I don't understand how this car works.

@ebrown p,

The fact that that the two accelerations are in diametrically opposed vectors does tend to create a net acceleration of zero. That doesn't change the fact that there are two points at which acceleration is being applied.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The fact that that the two accelerations are in diametrically opposed vectors does tend to create a net acceleration of zero. That doesn't change the fact that there are two points at which acceleration is being applied.

I don't believe the accelerations are in fact in diametrically opposed vectors, due to the fact that the blades of the propeller are at an angle to the wind - even if the car itself is not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ThinAirDesigns,

ThinAirDesigns wrote:

One thing to remember is that the press has done a very poor job of explaining this thing and as such I'm completely understanding of those who say "it's being explained wrong". We find we are credited with many, many statements that we never made at all.

DrewDad wrote:

The propeller spins in the opposite direction to that expected, pushing the wind backwards, which in turn pushes the car forwards, turning the wheels, and thus turning the propeller faster still

I sure hope this is one of the statements you never made. Saying it's opposite of what we expected is nonsense.

If noone answered, yes, you can post links right now. Unless you're selling something.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I'd love to see the math on this.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showpost.php?p=2062356&postcount=34

http://www.mediafire.com/?xdmjm0von5q

http://www.mediafire.com/?xbzbcyjy0b1

2 Replies

@ThinAirDesigns,

Thanks!

Welcome to A2K. Did you find this site by googling the topic to see who is talking about it?

Cool car, innovative design, nice work. Eagerly awaiting the results of your test with the high-powered wind speed gauge announced on your blog.

Cheers
Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@roger,

"The propeller spins in the opposite direction to that expected,"

roger wrote:

I sure hope this is one of the statements you never made. Saying it's opposite of what we expected is nonsense

I'm quite sure that isn't an exact quote, but I can tell you that it is almost universally true -- nearly everyone views the rotor as a turbine and not a propeller. If it were a turbine powered by the tailwind it would start off immediately rotating the other way.

JB

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Quote:

Geez, DrewDad, You are that unwilling to accept the possibility (however unlikely) that you might be wrong?
1 Reply

Given that he is wrong then our understanding of the universe for the last 400 years is wrong also that is asking a lot.

We would be back to magic and the gods to explain the universe.

I do not think that he is under any obligations to give any credit to internet hoaxers when it come to our basic understanding of the universe.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Thanks Cycloptichorn.

Yeah, just googled and sorted by date and up you popped.

We have been invited to test/demonstrate the vehicle at the NASA Ames research facility. We spent 2 hours with a group of their engineers there on Friday working out the testing plan and safety requirements for being on their runways. Later this month it should happen.

JB

0 Replies

@roger,

I didn't write that, although it may be something I quoted in a previous post.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

sponsored by San Jose State University

Cold fusion was sponsored by the University of Utah so what does that prove?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Thank you DrewDad.................

0 Replies

@ThinAirDesigns,

ThinAirDesigns wrote:

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showpost.php?p=2062356&postcount=34

That's for when there is wind relative to the sail. I haven't denied that your device can be used as a conventional sail craft.

ThinAirDesigns wrote:

http://www.mediafire.com/?xdmjm0von5q

http://www.mediafire.com/?xbzbcyjy0b1

These will take more time for me to assimilate, but it looks like a bunch of hand waving to me.

1 Reply

Let it be known right off the bat that I have no problem whatsoever with skeptics like DrewDad. He has given me no reason whatsoever to this point believe that he doesn't have an open mind.

JB

2 Replies

@ThinAirDesigns,

I'd love to be shown wrong; the universe is a wonderful and surprising place.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If they are not claiming a steady state condition then the whole subject is meaningless as there are many ways to store energy from the wind over time and then released said energy so a car could go over the wind speed.

Hell you could sit there with a wind mill charging batteries and then used electric motors to go a few hundreds mile an hour.

But without some form of energy storage and power by the wind alone you do not go over the wind vel. period going down wind.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Hmmm ...

DrewDad wrote:

That's for when there is wind relative to the sail. I haven't denied that your device can be used as a conventional sail craft.

DD, there is *always* wind relative to the sail on the vehicle -- it's moving independent of the chassis.

DrewDad wrote:

These will take more time for me to assimilate, but it looks like a bunch of hand waving to me.

I would definitely review those two a bit more before you call then "a bunch of hand waving". Those are rather comprehensive treatments and were produced by one of the most experienced and respected aerodynamicists in the world - MIT professor Mark Drela (Google him).

Note this quote from Drela in his treatment: "This confirms that the DDWFTTW condition V/W > 1 is achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty."

JB

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If they are not claiming a steady state condition then the whole subject is meaningless as there are many ways to store energy from the wind over time and then released said energy so a car could go over the wind speed.

Hell you could sit there with a wind mill charging batteries and then used electric motors to go a few hundreds mile an hour.

But without some form of energy storage and power by the wind alone you do not go over the wind vel. period going down wind.

I believe you are really confused about this entire subject, Bill.

I don't want to rehash earlier arguments, but let me say that you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about how the device works. And I will ask you again: when it's proven that it does in fact work, are you going to come back and admit that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If they are not claiming a steady state condition then the whole subject is meaningless as there are many ways to store energy from the wind over time and then released said energy so a car could go over the wind speed.

Hi BillRM.

Here is the claim that we have used for three years now (and have demonstrated scores of times ).

"Directly downwind, faster than the wind, powered only by the wind, steady state".

No stored energy allowed to accelerate the vehicle at any time and our vehicle can maintain speeds well above that of the wind for as long as there is relative motion between air and rolling surface and terrain allows (in other words as long as the 'wind' blows and the 'road' stretches).

JB

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Ah ha, so you're one of the evil hoaxers

Hell we do not know if he is a real evil hoaxer or someone just jumping on the ban wagon.

1 Reply

If you consider a macroscopic system that includes moving air and a moving car, I can see that if the car is moving faster than the wind and the propeller is pushing the car forward, then the air is being slowed down. If the air was moving 10kph and the propeller is exerting force upon it, then the air must slow down. You can transfer the kinetic energy from the wind into kinetic energy in the car, so the laws of physics are maintained.

0 Replies

I don't understand how this car works.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know