I don't understand how this car works.

I'm shocked - shocked - to find that dissembling is going on in here.

RM's busy making a complete ass of himself on another thread; pretending that false rape accusasations, rather than rape, is an epidemic. He's as sick as he is stupid.

Another WIRED article. This one they invited JB and I to submit:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/all/1

Great thread.

It appears that that the vehicle was storing energy as it slowly picks up speed. Once the stored energy is converted into kinetic energy and the combination of wind pushing, it goes faster than the wind. But as the wind dies it also dies as the momentum exhausts itelf.

Notice while it is picking up speed it is slower than the wind.

How could it not be when starting from a full stop? What you're suggesting would be fraud, and if you read back you will find that it isn't the case here. Common sense mandates the speed limit, regardless of "Sail" size should be very close to the speed of the wind itself... and without the gearing this would be true. What they've done (quite ingeniously) is invented a way to harness the additional "sail" power that would otherwise be wasted.

Think of it like this: If 10 square feet of "sail" were sufficient to power a craft to nearly windspeed; of what use would an additional 10 square feet of "sail" be? (redundant waste)

You could apply X-amount of braking resistance (approximately one half of the wind's captured power's worth) to such a craft with double the "sail" with no noticeable decrease in speed, right? Rather than using braking resistance; you could build a gearbox that used that same resistance to turn a prop that blows back into the wind itself, couldn't you? This is essentially what they've done.

The craft doesn't store the excess energy; it converts it to opposing "wind."

I am not suggesting fraud just that it evens out. If you subtract the slowness plus the faster than wind then it is no faster than the wind in the total journey i.e. neglecting friction.

You are wrong. If that were the case; the craft would decelerate below the speed of wind once the stored energy was exhausted, regardless of whether the wind decreased... and that is not what happens. Read my short hypothetical again to get your head around it.

The error you are making is that you're looking at the rotor wing as a windmill, rather than the propeller it is. The rotor wing isn't harnessing power, it is using the power that is harnessed by the wheels being turned against the road.

There is mass in the propeller and wheels so they do have flywheel properties. I am not saying that the portion when kinetic energy is working that it is not faster than the wind. It is. But the wind is faster when it is slowly building momentum. Nearly one third of the journey it was slow and by that time the wind would have travelled very far or even finished the journey.

What you don't seem to be getting is that in a constant wind; it would continue to travel faster than the wind indefinitely (essentially until something wore out), so your stored energy theory doesn't work. Read back in the thread for a more thorough explanation if my example isn't working for you.

Not unless that mass is then used to derive thrust, which in this case it isn't. The mass of these is always a drag, never a driver of energy.

Cycloptichorn

I am referring to the turning Inertia developed by the propeller and wheels especially the propeller. As long as there is wind it will go faster than the wind after the propeller reaches full speed. But I am talking about the building up of momentum as it absorbs energy from the wind. The wind is faster. From A to B it seems half way it is lagging the wind. The wind comes in bursts so it takes a while before the cart does bypass the wind.

I think it is feeding from the wind. As long as there is wind it will go faster than the wind.

What was the official result on the tests?