Car Goes Downwind 2.5 Times Faster Than the Wind

[Dauntless]

Mmmm ! Arrhhhhh....Bacon
Homer (Simpson)

Was that my copy of Novum Organum you just ate?

 

[doctorGONZO]

explain how an air molecule can outrun a sail molecule and strike it and transfer momentum into it if the sail molecule is a priori moving 2.5 times as fast as the prevailing wind and its molecules.

That would be indeed impossible, if the two molecules where moving in the same direction, so that everything happens in one dimension only.

But here the sail/propeller molecules are not moving directly downwind. Their velocity vectors have a component perpendicular to the true wind, so it is a two dimensional problem and you have to use vectors to describe the collision. See the vector diagram I posted above, and this animation which visualizes the deflection of the air-molecules (strongly simplified) from different reference frames:

[youtube]63hvQABLOaE[/youtube]

Here the same thing for the propeller cart:

[youtube]FqJOVHHf6mQ[/youtube]

QUOTE endlessplane...."That would be indeed impossible, if the two molecules where moving in the same direction, so that everything happens in one dimension only."

Now, endlessplane, could you help me remember the description of the experiment as it was explained in the OP (that's short for Opening Post. ) ? it's on Page One. (That's page 1).

I'll wait a minute but I dont have a lot of time to waste on Baloney today.

 

[endlessplane]

Now, endlessplane, could you help me remember the description of the experiment as it was explained in the OP (that's short for Opening Post. ) ? it's on Page One. (That's page 1).

If you forgot it, you can read it in the OP (that's short for Opening Post. ) ? it's on Page One. (That's page 1).

 

[doctorGONZO]

QUOTE Papa....."In order for the car to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the wind for power, the total resistive force on the vehicle must be less than or equal to the thrust provided by the propeller (force balance) and the power provided at the wheels must be greater than or equal to the power consumed by the propeller (power balance). (Note: In this explanation we are describing the power balance as seen by an observer riding with the car, so the power for the propeller appears to come from the wheels. A similar analysis can be done from the ground-based reference frame, but it is more complicated.) The force equation tells us that the sum of the wheel resistance equals the propeller thrust when traveling at maximum speed (we are ignoring vehicle drag for simplicity in this explanation). The power balance tells us that the wheel force times the car speed (power input) must be equal to or greater than the propeller thrust times the relative velocity of the air (Vcar-Vwind) divided by the propeller efficiency (power output). Note: we are also neglecting drive train losses in this simplified analysis."


"In order for the car to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the wind for power,......."


I figured you would have trouble finding it, since it is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the OP, so I helped you out.

 

[endlessplane]

"In order for the car to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the wind for power,......."

Yes, the car travels directly downwind. But the car has moving parts, which don't move directly downwind. As shown in the top left picture:

 

[doctorGONZO]

LOL. :lol:

Well, another batch of "believer" posts that are totally unconvincing.

I still dont understand any way that an object can be pushed by a second object that is much slower than the "pushed" one.

There have been so many posts made by "believers" that have been personally insulting and with such a desperate tone that it is very easy to guess that somebody is trying to do a scam.

Insulting my intelligence or veracity accomplishes nothing to explain it to me or anybody else.

 

[itchynackers]

LOL. :lol:

Well, another batch of "believer" posts that are totally unconvincing.

I still dont understand any way that an object can be pushed by a second object that is much slower than the "pushed" one.

There have been so many posts made by "believers" that have been personally insulting and with such a desperate tone that it is very easy to guess that somebody is trying to do a scam.

Insulting my intelligence or veracity accomplishes nothing to explain it to me or anybody else.

I'm not trying to accomplish anything. I'm just stating facts. Inferiority complex anyone? At this point, I would careless if you understand it or not. Disbelievers are a stagnant bunch.

 

[Dauntless]

LOL. :lol:
Well, another batch of "believer" posts that are totally unconvincing.

They're supposed to convince you of WHAT? That you're not funny arguing over nothing?

I still dont understand any way that an object can be pushed by a second object that is much slower than the "pushed" one.

Watch the ruler video again. Where the car moves faster than dat ruler what pushes. Are you going to believe your own eyes? You are doing your damndest to deliberately NOT get it, and YOU are the one flinging the insults.

There have been so many posts made by "believers" that have been personally insulting and with such a desperate tone that it is very easy. . . . .(ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. . . .)

Insulting my intelligence or veracity accomplishes nothing to explain it to me or anybody else.

(ZZZZZZZZZZZ SNORK!!) Um, you should be telling yourself that. . . .

Spose I am messing round in your own tomato patch and you catch sight of me. Being a confessed coward, I take off running. Being a Fast Old Boy, I can run 25 MPH. You are really pissed at me getting your own tomatoes and you lose your temper and pick up your 44. You 44 has bad bullets and can shoot at only 10 MPH muzzle velocity.

For the math-challenged, 25 MPH is 2.5 times 10 MPH.

How is you bullet, going at 10 MPH, going to ever catch up to me, transfer momentum to my sad body, and throw me on my face on the ground?

So, for your analogy to WORK, you have to accept that you are running not straight at me, but at a 30 degree angle to run past me. Before you started running you were 18.66 feet from me. I pointed my Dirty Harry weapon straight at you, but once you started I swung it 90 degrees around. When you are 25 feet away from crossing in front of the barrel I fire, the bullet will travel 10 feet in the time it takes you to get it its' path and YOU ARE HIT! (Oooops at a 30 degree angle you start closer than 25 feet from where you cross in front of the gun. Since someone might bring that up.)

That is the analogy they have made to you, yours adapted to befit it. If in fact the bullet didn't kill you or knock you down, imagine it was self propelled, it would continue in the direction it was travelling at 10mph. If you continued in the direction you were travelling as though on rails, propelled only by the bullet which pushes in its' own direction and not yours, you would be going 20mph pushed by a 10mph bullet. I don't have the calculator handy (Library computer doesn't offer it, dadgum it.) or I could give you an angle for the full 25mph. Because the 2 dimensional movement requires a greater distance to be covered by you than by the bullet pushing you, you have to go faster than the bullet. The wind has to continue at the 10mph because there's more wind behind pushing it. I got all this from reading these posts.

This is more or less what they've all told you. I think you've already understood it well enough. If you REALLY just want to keep arguing and spitting venom, maybe it's time for you to be banned. (Again?)

 

[doctorGONZO]

LOL. :lol:
Well, another batch of "believer" posts that are totally unconvincing.

They're supposed to convince you of WHAT? That you're not funny arguing over nothing?

I still dont understand any way that an object can be pushed by a second object that is much slower than the "pushed" one.

Watch the ruler video again. Where the car moves faster than dat ruler what pushes. Are you going to believe your own eyes? You are doing your damndest to deliberately NOT get it, and YOU are the one flinging the insults.

There have been so many posts made by "believers" that have been personally insulting and with such a desperate tone that it is very easy. . . . .(ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. . . .)

Insulting my intelligence or veracity accomplishes nothing to explain it to me or anybody else.

(ZZZZZZZZZZZ SNORK!!) Um, you should be telling yourself that. . . .

Spose I am messing round in your own tomato patch and you catch sight of me. Being a confessed coward, I take off running. Being a Fast Old Boy, I can run 25 MPH. You are really pissed at me getting your own tomatoes and you lose your temper and pick up your 44. You 44 has bad bullets and can shoot at only 10 MPH muzzle velocity.

For the math-challenged, 25 MPH is 2.5 times 10 MPH.

How is you bullet, going at 10 MPH, going to ever catch up to me, transfer momentum to my sad body, and throw me on my face on the ground?

So, for your analogy to WORK, you have to accept that you are running not straight at me, but at a 30 degree angle to run past me. Before you started running you were 18.66 feet from me. I pointed my Dirty Harry weapon straight at you, but once you started I swung it 90 degrees around. When you are 25 feet away from crossing in front of the barrel I fire, the bullet will travel 10 feet in the time it takes you to get it its' path and YOU ARE HIT! (Oooops at a 30 degree angle you start closer than 25 feet from where you cross in front of the gun. Since someone might bring that up.)

That is the analogy they have made to you, yours adapted to befit it. If in fact the bullet didn't kill you or knock you down, imagine it was self propelled, it would continue in the direction it was travelling at 10mph. If you continued in the direction you were travelling as though on rails, propelled only by the bullet which pushes in its' own direction and not yours, you would be going 20mph pushed by a 10mph bullet. I don't have the calculator handy (Library computer doesn't offer it, dadgum it.) or I could give you an angle for the full 25mph. Because the 2 dimensional movement requires a greater distance to be covered by you than by the bullet pushing you, you have to go faster than the bullet. The wind has to continue at the 10mph because there's more wind behind pushing it. I got all this from reading these posts.

So, for your analogy to WORK, you have to accept that you are running not straight at me, but at a 30 degree angle to run past me. Before you started running you were 18.66 feet from me. I pointed my Dirty Harry weapon straight at you, but once you started I swung it 90 degrees around. When you are 25 feet away from crossing in front of the barrel I fire, the bullet will travel 10 feet in the time it takes you to get it its' path and YOU ARE HIT! (Oooops at a 30 degree angle you start closer than 25 feet from where you cross in front of the gun. Since someone might bring that up.)

That is the analogy they have made to you, yours adapted to befit it. If in fact the bullet didn't kill you or knock you down, imagine it was self propelled, it would continue in the direction it was travelling at 10mph. If you continued in the direction you were travelling as though on rails, propelled only by the bullet which pushes in its' own direction and not yours, you would be going 20mph pushed by a 10mph bullet. I don't have the calculator handy (Library computer doesn't offer it, dadgum it.) or I could give you an angle for the full 25mph. Because the 2 dimensional movement requires a greater distance to be covered by you than by the bullet pushing you, you have to go faster than the bullet. The wind has to continue at the 10mph because there's more wind behind pushing it. I got all this from reading these posts.

This is more or less what they've all told you. I think you've already understood it well enough. If you REALLY just want to keep arguing and spitting venom, maybe it's time for you to be banned. (Again?)

Dauntless has made so many mistakes it is hard to figure out where to start.

"They're supposed to convince you of WHAT? That you're not funny arguing over nothing?"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you getting enough fresh air?

"Watch the ruler video again. Where the car moves faster than dat ruler what pushes. Are you going to believe your own eyes? You are doing your damndest to deliberately NOT get it, and YOU are the one flinging the insults."
My current system is too slow to try to watch youtube thingys. I dont even try. But since you raise the issue, I DO believe my own eyes. And I have seen too many silly lies on youtube to let myself be convinced by any such drivel. With my own eyes I have never seen a slower object push and give momentum to a faster object that was moving away from it. Possibly you have had your consciousness "raised" by some substance when YOU saw such a thing with YOUR own eyes?
Insults? Such as......?

"So, for your analogy to WORK, you have to accept that you are running not straight at me, but at a 30 degree angle to run past me. Before you started running you were 18.66 feet from me. I pointed my Dirty Harry weapon straight at you, but once you started I swung it 90 degrees around. When you are 25 feet away from crossing in front of the barrel I fire, the bullet will travel 10 feet in the time it takes you to get it its' path and YOU ARE HIT! (Oooops at a 30 degree angle you start closer than 25 feet from where you cross in front of the gun. Since someone might bring that up.)

That is the analogy they have made to you, yours adapted to befit it. If in fact the bullet didn't kill you or knock you down, imagine it was self propelled, it would continue in the direction it was travelling at 10mph. If you continued in the direction you were travelling as though on rails, propelled only by the bullet which pushes in its' own direction and not yours, you would be going 20mph pushed by a 10mph bullet. I don't have the calculator handy (Library computer doesn't offer it, dadgum it.) or I could give you an angle for the full 25mph. Because the 2 dimensional movement requires a greater distance to be covered by you than by the bullet pushing you, you have to go faster than the bullet. The wind has to continue at the 10mph because there's more wind behind pushing it. I got all this from reading these posts."
My analogy is based on me running straight away from you and you shooting at me as I recede into the distance in a straight line away from you. You sound like you have got my plainly worded statement BACKWARD. Have you ever been tested for dyslexia? Geometry seems to work different in your universe (be it imaginary or real).

"This is more or less what they've all told you. I think you've already understood it well enough. If you REALLY just want to keep arguing and spitting venom, maybe it's time for you to be banned. (Again?)"
You seem to be thoroughly confused. I have never been a member of this forum before this current registration. And so, I have never been banned from this forum.


You Dauntless, obviously have some kind of serious problem which you are illegitimitly projecting onto me.

 

[doctorGONZO]

"In order for the car to travel directly downwind faster than the wind using only the wind for power,......."

Yes, the car travels directly downwind. But the car has moving parts, which don't move directly downwind. As shown in the top left picture:

Well, endlessplain, your cut-and-paste pictures are sure real purty. But thay dont explain SQUAT.

The fact is, since I first discovered this thread, I have intensely tried to figure out how this crazy scenario could possibly work. I have wasted far too much time and energy trying to make it work.

I have asked "Show me the specific path that a unity of energy takes starting with a molecule of wind and how it winds up moving the car faster than the wind" or something like that. And the reply I was given was double-talk jargon and a few cut-and-paste picture from Wiki that explained NOTHING.

I am an old man who has had a good formal and continuing self-taught education in Physics. I took my first breath with a gift from God of a rather high IQ. I can understand a dam lot of things if they are true and if they are explained in a competent way. And I genuinely have an open mind for any and all new science discoveries. Especially those that might deliver humanity from its slavery to current limited and expensive energy sources.

The way this 2.5 thing has been "explained" in this thread is either the quintessential hoax/scam or is crippled by "believers" who are too incompetent or stoned to be able to teach an well fed elephant how to shit.

 

[endlessplane]

Yes, the car travels directly downwind. But the car has moving parts, which don't move directly downwind. As shown in the top left picture:

But thay dont explain SQUAT.

If you have problems understanding vectors and velocity addition look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula#Galilean_addition_of_velocities
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A-level_Physics_(Advancing_Physics)/Vectors#Vector_Addition

"Show me the specific path that a unity of energy takes starting with a molecule of wind and how it winds up moving the car faster than the wind"

See diagram above. The velocity of the blade (in the ground reference frame) and the force of the air on the blade are at less than 90° to each other. So the air is doing positive work on the blade (transferring energy to it), in accordance with the dot product of force and velocity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_product
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)#Mechanical_power

If you want a more general explanation of the power flow, look up the exam solution on page 12 of this PDF:
http://www.aapt.org/physicsteam/2013/upload/E3-1-7-solutions.pdf

 

[TylerDurden]

The prop produces thrust.

T = thrust
W = wind (force)
d = drag
rr = rolling resistance
gL = gear losses

If: T+W > d+rr+gL, the car moves and increases thrust.

As speed increases, thrust increases, until d+rr+gL = T+W.

 

[endlessplane]

The prop produces thrust.

T = thrust
W = wind (force)
d = drag
rr = rolling resistance
gL = gear losses

If: T+W > d+rr+gL, the car moves and increases thrust.

As speed increases, thrust increases, until d+rr+gL = T+W.

Wind is not a force, but a velocity difference. It doesn't make any sense to add a force (thrust) and a velocity (wind).

 

[TylerDurden]

They push against each other.

This is why gonzoface is confused. The thrust pushes against the wind, driving the car forward.

 

[TylerDurden]

In case this isn't linked here somewhere (loud):

[youtube]G-sOL9Y_XCQ[/youtube]

http://www.makezine.com/2010/11/04/downwind-faster-than-the-wind-black/

 

[liveforphysics]

Gonzo- Ever stepped on a bar of soap in the shower and had it shoot out from under your foot at ~30mph from a comparatively slow downward force from your foot?

Speeds involved are irrelevant. If X energy is captured, X energy can be returned in the same amount in any trade of rate/force provided it's not more energy than the energy collected.

Are you disputing that it can collect energy?

Are you disputing that energy could speed the vehicle up?

Otherwise the mechanism is not relevant.

 

[endlessplane]

The thrust pushes against the wind

This is better stated as: The propeller pushes back the air, which moves relative to the ground. The propeller slows down the air relative to the ground, so it extracts wind energy.

d = drag
rr = rolling resistance
gL = gear losses

Is "drag" the aerodynamic drag of the chassis? If yes then you are missing another crucial retarding force. To turn the propeller you need to supply it with a torque, which creates a braking force at the wheels. The key here is to explain why this braking force at the wheels can be less than the propeller thrust. And the answer to that is the difference in the relative velocities between cart/air & cart/ground. This difference is equal to the true wind, and when it's is zero the cart cannot work, because then the propeller thrust is less than the braking force at the wheels needed to turn the propeller.

 

[TylerDurden]

Yes, I understand, I have oversimplified for the benefit of those who don't yet get it, mostly because the omission of thrust.

From the end of comments on the MAKE page:

The cart is designed to use the energy in the shear plane that exists between the air and ground when there is wind. By leveraging one against the other, speed can be gained at the expense of force. To achieve 3 times wind speed, they had to sacrifice at least 2/3 (I suspect closer to 3/4) of the propeller’s thrust to the ground to provide the torque to turn the propeller.

 

[doctorGONZO]

There has been a significant amount of selective editing which could have been done only by Administration or by skilled hackers. What is the point of trying to argue a subject if the outcome is predetermined by Administration, whether by deliberate will or by incompetence?


CUT AND PASTE QUOTE:....."



Re: Car Goes Downwind 2.5 Times Faster Than the Wind

Postby TylerDurden » Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:39 am
The bullet is a very poor analogy. The car is not running away from the wind, it is pushing against it.


Endlessplane nailed it with feedback loop.

The wind pushes the car and the car pushes back at the wind... then the car goes faster and pushes harder... then the car goes faster and pushes harder... then the car goes faster and pushes harder...
Have a Nice Day,

TD



"The wind pushes the car and the car pushes back at the wind... then the car goes faster and pushes harder... then the car goes faster and pushes harder... then the car goes faster and pushes harder..."


The "Endlessplain" feedback loop is a description of a runaway OU Over Unity scenario.

Cut to the chase. Plainly state whether any of these "believers" are claiming or even implying that this 2.5 car thingy is an Over Unity thingy capturing Free Energy.

Or, plainly state if any of these "believers" have figured out this thingy in theory and dismiss any possibility of OU Free Energy.


I have a secret to tell you. After I gave up on hoping to hear a lucid step by step explanation by any of the regular participants of this thread, of the car going 2.5, I quickly figured out the ONLY WAY IT COULD GO 2.5 DIRECTLY DOWNWIND WITH NO MOTOR OF ANY TYPE.

The car can do a flash excursion to a speed over 1.0 wind as configured WITH NO MOTOR of any type except for changing the prop pitch. As configured the car cannot sustain a speed over 1.0.

There is a method of theoretically sustaining a speed over 1.0 which is totally unrelated to the car as configured. The method has been publicised and so well known, in my knowledge, since the 1970s. It is so simple that probably Leonardo perceived it 500 years ago. It does not represent any kind of an endless loop of Over Unity energy generation.


The car as as presented DOES NOT PRESENT OVER UNITY ENERGY. Any arguments? Bet me enough money to make it interesting in a way that I can be assured of a payoff and I will present proof, as my contestor will have to do also.


My advice....Any greedy SOB who is willing to present the car of this thread as an OU Free Energy machine had better learn the laws about fraud or they could be spending a lot of the rest of their life in the iron cell hotel.

 

[liveforphysics]

Gonzo- Have you ever moved faster than the wind was blowing in a vehicle (like maybe every commute)? Did it violate over-unity to do it, or did you just need some energy budget to spend on moving faster than the wind? (energy budget which you could acquire from any source you like, including wind).

This is not like putting a generator in your front wheel to power the motor in your rear wheel and expecting it to power you. This has a real energy source to power it to be able to travel at speed. Anytime you have a relative difference in energies (airspeed vs the ground in this case, could be a temp difference or elevation difference or chemical potential difference etc etc) you have real energy available for capture and re-use in whatever manner you please, including using it to speed yourself up.

I agree the mechanism of function is both counter-intuitive and semi-complex (it still weirds me out a little). That doesn't mean it's impossible to harness energy from the wind/ground speed difference and use that energy to travel at a higher rate. I also know some of the guys who helped build and test this vehicle, it really works, and given more time/budget to further reduce drag/parasitics and/or improve energy capture it could travel at even higher multiples of wind speed.


This is something fun to think about. If you were cruising in this vehicle traveling downwind at 30mph in a 15mph wind, and you drove onto a super long treadmill moving forward at 30mph (so, zero wheel speed now for your 30mph traveling car), if you had a brake you could apply, you would just continue traveling at 30mph riding on the treadmill, but what would happen if you changed nothing, just drove onto it? (assume zero moment of inertial for all rotational mass for the sake of the exercise, as it would only delay it eventually finding its equilibrium)

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

Anytime you have a relative difference in energies (airspeed vs the ground in this case, could be a temp difference or elevation difference or chemical potential difference etc etc) you have real energy available for capture and re-use in whatever manner you please, including using it to speed yourself up.

which can all be replaced with the word 'gradient'

If you were cruising in this vehicle traveling downwind at 30mph in a 15mph wind, and you drove onto a super long treadmill moving forward at 30mph (so, zero wheel speed now for your 30mph traveling car), if you had a brake you could apply, you would just continue traveling at 30mph riding on the treadmill, but what would happen if you changed nothing, just drove onto it? (assume zero moment of inertial for all rotational mass for the sake of the exercise, as it would only delay it eventually finding its equilibrium)

thought this argument sounds familiar

 

[endlessplane]

feedback loop is a description of a runaway OU Over Unity scenario.

No, because it's not an isolated loop, that sustains itself. It has a continuous energy input, from the air that is slowed down relative to the ground.

Plainly state whether any of these "believers" are claiming or even implying that this 2.5 car thingy is an Over Unity thingy capturing Free Energy. Or, plainly state if any of these "believers" have figured out this thingy in theory and dismiss any possibility of OU Free Energy.

There is no Over Unity involved here. Just wind energy.

As configured the car cannot sustain a speed over 1.0.

It can. It doesn't use any internally stored energy for propulsion, so it can operate in steady state above windspeed.

 

[endlessplane]

This is something fun to think about. If you were cruising in this vehicle traveling downwind at 30mph in a 15mph wind, and you drove onto a super long treadmill moving forward at 30mph (so, zero wheel speed now for your 30mph traveling car), if you had a brake you could apply, you would just continue traveling at 30mph riding on the treadmill, but what would happen if you changed nothing, just drove onto it? (assume zero moment of inertial for all rotational mass for the sake of the exercise, as it would only delay it eventually finding its equilibrium)

So the vehicle is geared to go downwind at 2x windspeed. Since on the treadmill the wind relative to surface is -15mph, a symmetrically build vehicle would try to travel -30mph relative to the treadmill belt. Which is 0mph relative to the ground: It would hover on the treadmill.

But the actual carts do not use symmetrical airfoils, and might have different chassis drag from front vs back. So they would end up moving somewhere between 0 and -30mph relative to the treadmill belt. Which is between 30mph and 0mph relative to the ground.

 

[doctorGONZO]

Gonzo- Have you ever moved faster than the wind was blowing in a vehicle (like maybe every commute)? Did it violate over-unity to do it, or did you just need some energy budget to spend on moving faster than the wind? (energy budget which you could acquire from any source you like, including wind).

This is not like putting a generator in your front wheel to power the motor in your rear wheel and expecting it to power you. This has a real energy source to power it to be able to travel at speed. Anytime you have a relative difference in energies (airspeed vs the ground in this case, could be a temp difference or elevation difference or chemical potential difference etc etc) you have real energy available for capture and re-use in whatever manner you please, including using it to speed yourself up.

I agree the mechanism of function is both counter-intuitive and semi-complex (it still weirds me out a little). That doesn't mean it's impossible to harness energy from the wind/ground speed difference and use that energy to travel at a higher rate. I also know some of the guys who helped build and test this vehicle, it really works, and given more time/budget to further reduce drag/parasitics and/or improve energy capture it could travel at even higher multiples of wind speed.


This is something fun to think about. If you were cruising in this vehicle traveling downwind at 30mph in a 15mph wind, and you drove onto a super long treadmill moving forward at 30mph (so, zero wheel speed now for your 30mph traveling car), if you had a brake you could apply, you would just continue traveling at 30mph riding on the treadmill, but what would happen if you changed nothing, just drove onto it? (assume zero moment of inertial for all rotational mass for the sake of the exercise, as it would only delay it eventually finding its equilibrium)

"Gonzo- Have you ever moved faster than the wind was blowing in a vehicle (like maybe every commute)? Did it violate over-unity to do it, or did you just need some energy budget to spend on moving faster than the wind? (energy budget which you could acquire from any source you like, including wind)."

Yes, For, I have . I'm in the 135MPH Club on 4 wheels, and the 118MPH Club on 2 wheels. in both cases, separated about 4 years in time and about 10 miles in space, the weather was just about perfect textbook condition for machines; about 70 Fahrenheiht and moderate humidity and dead calm wind. I grant that there could have been a faint breath of wind, say a 1/2MPH or maybe even 1MPH tailwind. So I might have been moving 270 Times Faster Than Than Wind. It is entirely likely that you have had as speedy or more speedy rides, but, I have not been just sitting on my butt watching the road go by over there. And there have been countless other commutes walking, biking, motocycling, or driving, in which I have had a tailwind and I have outrun the wind. These voyages of mine did not (as far as I noticed!) rely on Over-Unity. Please do not condescend me and think you have not been noticed.



"This is not like putting a generator in your front wheel to power the motor in your rear wheel and expecting it to power you. This has a real energy source to power it to be able to travel at speed. Anytime you have a relative difference in energies (airspeed vs the ground in this case, could be a temp difference or elevation difference or chemical potential difference etc etc) you have real energy available for capture and re-use in whatever manner you please, including using it to speed yourself up.
I agree the mechanism of function is both counter-intuitive and semi-complex (it still weirds me out a little). That doesn't mean it's impossible to harness energy from the wind/ground speed difference and use that energy to travel at a higher rate. I also know some of the guys who helped build and test this vehicle, it really works, and given more time/budget to further reduce drag/parasitics and/or improve energy capture it could travel at even higher multiples of wind speed."

Well, For, I have been begging and whining to hear just EXACTLY what your REAL ENERGY SOURCE is. And so far, the best I can remember, I have been told only jargon double talk and Baloney and the ubiquitous stand-by of Temper Tantrum. And a lot of real Purty Pitchers cut and pasted from Wiki apparently intended to confuse with designations of varied frames of reference and EFFECTIVE or RELATIVE wind or something like that.




I believe that I have possibly figured out what your machine is doing. It was fairly easy and quick after I finally gave up on the concept of fair and honest discussion and decided to shut out all of your BS and just try to figure out what a machine like yours might be able to do given the parameters you claim for it (allowing for all the fraud that you could cram into a device of its size and shape).

Behold that it is not a miracle to do 2X wind speed ! Every biker has noticed, even me, that when I have had a tail wind I have been able to go faster with only the same effort! With a tail wind, the wind blows me along to its speed with none of my effort, and then my effort speeds me along in addition, so that it is no miracle at all for me to go along at 2X wind speed! So it is not any marvel at all for me or any more powerful biker (every one of you!) to go at 2X wind speed DIRECTLY DOWNWIND! Duh!

Now how to get not just 2X but 2.5X....Well, I am a generous hearted man, I will allow any competent spokesman for this gizmo to POLITELY and CIVILEY splain 2.5. Bear in mind that I have figured out your 2.5, even with all your obfuscation; it is no miracle, it is not OU, it is a little clever, it seems to me to have limited application, and I cannot dream up a commercial application for it. You should have already applied for a patent if you have deemed it worthwhile, and you should therefore be now willing to explain 2.5.

I know HOW to do 2.5 with "your" device. If you have done 2.5, I think that you do NOT know HOW you did it.

 

[liveforphysics]

So, if I'm following that assortment of words, it seems you're down to just the point of not understanding how it can harvest energy?

Are you aware that any point you have different speeds, different temperatures etc that this energy difference can be harvested for energy? If so, I'm unclear what argument you're left making.