5

# I don't understand how this car works.

rosborne979

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:17 am
@ebrown p,
I think I see how this is working, but I would like to follow your line of reasoning to clarify things in my head...
ebrown p wrote:
Let's assume the wind is going at 13 mph (in the road frame of reference). Do you agree that the wind has kinetic energy?

so... yes, I agree the wind had kinetic energy in relation to the road.
What's next?
BillRM

0
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:49 am
My problem is when the car reach the same vel. as the wind the energy it can get from the wind is zero and therefore the acceleration and the energy needed to replaced friction lost is also zero.

The bladders turning and any energy from that is at the cost from that point on is from the energy of motion of the car and would be the very situation as charging a battery from that very battery.

The whole idea on it face is nonsense.
Cycloptichorn

2
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:50 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

I think I see how this is working, but I would like to follow your line of reasoning to clarify things in my head...
ebrown p wrote:
Let's assume the wind is going at 13 mph (in the road frame of reference). Do you agree that the wind has kinetic energy?

so... yes, I agree the wind had kinetic energy in relation to the road.
What's next?

This thing simply captures energy that a boat doesn't, because once it gets up to speed, the propeller is adding acceleration on to the baseline velocity due to the recycling of energy from the wheel.

The car is deceptive, because once it gets up to speed, the wind isn't really providing the majority of the force anymore - just enough to overcome the standing friction between the tires and the road. The propeller does the rest.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies

Cycloptichorn

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:51 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

My problem is when the car reach the same vel. as the wind the energy it can get from the wind is zero and therefore the acceleration and the energy needed to replaced friction lost is also zero.

The bladders turning and any energy from that is at the cost from that point on is from the energy of motion of the car and would be the very situation as charging a battery from that very battery.

The whole idea on it face is nonsense.

The fact that it actually works sort of suggests that it is not in fact nonsense.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 10:54 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
The whole idea on it face is nonsense.

...said the Catholic Church to Galileo.
BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:00 am
No said Newton not the church however you could store up some energy when going below the speed of the wind in a fly wheel or such to briefly allow you go beyond the speed of the wind but it would be brief as once you reach the wind vel. your total input of wind energy is zero.

Once all energy store in any form in the car is used up then friction will bring it down to the wind Vel.

You could then drop below the wind speed and restore energy from the wind and once more briefly go faster then the wind but your average speed will be below what it would had been if you did not play those kind of games.

So to sum up yes you could go faster then the wind for short periods but your average speed will never be more then the wind and the more storing of energy to do this the slower your average speed will be.
Ragman

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:14 am
<chuckles> It's so surreal when someone denies reality ....a proven visible reality.
BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:21 am
@Ragman,
I have a lovely bridge in New York that take in a great amount of trolls you might wish to buy from me so you can go into the business of building such cars.
ebrown p

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:37 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
No said Newton not the church however you could store up some energy when going below the speed of the wind in a fly wheel or such to briefly allow you go beyond the speed of the wind but it would be brief as once you reach the wind vel. your total input of wind energy is zero.

There is no energy "store" or need to store energy. There is a 13 mph wind. This is the source of the energy being used to overcome friction and accelerate the cart.

You do agree that a 13 mph wind has kinetic energy, don't you?

Quote:
once you reach the wind vel. your total input of wind energy is zero.

You are stating this as an assertion with no support. It happens to be incorrect (as demonstrated by experiment).
0 Replies

Cycloptichorn

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 11:57 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

I have a lovely bridge in New York that take in a great amount of trolls you might wish to buy from me so you can go into the business of building such cars.

So, do you believe they were faking it? How do you reconcile your disbelief with the recorded speeds?

I think the obvious answer is that you cannot, and you simply have a deficiency in your understanding of the physics of the situation.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
First they would not be the first to play such games in fact they would have thousands and thousands of con-men as company with free energy out of thin air or this case wind.

When someone claim that basic laws of nature had been broken they far will need to come up with far far more evidences then I had seen so far.

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:10 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

BillRM wrote:
The whole idea on it face is nonsense.

...said the Catholic Church to Galileo.

No said Newton not the church

For a moment, I thought you were trying to say that Newton corresponded with Galileo, but I take it you mean that Newton's laws are governing the motion of the car.

What I was trying to get across to you is that denying the reality of the experiment puts you in the same position of the Catholic Church in its attempt to suppress Galileo.
0 Replies

ebrown p

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:10 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
When someone claim that basic laws of nature had been broken they far will need to come up with far far more evidences then I had seen so far.

You have yet to explain what law of nature you think is being broken.

There is a 13 mph wind that is a perfectly good external source of energy. The wind speed is measured relative to the road which is driving the propeller. The spinning propeller is pushing backwards against a 13mph wind.

No law of physics is being broken.

BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:22 pm
@ebrown p,
Simple as soon as the car is moving at the same speed and direction of the wind the wind energy is zero and that limit it speed to that of the wind at the most.

As I said before you can store up some of the wind energy before if reach this vel. and used it to briefly go faster then the wind but that is not what they are claiming.

They are waving their hands in the air about the blades being power from the wheels however the total energy is still going to drop to zero at the vel of the wind.

Energy out of nowhere tend to break a few laws of nature and if you do not see that I would suggest taking a few classes in basic science.

Oh you do need energy to maintain a vel. on earth because of friction and taking you foot off the gas of any car on the flats will show you that fact.
BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:33 pm
You know it amaze me and sadden me that science education is so poor that this kind of a hoax is given credit.

Poor Newton and Maxwell had both live in vain as far as the general population is concern.
ebrown p

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:35 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Energy out of nowhere tend to break a few laws of nature and if you do not see that I would suggest taking a few classes in basic science.

First of all, just drop this Energy out of nowhere. There is a 13 mph wind that has energy. You haven't disagreed with this fact. The question you are raising is whether this energy is accessible.

You have yet to specify any law of nature that is being broken-- but conservation of energy isn't it (since we all agree that a 13 mph wind has energy).

The energy is coming from the wind.... when you stop the wind, the car stops.

Now lets explain it a little bit more

1) A spinning propeller (spinning the right direction) will push air backwards causing an acceleration. This works when there is a tail wind (as is the case). In fact, the faster the tailwind, the greater the acceleration will be (this is where the energy is being added into the system). There is no law of physics being broken here.

2) The wheels of a moving car being pushed forward by a spinning propeller will spin when in contact with the road. (My five year old has proven this). There is no law of physics being broken here.

3) Spinning wheels can be connected to a propeller causing the propeller to spin. There is no law of physics being broken here.

What law of physics is being broken?

BillRM

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:55 pm
@ebrown p,
The wind along the ground is not the issue the wind in relationship to the car is the issue.

Once the car reach the speed and is traveling in the same direction of the wind then as far as it is concern the wind is zero. You can not get energy from a wind who speed is zero as far as the car is concern.

I had flown an MX ultralight aircraft at an airspeed of 25 MPH however as the wind at the time was greater then 25 MPH I was flying backward as far as the ground was concern.

By increasing my airspeed I was able to land like a helicopter in spite of my airspeed indicated telling me that I was flying at 30 MPH.

Maybe a second example of a hot air balloon floating in air that is moving at 50 MPH ground would be helpful. The wind as far as the people onboard is zero and if they would place a wind generator into play the total power would be zero even those a similar wind generator on the ground would be pumping out the watts.
Cycloptichorn

2
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:58 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

Once the car reach the speed and is traveling in the same direction of the wind then as far as it is concern the wind is zero. You can not get energy from a wind who speed is zero as far as the car is concern.

True! But the speed of the wheels isn't zero, and that speed is being transmitted to the propeller, which accelerates the device. The wind merely has to provide just enough force to overcome friction; the wheels do the rest.

The fact that the thing has a top speed is a clue to you about how it works, and shows that it isn't a perpetual motion device; can you figure out why?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 12:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
You know it amaze me and sadden me that science education is so poor that this kind of a hoax is given credit.

Poor Newton and Maxwell had both live in vain as far as the general population is concern.

Well, if you'll check the first page of the thread, you'll see that I offered the possibility of a hoax (or experimental error) as one possibility.

You seem to be the more close-minded one, since you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the experiment was genuine.

If you're saying, "this needs to be confirmed as the real deal before I will believe it" then I won't argue with you. I'd love to see Mythbusters tackle this. If you're saying, "this is absolutely a hoax and my intuitive understanding of physics is so great that I won't even consider the possibility of this being genuine" then I think you're a fool.
ebrown p

1
Mon 7 Jun, 2010 01:06 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
The wind along the ground is not the issue the wind in relationship to the car is the issue.

Once the car reach the speed and is traveling in the same direction of the wind then as far as it is concern the wind is zero. You can not get energy from a wind who speed is zero as far as the car is concern.

OK Here is what you are missing. The propeller is what is pushing the car forward faster then a 13 mph tailwind. This not a hot air baloon... this is an aerodynamic car with a propeller.

The propeller is pushing air backwards with a 13mph tailwind. Your ultralight, flying along with the wind, can go faster then the windspeed, right? In fact (as I am sure you know) the faster the tailwind, the faster your ultralight goes.

It is the wheels turning along the ground that is driving the propeller... so the ground has everything to do with it.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek