Nick_Tarleton comments on The Correct Contrarian Cluster - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 21 December 2009 10:01PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (228)
Tags: contrarianism madness

Comments (228)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 23 December 2009 07:14:38AM 0 points [-]

It wouldn't have convinced me, if I thought the thing didn't work — it never mentions rolling resistance!

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 23 December 2009 07:29:35AM 1 point [-]

it never mentions rolling resistance!

What do you mean by that term? The post does say this:

What this all means is that you've essentially gotten energy from the friction of the wheels against the ground, and turned it into propulsion. The ground friction is providing a way to make the propellor "tack" against the wind. The nature of the mechanism means that the initial acceleration of the cart is slower than a pure sail-driven system, because the way the propeller spins adds resistance to the wheels via the gearing. But ignoring losses to friction, if the wind is constant, it won't stop it from accelerating - it'll just slow the rate of acceleration.

(Emphasis added.)

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 23 December 2009 07:31:16AM *  0 points [-]

Okay, it does there, but I refer to this part:

At this point, the pure wind force has fallen to 0, because the cart isn't moving relative to the wind. But the propellor is still producing a force dependent on G, A, and r.

So for the right values of G, A, and r, you'll still be accelerating.

This seems to equivocate between wind/propellor force and net force.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit