrown at those who demonstrate DDWFTTW, starting with Platt.
Platt openly insulted a good man (Jack Goodman) in his article without even attempting to contact him and learn the necessary basics of the device. When the evidence continues to pile up that Platt wrongly demeaned a man, don't expect me to stand by and not point out his folly -- it's deserved.
B:
Me:
>"It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance
>that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever
>of the basic physics principles involved."
You:
>Um, no, it wasn't. Using this kind of "logic" does not lend
>credibility to whatever else you have to say.
The logic of my statement stands perfectly -- Through ignorance (or willfulness if you prefer, ... but I don't), Platt built his device ignoring the realities of friction and tested it while geared 180 degrees backwards from what is required to go DDWFTTW.
The treadmill tests (the Invariance part) proved that a device could be built if one only spent the time to use reasonable quality parts rather than something more like popsickle sticks and wooden bearings. Platt's attempt was the equivalent of him failing to recreate the success of the Wright Flyer, using 2x4s and a steam engine and then claiming the brothers Wright were frauds.
C:
>And that's too bad; The DWFTTW topic is interesting.
>I'd certainly like to see some scientific investigation of
>it sometime.
There is *NOTHING* more scientific than one party demonstrating a process, publishing how it's done and then having the skeptics successfully recreate the experiment -- that is how those windtunnel videos came to be. We presented our devices and created a set of build videos on Youtube for others to create their own and reproduce the experiments.
The builder of that tunnel gave us hell three ways to Sunday saying we were wrong, that it couldn't be done and the treadmill test proved nothing. The difference between this critic and others (including Platt) was that this fellow actually took the time to get the proper information from those who made the claims (us) and then built the device according to the details of a working design. The difference between success and failure? -- knowedge and education vs ignorance and arrogance.
and the "arrogance" part brings us to D:
>(BTW-- Galilean Invariance is not actually invariant.
>Charles Platt knows this, and you should too. Look it up.)
I have.
What Mr. Platt *claims to know* is that there is a test which can be done on a treadmill which will establish absolute velocity. Mr. Platt takes on Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Feynman and every other physicist of note who knows better.
Platt vs those other guys -- go ahead and take Platt in this one if you wish, I'm sticking with the Geeky guys.
JB
A:
I could never ever find enough time to throw out enough insults to begin to even the deck against insults thrown at those who demonstrate DDWFTTW, starting with Platt.
Platt openly insulted a good man (Jack Goodman) in his article without even attempting to contact him and learn the necessary basics of the device. When the evidence continues to pile up that Platt wrongly demeaned a man, don't expect me to stand by and not point out his folly -- it's deserved.
B:
Me:
>"It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance
>that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever
>of the basic physics principles involved."
You:
>Um, no, it wasn't. Using this kind of "logic" does not lend
>credibility to whatever else you have to say.
The logic of my statement stands perfectly -- Through ignorance (or willfulness if you prefer, ... but I don't), Platt built his device ignoring the realities of friction and tested it while geared 180 degrees backwards from what is required to go DDWFTTW.
The treadmill tests (the Invariance part) proved that a device could be built if one only spent the time to use reasonable quality parts rather than something more like popsickle sticks and wooden bearings. Platt's attempt was the equivalent of him failing to recreate the success of the Wright Flyer, using 2x4s and a steam engine and then claiming the brothers Wright were frauds.
C:
>And that's too bad; The DWFTTW topic is interesting.
>I'd certainly like to see some scientific investigation of
>it sometime.
There is *NOTHING* more scientific than one party demonstrating a process, publishing how it's done and then having the skeptics successfully recreate the experiment -- that is how those windtunnel videos came to be. We presented our devices and created a set of build videos on Youtube for others to create their own and reproduce the experiments.
The builder of that tunnel gave us hell three ways to Sunday saying we were wrong, that it couldn't be done and the treadmill test proved nothing. The difference between this critic and others (including Platt) was that this fellow actually took the time to get the proper information from those who made the claims (us) and then built the device according to the details of a working design. The difference between success and failure? -- knowedge and education vs ignorance and arrogance.
and the "arrogance" part brings us to D:
>(BTW-- Galilean Invariance is not actually invariant.
>Charles Platt knows this, and you should too. Look it up.)
I have.
What Mr. Platt *claims to know* is that there is a test which can be done on a treadmill which will establish absolute velocity. Mr. Platt takes on Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Feynman and every other physicist of note who knows better.
Platt vs those other guys -- go ahead and take Platt in this one if you wish, I'm sticking with the Geeky guys.
JB
Mar 24th 2009 edited
More video, this one from standstill and from inside the wind tunnel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-EoGbdyzE
Notice the hinged 'tail' hanging limp at the start, angling one way when slower than the wind and the opposite way when faster than the wind.
JB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-EoGbdyzE
Notice the hinged 'tail' hanging limp at the start, angling one way when slower than the wind and the opposite way when faster than the wind.
JB
Mar 25th 2009
JB: You're proving my points exactly.
A. I call you out on talking about insults rather than science, and you respond with a discussion of insults.
B, C. I call you out on bad logic, and you stand by it.
Your claim: "It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved."
No, you have *not* shown with a controlled experiment that he "had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved." You can't. You might be able to prove that a measurement was erroneous, or that an experiment was badly designed, but you can't prove what someone thinks. Give it up.
As I said, this is part of why it's hard to take you seriously. I haven't looked at your research-- maybe it's excellent --but ad hominem arguments are usually hints that something is not science.
D. You said "Galilean Invariance is still invariant...," and I merely point out that it isn't. Since you bring up Einstein and Feynman, you must know this as well. Good-- sounds like we're in agreement, unless you're *actually* claiming to have disproven special relativity with a wind tunnel.... ;)
A. I call you out on talking about insults rather than science, and you respond with a discussion of insults.
B, C. I call you out on bad logic, and you stand by it.
Your claim: "It was demonstrated through the principles of Galilean Invariance that Platt was just a lousy builder and had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved."
No, you have *not* shown with a controlled experiment that he "had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved." You can't. You might be able to prove that a measurement was erroneous, or that an experiment was badly designed, but you can't prove what someone thinks. Give it up.
As I said, this is part of why it's hard to take you seriously. I haven't looked at your research-- maybe it's excellent --but ad hominem arguments are usually hints that something is not science.
D. You said "Galilean Invariance is still invariant...," and I merely point out that it isn't. Since you bring up Einstein and Feynman, you must know this as well. Good-- sounds like we're in agreement, unless you're *actually* claiming to have disproven special relativity with a wind tunnel.... ;)
Mar 25th 2009
That's a very cool demonstration.
I have to second the comments on your bad attitude however.
You do yourself a disservice by being so cranky.
I just stop listening and trying to understand the
issues you are trying to prove when I read such anger.
Super job on the wind-tunnel however.
I have to second the comments on your bad attitude however.
You do yourself a disservice by being so cranky.
I just stop listening and trying to understand the
issues you are trying to prove when I read such anger.
Super job on the wind-tunnel however.
Mar 25th 2009
TinAirDesigns sez:
"Several of these devices have since been built and tested through these principles of invariance on treadmill devices."
Do it in the open air - [no wind tunnel, no treadmill] and you might have something to crow about.
Thirding the comments on your attitude. Ditch the ad hominems.
"Several of these devices have since been built and tested through these principles of invariance on treadmill devices."
Do it in the open air - [no wind tunnel, no treadmill] and you might have something to crow about.
Thirding the comments on your attitude. Ditch the ad hominems.
Mar 25th 2009
>I call you out on talking about insults rather than
>science, and you respond with a discussion of insults.
Platt, the author of the article insulted an honest man in a published magazine article. He did this either through ignorance or willfully. You call those insults, I call them facts.
>B, C. I call you out on bad logic, and you stand by it.
Of course I stand by it ... it's good logic, and logic that you can only attack through the use of a giant strawman (below)
>No, you have *not* shown with a controlled experiment
>that he "had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics
>principles involved." You can't.
Of course it *can* be shown that Platt doesn't have a grasp of the basic principles involved. Not only can it, it HAS been shown. It doesn't take a "controlled experiment" to show this -- what kind of silliness is that? All it takes is a published magazine article where he puts his lack of understanding in writing. He wrote of testing the cart with it geared BACKWARDS (and not by accident ... read the article) -- showing "no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved". Now, you could claim I'm wrong if Platt knew better and did this willfully, but I choose not to believe that Platt would to that. You're welcome to believe his actions were willful and say I'm wrong. OK
>You might be able to prove that a measurement was erroneous,
>or that an experiment was badly designed, but you can't prove
>what someone thinks. Give it up.
And there's the strawman -- I never tried to say what he "thinks". You're right, I have no idea what he "thinks", but I do know that when he wrote his article insulting to Goodman he was wrong, and he was either wrong through ignorance or willfulness. The tests on the treadmill proved him wrong. The tests in the windtunnel prove him wrong. The tests on the street prove him wrong. You can take your pick, but that logic, made from the beginning can't be rationally argued against.
>As I said, this is part of why it's hard to take you
>seriously. I haven't looked at your research--
>maybe it's excellent --but ad hominem arguments
>are usually hints that something is not science.
They physics of the situation aren't going to change whether you take me seriously or not.
> You said "Galilean Invariance is still invariant...," and I
>merely point out that it isn't. Since you bring up Einstein
>and Feynman, you must know this as well. Good-- sounds
>like we're in agreement, unless you're *actually* claiming to
>have disproven special relativity with a wind tunnel.... ;)
You're smart enough to understand context. Platt claims that Galilean invariance doesn't apply to the treadmill test. I believe your smart enough to know that Galilean invariance actually IS invariant as it applies to those tests he refuses to accept. If you wish to argue issues irrelevant, feel free.
JB
>science, and you respond with a discussion of insults.
Platt, the author of the article insulted an honest man in a published magazine article. He did this either through ignorance or willfully. You call those insults, I call them facts.
>B, C. I call you out on bad logic, and you stand by it.
Of course I stand by it ... it's good logic, and logic that you can only attack through the use of a giant strawman (below)
>No, you have *not* shown with a controlled experiment
>that he "had no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics
>principles involved." You can't.
Of course it *can* be shown that Platt doesn't have a grasp of the basic principles involved. Not only can it, it HAS been shown. It doesn't take a "controlled experiment" to show this -- what kind of silliness is that? All it takes is a published magazine article where he puts his lack of understanding in writing. He wrote of testing the cart with it geared BACKWARDS (and not by accident ... read the article) -- showing "no grasp whatsoever of the basic physics principles involved". Now, you could claim I'm wrong if Platt knew better and did this willfully, but I choose not to believe that Platt would to that. You're welcome to believe his actions were willful and say I'm wrong. OK
>You might be able to prove that a measurement was erroneous,
>or that an experiment was badly designed, but you can't prove
>what someone thinks. Give it up.
And there's the strawman -- I never tried to say what he "thinks". You're right, I have no idea what he "thinks", but I do know that when he wrote his article insulting to Goodman he was wrong, and he was either wrong through ignorance or willfulness. The tests on the treadmill proved him wrong. The tests in the windtunnel prove him wrong. The tests on the street prove him wrong. You can take your pick, but that logic, made from the beginning can't be rationally argued against.
>As I said, this is part of why it's hard to take you
>seriously. I haven't looked at your research--
>maybe it's excellent --but ad hominem arguments
>are usually hints that something is not science.
They physics of the situation aren't going to change whether you take me seriously or not.
> You said "Galilean Invariance is still invariant...," and I
>merely point out that it isn't. Since you bring up Einstein
>and Feynman, you must know this as well. Good-- sounds
>like we're in agreement, unless you're *actually* claiming to
>have disproven special relativity with a wind tunnel.... ;)
You're smart enough to understand context. Platt claims that Galilean invariance doesn't apply to the treadmill test. I believe your smart enough to know that Galilean invariance actually IS invariant as it applies to those tests he refuses to accept. If you wish to argue issues irrelevant, feel free.
JB
Mar 25th 2009 edited
>That's a very cool demonstration.
Thanks Alan, but it's not my demo. A critic of our tests from NZ (I'm from California) set out to prove Goodman wrong and ended up (like anyone who learns how it works and builds one correctly) realizing that Goodman was totally right.
>I have to second the comments on your bad attitude however.
>You do yourself a disservice by being so cranky.
>I just stop listening and trying to understand the
>issues you are trying to prove when I read such anger.
I'll stop being angry at Platt when Make does a remake of the article and sets the record straight.
>Super job on the wind-tunnel however.
I really thought the builder did an excellent and quite creative job as well.
JB
Thanks Alan, but it's not my demo. A critic of our tests from NZ (I'm from California) set out to prove Goodman wrong and ended up (like anyone who learns how it works and builds one correctly) realizing that Goodman was totally right.
>I have to second the comments on your bad attitude however.
>You do yourself a disservice by being so cranky.
>I just stop listening and trying to understand the
>issues you are trying to prove when I read such anger.
I'll stop being angry at Platt when Make does a remake of the article and sets the record straight.
>Super job on the wind-tunnel however.
I really thought the builder did an excellent and quite creative job as well.
JB
Mar 25th 2009 edited
Hiro:
>Do it in the open air - [no wind tunnel, no treadmill]
>and you might have something to crow about.
Been there, done that, posted the videos. It really is funny however how different people respond --
Show them the outdoor tests and they say "do it in a wind tunnel and you'll have something to crow about".
Show them the wind tunnel and they say "do it in the open air and you'll have something to crow about"
Some say "show me a test in controlled conditions" and so you show them the treadmill test in an environmentally controlled enclosure and they say "Galiliean invariance isn't invariant when it comes to a simple treadmill".
LOL. It's all covered -- the device performs the same no matter where you put it (as it should as the same laws of physics apply no matter where you put it)
> Ditch the ad hominems.
Calling ignorance "ignorance" when demonstrated on record is not ad hom, but rather simple fact. Calling someone who attempts to build a friction and aero sensitive device out of barely shaped 'popsickle sticks' a lousy builder isn't ad hom, but rather simple fact. None of that would have been an issue of course except that in the process he insults someone who actually does it right.
With a little research of other builders, Platt could have learned how to build the device correctly. Through an understanding of the physics involved he could have figured out how to build it correctly without that research. Platt chose neither path and ended up insulting an honest man in a public magazine.
Mr. Platt has had plenty of opportunity since to make his error right and has refused. Mr. Goodman deserves better.
JB
>Do it in the open air - [no wind tunnel, no treadmill]
>and you might have something to crow about.
Been there, done that, posted the videos. It really is funny however how different people respond --
Show them the outdoor tests and they say "do it in a wind tunnel and you'll have something to crow about".
Show them the wind tunnel and they say "do it in the open air and you'll have something to crow about"
Some say "show me a test in controlled conditions" and so you show them the treadmill test in an environmentally controlled enclosure and they say "Galiliean invariance isn't invariant when it comes to a simple treadmill".
LOL. It's all covered -- the device performs the same no matter where you put it (as it should as the same laws of physics apply no matter where you put it)
> Ditch the ad hominems.
Calling ignorance "ignorance" when demonstrated on record is not ad hom, but rather simple fact. Calling someone who attempts to build a friction and aero sensitive device out of barely shaped 'popsickle sticks' a lousy builder isn't ad hom, but rather simple fact. None of that would have been an issue of course except that in the process he insults someone who actually does it right.
With a little research of other builders, Platt could have learned how to build the device correctly. Through an understanding of the physics involved he could have figured out how to build it correctly without that research. Platt chose neither path and ended up insulting an honest man in a public magazine.
Mr. Platt has had plenty of opportunity since to make his error right and has refused. Mr. Goodman deserves better.
JB
Mar 25th 2009
Just so anyone that might care knows, I'm quite capable of having non-"angry" exchanges regarding this device. So far every response has said "you're angry" and I've responded by saying "yes I am and with good reason". I believe that expressing anger over a badly written and executed article in Make magazine on a Make magazine forum is appropriate.
If anyone wishes to see the math, the videos or any other information regarding this device, let me know. I can provide all of the above and also take questions -- all without being angry. :-)
JB
If anyone wishes to see the math, the videos or any other information regarding this device, let me know. I can provide all of the above and also take questions -- all without being angry. :-)
JB
Mar 25th 2009
I completely missed the part where the guy who built the great
demonstration was NOT the angry-guy posting here as
"ThinAirDesigns"
Things make a LOT more sense now. It just didn't jive that
such a great experimentalist could be such a cranky beast.
Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the anger expressed here.
demonstration was NOT the angry-guy posting here as
"ThinAirDesigns"
Things make a LOT more sense now. It just didn't jive that
such a great experimentalist could be such a cranky beast.
Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the anger expressed here.
Mar 25th 2009 edited
Alan:
>Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the
>anger expressed here.
I'm sad Make published an article calling into question the honesty of an honest man.
JB
>Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the
>anger expressed here.
I'm sad Make published an article calling into question the honesty of an honest man.
JB
Mar 25th 2009
>>
I completely missed the part where the guy who built the great
demonstration was NOT the angry-guy posting here as
"ThinAirDesigns"
Things make a LOT more sense now. It just didn't jive that
such a great experimentalist could be such a cranky beast.
Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the anger expressed here.
<<
Well, it's too bad you haven't been along for the complete ride. It has been quite a ride. You're getting to see JB's response to a pretty fair amount of abuse that he and I and others have taken from Platt.
And if you think JB isn't capable of such experiments, you've got it wrong in a big way. Partly because he and I have done more experiments together on DDWFTTW vehicles than anyone else in history. Additionally, because I've known JB for a long time, and can tell you first hand that I've never met someone more practical and capable. He is not a talker - he's a doer (well - he's also a talker).
As to the circular wind-tunnel, it's a great experiment. And it was done by a guy that came to learn about these DDWFTTW vehicles from posts that JB and I made on another forum. He was not a believer. He himself badgered and insulted us for not doing the experiments he demanded. Greatly to his credit, he went out and did them himself.
His circular wind-tunnel experiments don't prove anything that hasn't been proven on the open road and on the treadmill. But if it helps anyone to understand and believe - it's a good thing.
I completely missed the part where the guy who built the great
demonstration was NOT the angry-guy posting here as
"ThinAirDesigns"
Things make a LOT more sense now. It just didn't jive that
such a great experimentalist could be such a cranky beast.
Anyway, I'm still a little sad at the anger expressed here.
<<
Well, it's too bad you haven't been along for the complete ride. It has been quite a ride. You're getting to see JB's response to a pretty fair amount of abuse that he and I and others have taken from Platt.
And if you think JB isn't capable of such experiments, you've got it wrong in a big way. Partly because he and I have done more experiments together on DDWFTTW vehicles than anyone else in history. Additionally, because I've known JB for a long time, and can tell you first hand that I've never met someone more practical and capable. He is not a talker - he's a doer (well - he's also a talker).
As to the circular wind-tunnel, it's a great experiment. And it was done by a guy that came to learn about these DDWFTTW vehicles from posts that JB and I made on another forum. He was not a believer. He himself badgered and insulted us for not doing the experiments he demanded. Greatly to his credit, he went out and did them himself.
His circular wind-tunnel experiments don't prove anything that hasn't been proven on the open road and on the treadmill. But if it helps anyone to understand and believe - it's a good thing.
1 to 15 of 15
Top of PageBack to Discussions
Help | Write for MAKE | Contact Us | Subscribe | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy| About MAKE | FAQ
© 2010 O'Reilly Media, Inc.
All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on makezine.com are the property of their respective owners.