Car Goes Downwind 2.5 Times Faster Than the Wind

[TylerDurden]

worked it out

Good on ya, Bob. :wink:

 

[doctorGONZO]

Watching this thread progress as the small core of "believers" desperately try to prove that Newtonian Physics is totally and grossly inaccurate on a macro low energy scale is almost as funny as watching Abbot And Costello Whos On First.

The car is claimed to be sucking energy out of wind shear even though the car is claimed to be doing this while the car is at rest relative to the wind.

Wind shear simply means that two adjacent bodies of air have different velocities. Anybody who is over about 10 years old and not severely retarded has noticed that very often the wind may be blowing around the branches of a nearby tree while a tree a hundred feet away is perfectly still. This is wind shear.

In a gusty wind the car will get wind-pushed up to the speed of the gusts, not the "average" wind speed. Gusts are often 2 0r 3 times the average wind speed.

The "wind speed" is measured by an anemometer that is designed to damp out gusts and give an "average" speed. And the anemometer may be hundreds of yards away from the instantaneous location of the car. The anemometer may easily be in a location where wind shear is causing little or no wind. And the car may be in a location where the wind shear is causing a real wind speed of 2 or 3 times the "average wind speed".

So, it is easily possible to do an experiment like this one in which we are told of an "official" wind speed that may be much less than the real wind speed that was enveloping the car during the few seconds that the car was rolling thru the course. Especially if we permit the car to do many passes thru the course until it happens to catch the gusts that are in its vicinity but are not around the anemometer. And we "forget " about posting the "bad" passes.

Together with the blatant hostility shown by the "believers" toward honest questions, and the complete lack of factual answers to "HOW is the wind shear energy supposed to get from the relatively stationary wind air to push the car", it is looking like this this thing is just a collossal joke, or hoax, or maybe even a fraud.

Anybody who might be thinking of jumping on this bandwagon on the ground floor had better get more convincing proof than one sleezy youtube. I'm keeping my money in BITCOIN where it's perfectly SAFE! :lol:

 

[John in CR]

DrG,

Stop wasting our time with your inability to grasp the physics of why the craft works. While the mechanics to take advantage of the wind are different, It's really no different from the airlines' use of high altitude winds for an airliner to fly faster than the thrust of the engines would dictate simply by traveling with the wind.

Have you ever seen those hidden picture stereogram images. This is similar in that you simply have to look at it from a different perspective to come into focus. I don't really like using sails and angles of attack to explain this propeller driven system, but your stubborn position is really no different than trying to say that no sail craft can travel faster than the wind. Land and ice yachts demonstrate how it's possible to travel many times the speed of the wind. The speed limitation is friction, mostly in the form of wind resistance. This craft simply takes a novel approach to enable it's "sails", the prop blades, to harvest the wind energy exactly like a land or ice yacht, while the vehicle travels directly downwind. If it weren't for friction, primarily in the form of wind resistance for the spinning blades, the vehicle's top speed would be extreme.

 

[bobc]

Somebody should make a boat that does this - it would need a screw prop in the water + a big prop in place of a sail.
Wonder if we'll ever see that in the americas cup......

 

[endlessplane]

small core of "believers"

The American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) are mainstream physics organizations with thousands of members from the field of physics. So I'm not sure what you mean by "small core".

...desperately try to prove that Newtonian Physics is totally and grossly inaccurate.

As the solution by AAPT & AIP shows, it is perfectly consistent with Newtonian Physics:
http://www.aapt.org/physicsteam/2013/upload/E3-1-7-solutions.pdf

while the car is at rest relative to the wind.

"At rest relative to the wind" is gibberish. It can be at rest relative to the ground, or at rest relative to the airmass. But it can never be at rest relative relative to both, as long as there is true wind.

Wind shear simply means that two adjacent bodies of air have different velocities.

Yes, and you can draw energy from this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_soaring
But this is not what that car does.

"HOW is the wind shear energy supposed to get from the relatively stationary wind air to push the car"

The cart doesn't use the velocity difference between two air masses, but between air and ground.

 

[bobc]

I don't usually weigh into this kind of discussion, but it might be useful to put my 'train of thought' down.
firstly in the downwind case, it's not a windmill, it's a prop. so it's not getting anything out of the surrounding air, it's putting energy into it.
I'll use SI units in an example.
Let's say the wind and the car are both going at 10 metres per second dead downwind.
Let's say we pull 100watts out of the wheels - at 10m/s that's a force of 10N
If we put that 100W into the prop, let's say it tries to drive the stationary air around it at 2m/s
100W into 2m/s is a resulting force of 50N
That's 50N from the prop at the expense of 10N at the wheels, leaving 40N to accelerate the craft.

No magic, & mr. Newton isn't turning in his grave

 

[liveforphysics]

Looks like you just joined the "people who get it" club BobC.

Welcome. It's nice here.

Gonzo is only fooling himself or trolling at this point. I refuse to believe God made a human brain so stubborn about insisting to stay so wrong for so long.

Unless Gonzo is Safe. Lol. Safe has mastered and perfected the art remaining wrong in the face of right.

 

[doctorGONZO]

Looks like you just joined the "people who get it" club BobC.

Welcome. It's nice here.

Gonzo is only fooling himself or trolling at this point. I refuse to believe God made a human brain so stubborn about insisting to stay so wrong for so long.

Unless Gonzo is Safe. Lol. Safe has mastered and perfected the art remaining wrong in the face of right.

For, doctorGONZO is not a troll. And doctorGONZO is not fooling himself. I have been repeatedly asking for someone to explain to me IN DETAIL how a wind can possibly empower a vehicle to go faster directly downwind than the true windspeed itself. I have not yet heard a substantive answer. I have heard vague abstract generality answers, such as your own, which contain NO SPECIFIC information. If anyone here is a troll, YOU fit the description to a tee.

You, and anyone else, who believes that the wind air mass can deliver momentum to a body that is in front of it and is traveling faster than the true wind speed, are believing in a pack of lies that violate practically all of Newtonian Physics. Tell me, For, when are you and all your claimed cohorts, going to start re-writing Newton's Principia to allow for the transmission of momentum from a body to another body that is outrunning it?

I really want to get the first edition and read it. I might have lost my Abbot And Costello DVD. I may need a good comedy to make me laugh even more.

Who is Safe? Oh I get it, that is a made up slur in keeping with your made up interpretation of Newtonian Physics. You have me confused with somebody else, in keeping with your general level of confusion.

As before, as always, For, you are invited to explain IN DETAIL how the slower wind can transfer momentum to the faster car that is outrunning it. So far, For, you have only given me a typical trolling effort of saying general abstract things that are practically meaningless.

As I have explained, the most likely case, if somehow this thing is not a gigantic fraud pro se, is that the perpertrators have discovered how to exploit the momentary situation in which the official anemometer is in a wind lull and simultaneously the car is enjoying a wind gust so that the car is going inexplicably fast.


PS...... Dont you understand that if the road is considered to deliver momentum to the car wheel and hence to the prop, then the road must be considered to slow relatively as the momentum is transferred? And, therefore, if the relative velocity between the road and the wheel is slowed, the car must be considered to be slowed? You do not understand one of the most basic tenets of Newtonian Physics but you still drape yourself in the name of physics in your handle?

Who is advising you and pulling your strings, For? And why?

 

[endlessplane]

...a pack of lies that violate practically all of Newtonian Physics.

It's rather something that follows directly from Newtonian Physics, as the AAPT solution posted above shows. Did you read the AAPT solution?

...to allow for the transmission of momentum from a body to another body that is outrunning it?

That doesn't violate Newtonian Physics. The paper strip transfers momentum to the spool, that is outrunning it:

[youtube]E7vcQcIaWSQ[/youtube]

The ruler transfers momentum to the cart, that is outrunning it:

[youtube]k-trDF8Yldc[/youtube]

The walkway transfers momentum to the cart, that is outrunning it:

[youtube]pw_B2MnMqZs[/youtube]

 

[liveforphysics]

You are aware that none of Newtonian physics is the best fit model of reality I assume? Not that this actually has any conflicts with it anyways.

If you wish to see mathematical representations of it's function they have been painstakingly listed in the previous posts by many folks. I noticed you seem to be immune to formula of all types and representations of this model, including BobC's very simple math-based example explanation demonstrating how the effect can work above.

You are also evidently immune to the philosophical proof. I can divide it into 2 phases showing proof of concept for you without needing any belief in math, only a basic awareness of an enthalpy concept.

1. Regardless of what, where or how you are traveling, what color the vehicle is, who is driving inside and how fast and what direction they are going etc etc, there is an energy gradient with harvestable energy when you have the relative speed difference between the wind and the moving surface of the ground.

2.You have equal capabilities to harvest from this wind/ground energy difference (and reducing wind energy is where your energy source came from, same as a racing sailboat tacking at way over relative wind-speed) as seen from a point of reference relative to the wind (how this device works), or fixed ground reference, and wind moving by in relation to you. (like a normal wind-turbine setup).

3. If you apply some amount of this harvested energy to a system in a consistent thrust vector, it will continue to accelerate to whatever speed it requires to have parasitic drag forces reach equilibrium with the quantity of continuously harvested thrust energy being applied to the system.


If a boat sailing boat with a ton of water hull drag can continuously harvest energy from the wind/ground speed difference to travel at higher speeds than the wind (though while tacking at an angle), it is only a matter of creating the mechanism to enable changing the vector the thrust is captured and redirected upon to make it any different than the sailing boat tacking example (and to gain the ability to travel directly down-wind as a bit of a parlor trick modification to the same concept).

Harvest energy because there is always energy available to be harvested when you have access to interface with a difference in speeds of things (tire on the ground, the wind on the vehicle are both of the interfaces used by this vehicle. Re-direct harvested energy through a simple mechanical drive system to increase speed of vehicle. Note, this doesn't make a feedback loop of any kind, because you didn't increase the difference of speeds between the earth and the ground, which is the source of your energy. You have whatever you're able to harvest from the wind/ground speed difference only, and you can apply this towards moving the vehicle faster up until the point the drag on the vehicle is providing an equal energy consumption to the rate of energy you're absorbing. It merely requires changing the ratios of the mechanism's drive between wheels and prop power demand.

The downwind car is ultimately no different in principal than the upwind car (which I do believe you acknowledge is real?), except this mechanism is setup to harvest from the ground and apply to the prop rather than visa-versa, but it's the same concept.

If you don't believe it violates Newtonian physics for the upwind car which is merely flip-flopped with respect to energy harvest/expend mechanisms from the downwind car, you can not make a logical argument that the downwind car is in violation of any form of Newtonian based physics.

As a totally unrelated side note, All of Newtonian based physics is incorrect and violates itself without any help from the moment Relativity was tested to be a more accurate model of how the universe functions. Now modern quantum mechanics has shown relativity can not be correct, due to what Einstein coined "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement and it's seemingly infinitely higher than C rate of state transfer that has been documented even in diamond chips, not just quantum particles).

Do you have any remaining unclear points about the function of this vehicle?

 

[Frank]

I think he is hung-up on the assumption that acceleration is occurring due to a transfer of momentum.

 

[John in CR]

Somebody should make a boat that does this - it would need a screw prop in the water + a big prop in place of a sail.
Wonder if we'll ever see that in the americas cup......

Bob,
There is a large catamaran with a quite large wind turbine in place of a sail and a prop in the water. It's no racer though, and it's only real advantage is that it can travel directly into the wind. There's just way too much friction with a boat and losses of a prop in the water called slippage (all but non-existent with a wheel on the ground), so the blades in the air act only as a wind turbine. It can't run in the same downwind manner and go faster than the wind.

 

[bobc]

Yeah - about 5 years too late I had a look at the early posts in this thread & saw the windturbine cat.
But I keep coming back to the last americas cup & those boats jacking themselves up on hydroplanes and going like stink (from memory well over 2x windspeed)
I don't think "hull losses" were too great on them,they were doing 2 or 3x windspeed in most directions(!) & maybe the time will come for another 'class' of racing yacht with a gurt big windmill/prop & an underwater screw - it would certainly keep the racing interesting (much like interest in the latest series was garnered by the yacht technology and the course designs)

 

[doctorGONZO]

I think he is hung-up on the assumption that acceleration is occurring due to a transfer of momentum.

Well, Frank, concerning that assumption, it got Sir Isaac completely hung up in 1666. His Principia is based on that assumption.

So, tell me, Frank, is it YOU that is gonna rewrite Newtonian Physics but leave out transfer of momentum? Are you gonna call it Frankenstenian :lol: Physics?

Evidently For has decided to ignore it, and leave out the back door. .

 

[doctorGONZO]

You are aware that none of Newtonian physics is the best fit model of reality I assume? Not that this actually has any conflicts with it anyways.

If you wish to see mathematical representations of it's function they have been painstakingly listed in the previous posts by many folks. I noticed you seem to be immune to formula of all types and representations of this model, including BobC's very simple math-based example explanation demonstrating how the effect can work above.

You are also evidently immune to the philosophical proof. I can divide it into 2 phases showing proof of concept for you without needing any belief in math, only a basic awareness of an enthalpy concept.

1. Regardless of what, where or how you are traveling, what color the vehicle is, who is driving inside and how fast and what direction they are going etc etc, there is an energy gradient with harvestable energy when you have the relative speed difference between the wind and the moving surface of the ground.

2.You have equal capabilities to harvest from this wind/ground energy difference (and reducing wind energy is where your energy source came from, same as a racing sailboat tacking at way over relative wind-speed) as seen from a point of reference relative to the wind (how this device works), or fixed ground reference, and wind moving by in relation to you. (like a normal wind-turbine setup).

3. If you apply some amount of this harvested energy to a system in a consistent thrust vector, it will continue to accelerate to whatever speed it requires to have parasitic drag forces reach equilibrium with the quantity of continuously harvested thrust energy being applied to the system.


If a boat sailing boat with a ton of water hull drag can continuously harvest energy from the wind/ground speed difference to travel at higher speeds than the wind (though while tacking at an angle), it is only a matter of creating the mechanism to enable changing the vector the thrust is captured and redirected upon to make it any different than the sailing boat tacking example (and to gain the ability to travel directly down-wind as a bit of a parlor trick modification to the same concept).

Harvest energy because there is always energy available to be harvested when you have access to interface with a difference in speeds of things (tire on the ground, the wind on the vehicle are both of the interfaces used by this vehicle. Re-direct harvested energy through a simple mechanical drive system to increase speed of vehicle. Note, this doesn't make a feedback loop of any kind, because you didn't increase the difference of speeds between the earth and the ground, which is the source of your energy. You have whatever you're able to harvest from the wind/ground speed difference only, and you can apply this towards moving the vehicle faster up until the point the drag on the vehicle is providing an equal energy consumption to the rate of energy you're absorbing. It merely requires changing the ratios of the mechanism's drive between wheels and prop power demand.

The downwind car is ultimately no different in principal than the upwind car (which I do believe you acknowledge is real?), except this mechanism is setup to harvest from the ground and apply to the prop rather than visa-versa, but it's the same concept.

If you don't believe it violates Newtonian physics for the upwind car which is merely flip-flopped with respect to energy harvest/expend mechanisms from the downwind car, you can not make a logical argument that the downwind car is in violation of any form of Newtonian based physics.

As a totally unrelated side note, All of Newtonian based physics is incorrect and violates itself without any help from the moment Relativity was tested to be a more accurate model of how the universe functions. Now modern quantum mechanics has shown relativity can not be correct, due to what Einstein coined "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement and it's seemingly infinitely higher than C rate of state transfer that has been documented even in diamond chips, not just quantum particles).

Do you have any remaining unclear points about the function of this vehicle?

"You are aware that none of Newtonian physics is the best fit model of reality I assume? "

Rarely have I seen such cheeky snark! Some posts back. I plainly wrote that Newtonian Physics is proven adequate for low energy, macro size Physics! Now you are proving your ability to misread, fail to read, and fail to understand anything I have plainly stated!


"If you wish to see mathematical representations of it's function they have been painstakingly listed in the previous posts by many folks. I noticed you seem to be immune to formula of all types and representations of this model, including BobC's very simple math-based example explanation demonstrating how the effect can work above. "

I learned many decades ago the the logic of a situation MUST be correctly defined before its associated math can be trusted. You obviously still have SOMETHING left to learn.


"You are also evidently immune to the philosophical proof. I can divide it into 2 phases showing proof of concept for you without needing any belief in math, only a basic awareness of an enthalpy concept.

1. Regardless of what, where or how you are traveling, what color the vehicle is, who is driving inside and how fast and what direction they are going etc etc, there is an energy gradient with harvestable energy when you have the relative speed difference between the wind and the moving surface of the ground.

2.You have equal capabilities to harvest from this wind/ground energy difference (and reducing wind energy is where your energy source came from, same as a racing sailboat tacking at way over relative wind-speed) as seen from a point of reference relative to the wind (how this device works), or fixed ground reference, and wind moving by in relation to you. (like a normal wind-turbine setup).

3. If you apply some amount of this harvested energy to a system in a consistent thrust vector, it will continue to accelerate to whatever speed it requires to have parasitic drag forces reach equilibrium with the quantity of continuously harvested thrust energy being applied to the system. "

RE 1.....Any fool or trained parrot could say those words. Are you, For, too busy doing IMPORTANT things, to PROVE your harvesting tale? EXPLAIN in detail. HOW?

RE 2.....See above, "RE 1". Dont just SAY it. PROVE it. HOW? I keep on asking HOW? and I keep on getting told hyperbolic BS.

RE 3.....OK, you are unable or you refuse to try to explain HOW in DETAIL, but you valiantly hope that you can brow beat or brain wash gullible persons to agree with you. It looks like you have had some success with with that. It aint me, babe, you actually convince me, or I'm not gonna lie and say that I agree.


I'm tired of this BS. the rest of your post is just the same old BS. You really believe that if you didnt explain it adequately the first few times but repeat the same words, it will turn out different? Wrong!

Perhaps the gizmo does work within Newtonian Physics and provide an astonishing result...You have NOT adequately explained it!

Perhaps the gizmo, as you have plainly hinted, revises Newton in a gross way...You have NOT even begun to adequately explain it!

Or, much more likely , the gizmo was a big mistake from the beginning, or a joke that got out of hand, or a deliberate fraud. I have already said that I could hide enough batteries and electric propulsion device in that huge Blackbird to show the same result. Even a silly fool could figure out how to do that.


"As a totally unrelated side note, All of Newtonian based physics is incorrect and violates itself without any help from the moment Relativity was tested to be a more accurate model of how the universe functions. Now modern quantum mechanics has shown relativity can not be correct, due to what Einstein coined "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement and it's seemingly infinitely higher than C rate of state transfer that has been documented even in diamond chips, not just quantum particles)."


Obviously unknown to you, Einstein Relativity and also Quantum Physics MUST reduce to Newtonian Physics in low energy, macro, conditions. Do you know what LOW ENERGY and MACRO SCALE are? Therefore if an amazing gizmo were to disprove the MOMENTUM cornerstone of classical physics, it would demand a TOTAL rewrite of physics. It is much more likely that the gizmo is a serious mistake or fraud.

I am well ahead of you in studying and applying principles such as quantum entanglement and speed greater than c. Are you just obsessed to prove that you are a silly bastard who has memorized a few jargon words?



BTW....Anybody who cares can get much more accurate information about the car specs and claimed performance, compared to the almost perfectly innacurate and contradictory info round here, if they Google "Blackbird" and pick out the entry connected with MAKE MAGAZINE. It contains a lengthy discussion thread in which the car owner does his best, I suppose, to tell complete and truthful information about it.

 

[endlessplane]

Perhaps the gizmo does work within Newtonian Physics and provide an astonishing result...

It is only astonishing to those who do not understand Newtonian Physics:

re-writing Newton's Principia to allow for the transmission of momentum from a body to another body that is outrunning it?

There is nothing in Newtonian Physics that forbids momentum transfer from a body to a machine outrunning it.

The paper strip transfers momentum to the spool, that is outrunning it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7vcQcIaWSQ

The ruler transfers momentum to the cart, that is outrunning it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-trDF8Yldc

The walkway transfers momentum to the cart, that is outrunning it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw_B2MnMqZs

 

[TylerDurden]

BTW....Anybody who cares can get much more accurate information about the car specs and claimed performance, compared to the almost perfectly innacurate and contradictory info round here, if they Google "Blackbird" and pick out the entry connected with MAKE MAGAZINE. It contains a lengthy discussion thread in which the car owner does his best, I suppose, to tell complete and truthful information about it.

That and the Wired article were already linked in this thread, Einstein.

Finally getting it? Or is the world flat in Gonzoland?

 

[liveforphysics]

One of the beautiful things about human reality, is the ability to choose what you believe, and have exclusive and complete domain over it.

We've painstakingly and explicitly demonstrated every aspect of the function of the device, in the domain of the mathematical, the theoretical, and the philosophical. We've provided numerous off-site resources which also offering excellent explanations that work using conventional and simple to follow physics and mathematics. Most importantly, there are many accounts and evidence of it's function being demonstrated from college groups to NASA research to simple cardboard based conceptual models on youtube videos.

We can very clearly demonstrate if you are harnessing energy, you can choose to accelerate faster than the force you're harvesting energy from by means of simple mechanical mechanism.

The paper strip with the spool is as beautiful and elegant of a proof as anything a human is going to put into words. For some reason Gonzo chooses to believe this violates some imagined fantasy limitation he has imposed on his model of the physical world, despite his ability to watch a spool jet forward at whatever multiple of the speed of the strip it's drawing it's energy from due to the most simple/elegant mechanical mechanisms, the difference in radius between contact points on the object, paper strip, and surface it's riding upon.

If Gonzo wishes to choose to live in his own reality set where this does not function, it is his choice and I can respect his wish to do so. It's kinda refreshing actually to see such a solid reminder that reality for a human is exclusively what you believe it to be, and there is no sum of evidence or logic that can displace ones belief of reality if they don't choose to believe.

Thank you for the beautiful display of human free-will and choice Gonzo. Inspirational.

 

[John in CR]

One of the beautiful things about human reality, is the ability to choose what you believe, and have exclusive and complete domain over it.

We've painstakingly and explicitly demonstrated every aspect of the function of the device, in the domain of the mathematical, the theoretical, and the philosophical. We've provided numerous off-site resources which also offering excellent explanations that work using conventional and simple to follow physics and mathematics. Most importantly, there are many accounts and evidence of it's function being demonstrated from college groups to NASA research to simple cardboard based conceptual models on youtube videos.

We can very clearly demonstrate if you are harnessing energy, you can choose to accelerate faster than the force you're harvesting energy from by means of simple mechanical mechanism.

The paper strip with the spool is as beautiful and elegant of a proof as anything a human is going to put into words. For some reason Gonzo chooses to believe this violates some imagined fantasy limitation he has imposed on his model of the physical world, despite his ability to watch a spool jet forward at whatever multiple of the speed of the strip it's drawing it's energy from due to the most simple/elegant mechanical mechanisms, the difference in radius between contact points on the object, paper strip, and surface it's riding upon.

If Gonzo wishes to choose to live in his own reality set where this does not function, it is his choice and I can respect his wish to do so. It's kinda refreshing actually to see such a solid reminder that reality for a human is exclusively what you believe it to be, and there is no sum of evidence or logic that can displace ones belief of reality if they don't choose to believe.

Thank you for the beautiful display of human free-will and choice Gonzo. Inspirational.

Interesting viewpoint, but it would be so much more inspiring if the good doctor would open his mind to allow just enough light in to illuminate the truth, so he can come back with a "Thanks guys, I got it now. Sorry for the trouble."

 

[johnrobholmes]

One of the beautiful things about human reality, is the ability to choose what you believe, and have exclusive and complete domain over it.
.... It's kinda refreshing actually to see such a solid reminder that reality for a human is exclusively what you believe it to be, and there is no sum of evidence or logic that can displace ones belief of reality if they don't choose to believe.

Thank you for the beautiful display of human free-will and choice Gonzo. Inspirational.

It really is. Many times I have thought to myself how some interpretations of reality are crossed but also correct to the observer. At least now I can say I have perceived an observance of hypertrolling in real life. Plenty of wiggle room for other truths of the subject in there :lol:

 

[liveforphysics]

At least now I can say I have perceived an observance of hypertrolling in real life.

The crazy thing is though, if he believes he is correct in his personal model of reality, he isn't actually trolling, he is trying his best to educate us for the sake of wanting us to be what he believes is correct on this subject.

The guy puts in a serious amount of time writing a response. Easily as much as I personally was willing to work to bestow unto him my version of reality which I believe better fits the observed events relating to a vehicle moving 2.5x downwind in steady-state conditions.

I believe he now has an idea how it works (the spool example is kinda an irrefutable proof of concept and makes the mechanisms themselves kinda trivial.)
I do not believe he ever was trolling us. I agree the parts with all the personal attack BS shows a childish maturity level, but I do not think he trolled us, I think he defended what he believed in the best he knew how against a very difficult crew for a long time.

Imagine if you could get this man to believe in something wonderful and true, it would be impossible to break that level of faith and he could pass on the knowledge to others in the face of any logic/physics/philosophical argument to ensure he delivered the correct message. That's a potentially powerful asset for spreading the gospel of the electric revolution.

Dr. Gonzo my friend, I believe you've shown us awareness of many physics concepts and basic thermodynamics and energy concepts to a higher level than most. I believe you can recognize that EV's have inherent thermodynamic energy conversion advantages, as well as understand the energy/materials/refining/manufacturing environmental impact that is very rapidly compensated for by the first 30 or so 150lbs tanks of gasoline burned. At $5 a gallon gasoline those 600gal cost you $3k, that $3k could have been about 8kWh of useful battery you could still be using all 8kWh of when you're crossing the same mileage point rather than converting it into carcinogenic toxic fumes, other unpleasant combustion byproducts, and of course about 75% of it's energy went straight into heat. The EV can drive 25miles on less energy than it required just for the 1 gallon of gas it requires to be harvested and transported and refined and transported again, before being purchased at a station where dealing with this toxic trans-dermal carcinogen-loaded solvent blend in any lab-space would call for a fume hood and gloves and respirator, but we have kids pumping it from handy very high flow nozzle assemblies that drip down your bare leg carrying carcinogens and mutagens right into the bodies blood stream. Read about studies correlating gasoline fume exposure (and benzene exposure) even at very low levels (<1ppm!) causing increased leukemia and stomach cancer occurrences and other tortuous ways to die as a human (you do not want to be a gas station attendant!)

Believe that EV's make sense. Believe that EV's will be the future, and the future will be brighter because of EV's. Believe that EV's offer the choice of a very minimal energy footprint through solar and wind etc, and supply needed energy storage capabilities for enabling neighborhood grid-load-leveling and energy buffering from solar and wind or whatever clean energy resource the area happens to have.

EV's are a path to the future of human transportation that can work out and become sustainable if we choose to develop/improve them sufficiently. That's what this terrible group of folks you valiantly argued with about this downwind car is all about focusing our mental efforts on. Join us if you choose.

 

[nechaus]

For those who have not learnt the math behind it and want to learn the basics
http://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics
For the noobs like myself lol

 

[doctorGONZO]

Prince For the Golden Boy........You have no idea how much amusement you and your coven are providing to me.

I recognized and regretted the damage to the environment caused by fossil fuel combustion before you were even born. Probably before your parents were even born. And I have been earnestly working to try to to stop the damage and indeed reverse it up to this very moment. Working with a fully open mind. In my teens I began to speculate that perhaps exotic interpretations of established physics might permit exotic methods of energy acquisition or propulsion. But I have always been impeccably careful to examine any concept logically and mathematically.

Now, you are inviting me to join you ?! Hay, Jack, I was here first!

LOL LOL LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

During the past 25 years I have carefully examined between 300 and 500 (in all the excitement I lost count myself) proposed methods of exotic energy production or exotic propulsion, including a few of my own invention. I know how to analyze a supposed exotic thingy.

I have been continuing to analyze the wind car you have been pimping and it increasingly is looking like there is no way it could have worked in an honest way.

Once upon a time, there was mention of a contract for the car owner to adapt his schema to racing yachts. How did that operation turn out?

 

[endlessplane]

I know how to analyze a supposed exotic thingy.

I don't think basic Newtonian physics is still considered "exotic" in 2014.

 

[doctorGONZO]

I don't think

I am in complete agreement with you.