5
   

I don't understand how this car works.

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:43 pm
@engineer,
By using a drive train attached to the wheels, you are always extracting the energy of the wind relative to the ground, rather than the energy of the wind relative to the vehicle.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:48 pm
@ebrown p,
You had been told in details what laws had been broken and if you can not understand the matter I would suggest looking into taking a physics course at a local junior college.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:54 pm
@DrewDad,
Energy from the ground?

Came on now the car is decouple from the ground except for rolling friction that will hardly increased it speed.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 02:59 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Energy from the ground?

Came on now the car is decouple from the ground except for rolling friction that will hardly increased it speed.

Re-read what I wrote. It is not "energy from the ground", it is energy because the wind is moving in relation to the ground.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 03:20 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

It seems to me that if you are counting on getting energy from the wind, then the amount of energy you could obtain comes from the delta velocity between yourself and the wind (in the direction the wind is blowing) times the surface area the wind impinges upon. I don't see how you can possibly take energy from the wind if you are running faster than the wind. In that case, you have to fight air resistance to move forward and in the absence of any other external energy supply, you will have to slow down. I'm with DrewDad on this one... I can't see it.


You're not taking the extra energy from the wind... that's the whole point. You're taking it from the speed difference between the ground and the car.

I think you guys are envisioning the wind powering both the car AND the propeller. It doesn't. The wind pushes the car forward, the ground pushes the propeller.

I would also add that they are using the same super-high pressure, bicycle-style wheels that Hypermiling cars use, so there's little friction resistance to begin with...

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 03:27 pm
I'll admit that I don't quite understand how this works. While I'm not a physicist, I do read a lot of physics and usually have no problem conceptually with most physics problems or ideas (the math is beyond my current understanding though). This one I'm having a problem with.

I don't feel bad though, since this is brand new and never been done before.

Some more information is what is needed.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 03:31 pm

0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're not taking the extra energy from the wind... that's the whole point. You're taking it from the speed difference between the ground and the car.

Consider a closed system consisting of the ground under the car and extending all around the car, moving a the same speed as the wind so that there is no energy input from the wind into the system. If the car is accelerating in this closed system, it is transferring energy from something else into its own kinetic energy. Where is that energy coming from? If you put a generator on the wheels, it slows down the car. Picture turning a hand crank on a generator. It takes work to do that, more work that you get out in electricity. The generator drag on the car will be more than the gain from the propeller.

We're saying you can't use the speed difference between the car and the ground to generate free energy.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:22 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're not taking the extra energy from the wind... that's the whole point. You're taking it from the speed difference between the ground and the car.

Consider a closed system consisting of the ground under the car and extending all around the car, moving a the same speed as the wind so that there is no energy input from the wind into the system. If the car is accelerating in this closed system, it is transferring energy from something else into its own kinetic energy. Where is that energy coming from? If you put a generator on the wheels, it slows down the car. Picture turning a hand crank on a generator. It takes work to do that, more work that you get out in electricity. The generator drag on the car will be more than the gain from the propeller.

We're saying you can't use the speed difference between the car and the ground to generate free energy.


It isn't 'free' energy.

Do you, as well, contend that the current allegations are a hoax? If not, I would ask you the same question as I asked Bill: how do you reconcile your understanding of physics with the functional model?

It might help if you remember that the blades of the propeller are essentially constantly tacking.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:30 pm
@engineer,
After more thought, I think I understand what you are saying here. When at neutral to the wind, the system is already moving relative to the ground. That means it has an amount of energy that can be used for acceleration. Assuming that is correct, the maximum final velocity is a factor of the initial wind velocity. I haven't done the math, but it's probably a constant multiplier. Fascinating problem. Once all the kids are in bed, I might even attempt the math.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:33 pm
@engineer,
Engineer no matter how you look at it is free energy coming from nowhere and as such is complete nonsense and a hoax.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:48 pm
@DrewDad,
And how does the wind speed in relationship to the ground have any impact on the car as for the wind to give energy to the car it need to have a vel. in relationship to the car not the ground.

Rolling friction in the only coupling between the ground and the car and for this case it may as well be a free balloon for all the ability it have to grain energy beyond the wind vel. related to it not the ground.

You are just waving your hands in the air but this will work about as well as any other free energy devices.

It is a hoax it can not be anything but a hoax.

If anyone who had taken at least college level physics think otherwise they should be force to give back the credits earn for the courses.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:29 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
You had been told in details what laws had been broken and if you can not understand the matter I would suggest looking into taking a physics course at a local junior college.


Bull. Neither you or anyone else has listed any law that is being broken. Wind provides an external source of energy-- so the law of conservation of energy is not being broken. Momentum is being conserved. Entropy is increasing. There is work being done. Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

Not only is there no law being broken. I don't even know what law you think is being broken.

((Ironically, I have taught a Physics course at a local junior college.))
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:33 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Rolling friction in the only coupling between the ground and the car and for this case it may as well be a free balloon for all the ability it have to grain energy beyond the wind vel. related to it not the ground.

That's why I posted the video above.

The video shows a situation which is analogous to the cart/car when it is moving at the same speed as the wind. ie, the ground is moving beneath the cart/car and the cart/car is in still air (from its perspective).

But in the video the cart/car moves forward (even though the treadmill is on a slightly uphill setting).

The reason is as Cyclo has said; the propeller puts the vehicle in a condition in which it is constantly tacking.

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:34 pm
@rosborne979,
That is a great video Ros. When I did my initial analysis of the situation, I used the road FOR-- but of course, it works in the air FOR as well.

rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:39 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
Not only is there no law being broken. I don't even know what law you think is being broken.

EBrown, the intuitive error that people are making comes from equating "speed" with "energy". And since the car moves faster than the wind they think it is exhibiting more energy than it is getting from the wind. This elicits the standard objections related to perpetual motion.

Yet ice-boats routinely travel faster than the winds that propel them because they deflect the wind at an angle. The propeller on this vehicle is doing the same thing except in a rotational phase rather than an angular phase.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:42 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
That is a great video Ros. When I did my initial analysis of the situation, I used the road FOR-- but of course, it works in the air FOR as well.

Yes, the video is an even simpler situation which also conflicts with the "intuitive" expectations most people have. The intuitive expectation is that the cart on the treadmill will stay in one place because the friction of the wheels will exactly equal the propulsion of the propeller, but that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the propeller produces a situation of constant tack.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:46 pm
@rosborne979,
Yes Ros,

I wonder if going through the math would help people... or if people have too much difficulty accepting math that contradicts their intuitions (a common problem with teaching Physics).

I was thinking about setting up equations showing that the work done by the Propeller against a tailwind equals the work done on the wheels by the ground-- and then showing how this value can easily be greater then any frictional forces even when the car is going faster then the tail wind.

I am not sure if this would be worth the effort.

The tacking example is another perfectly good way of looking at it (as always with Physics, you can look at a problem in different ways and still get the same answer). Personally, I find the tacking example is a little more difficult to describe.
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:54 pm
@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.


Totally unintelligible.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 07:57 pm
@rosborne979,
I just got to turn into a conman as there seem a lot of money to be made as if you keep repeating nonsense and can fake up a video to back up your claims up you are in the money.

I been looking at the threads on the internet over this matter with some of the postings coming from the hoaxers themselves and I had yet to see anyone post any vector math or energy equations to back up the claims it all been playing words games.

The same kind of words games that others had used for the last hundred years or so for free energy devices.

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 06:09:23