Car Goes Downwind 2.5 Times Faster Than the Wind

[doctorGONZO]

DrG,

Stop wasting our time with your inability to grasp the physics of why the craft works. While the mechanics to take advantage of the wind are different, It's really no different from the airlines' use of high altitude winds for an airliner to fly faster than the thrust of the engines would dictate simply by traveling with the wind.

Have you ever seen those hidden picture stereogram images. This is similar in that you simply have to look at it from a different perspective to come into focus. I don't really like using sails and angles of attack to explain this propeller driven system, but your stubborn position is really no different than trying to say that no sail craft can travel faster than the wind. Land and ice yachts demonstrate how it's possible to travel many times the speed of the wind. The speed limitation is friction, mostly in the form of wind resistance. This craft simply takes a novel approach to enable it's "sails", the prop blades, to harvest the wind energy exactly like a land or ice yacht, while the vehicle travels directly downwind. If it weren't for friction, primarily in the form of wind resistance for the spinning blades, the vehicle's top speed would be extreme.

MrJ, It is true that I am wasting my time round here. Because there is zero possibility that any massive body can be propelled solely by the wind, SOLELY DIRECTLY DOWNWIND, without some method of energy storage or the application of additional energy from some outside source. During acceleration of the body from a standing start, there is a moment when the speed of the body is exactly equal to the speed of the propelling body (the molecules of the air making up the wind). At that moment there is no longer any way that wind energy can be transferred to the body. And I have a severely limited interest in any boondoggle that cannot show the way to any new way to capture energy.

Your Red Herring analogy to tacking to go faster than wind VELOCITY is a lie in terms of the stated criteria of BEING PROPELLED BY ONLY THE WIND and MOVING ONLY DIRECTLY DOWNWIND. Any experienced sailor, as also any reference book or internet reference, will tell you that the closer the boat moves to being exactly parallel, or, antiparallel, to the wind, the lesser the VELOCITY MADE GOOD becomes, until an exact agreement with wind direction gives no speed greater than wind speed.

Your erudite self is warmly invited to explain EXACTLY, IN AMPLE DETAIL, how a wind molecule having zero velocity relative to the car body, can possibly interact with the prop so as to push upon the prop resulting in a thrust FORWARD to push the car one jeezillionth of a Mile Per Hour faster than wind speed. So far, all that you or anybody else has done, is spew word salad at me but NO SPECIFIC DETAILS. No specific geometry. No specific maths. No specific logic.

Or, if your erudite self takes the tack to say that the road gives up energy by pushing upon the wheels hence putting energy into the chain hence turning the prop faster, you are warmly invited to explain EXACTLY, IN AMPLE DETAIL, how the road can avoid being slowed relative to the car whilst it is losing energy to the wheels. If the road is slowed relative to the car, by relativistic reciprocity, the car must be slowed relative to the road! So, you all say that simultaneously the car slows whilst the car is accelerating, by sucking energy out of the road!

Beam me up Scotty, there is no sign of intelligence down here.


PS I have done a good first blush analysis of the energy available from sucking momentum out of the road, the drivetrain friction losses, the prop (in)efficiency, and a comprehensive summation of car parasite drag. Sorry, Charlie, there is NOT a surplus of energy at 1.0 windspeed to accelerate the car faster. It was interesting to ferret out the probable error source in the original 60s paper. It is the typical kind of mistake that someone who has had a rather sheltered life inside reading books rather than ever getting his hands dirty and sweaty doing real work would make. I fully expect that neither you or any of the other dreamers will figure out where the error is. But, if I tell you what it is, you will immediately slap yourself upside your head and say "Gorsh, Mickey, I could of thunk of that!"


PPS What kind of HEAVY BRAKES did the car have?
Drum brakes off of a 59 Chrysler Imperial?
Disk brakes off of a 73 TransAm?
Hub motors controlled to act as regenerative brakes?

 

[endlessplane]

how a wind molecule having zero velocity relative to the car body, can possibly interact with the prop so as to push upon the prop resulting in a thrust FORWARD to push the car

Here the vectors for this situation.

As you see the force exerted by the air on the blade is doing positive work in the ground frame, so the air transmits energy to the car.

 

[John in CR]

No one said anything about a sailboat or even a land yacht with typical sails being able to travel directly downwind faster than the wind. Whether you're simply a troll or you're just too closed minded to try to understand the mechanism, the result is the same.

FWIW, If the propeller was working like a wind turbine with the wind acting directly on it, then yes the limit would be wind speed. The prop is pitched like a wind turbine only to get it started, then the pitch of the blades is changed to a propeller where it behaves like a plane flying with the wind.

The craft is quite aerodynamic and has low rolling resistance, so traveling faster than the wind doesn't take very much power at all. Look at the swept area of that prop and it's easy to see that there's enough energy available in the wind to do it. A common sail won't work, so a new way to harness and use it was required.

Stop being so stubborn and open your mind enough to let a new idea percolate. You seem intelligent enough with adequate knowledge in the subject matter, so while it's preventing you from seeing it so far, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to grasp it once you look at it in the correct manner.

 

[doctorGONZO]

No one said anything about a sailboat or even a land yacht with typical sails being able to travel directly downwind faster than the wind. Whether you're simply a troll or you're just too closed minded to try to understand the mechanism, the result is the same.

FWIW, If the propeller was working like a wind turbine with the wind acting directly on it, then yes the limit would be wind speed. The prop is pitched like a wind turbine only to get it started, then the pitch of the blades is changed to a propeller where it behaves like a plane flying with the wind.

The craft is quite aerodynamic and has low rolling resistance, so traveling faster than the wind doesn't take very much power at all. Look at the swept area of that prop and it's easy to see that there's enough energy available in the wind to do it. A common sail won't work, so a new way to harness and use it was required.

Stop being so stubborn and open your mind enough to let a new idea percolate. You seem intelligent enough with adequate knowledge in the subject matter, so while it's preventing you from seeing it so far, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to grasp it once you look at it in the correct manner.

J, I keep on asking for some knowledgeable wind car pimp to tell me how the car SUPPOSEDLY works. Every munchkin that tells me something tells a DIFFERENT story. One munchkin tells me the prop pitch is driver-adjustable. Another munchkin tells me that the prop pitch is fixed in place during a particular run. From my own personal first hand experiential knowledge of such things I know that it is easy to build a prop that has flexible blades so that there is no overt pitch changing machinery but the pitch can actually change as the aerodynamic and mechanically dynamic load on the blades changes to make the blades twist and actually change pitch.

My recent post was based on one of you cute little munchkins telling me absolutely positively the prop pitch did not change during the run. I'm tired of you a$$holes wasting my time and energy by each one of you in turn telling me a different lie. However, your successive lies do serve a good purpose of blatantly illustrating that none of you knows what you are talking about, and, that therefore there is not an ounce of truth in the hope that the car performance was done honestly.

 

[endlessplane]

The prop is pitched like a wind turbine only to get it started, then the pitch of the blades is changed to a propeller where it behaves like a plane flying with the wind.

That is correct for Andrew Bauer's cart from the 60's. Using the turbine mode below wind-speed improves the initial acceleration.

[youtube]yFPomTq_PRU[/youtube]

The recent Blackbird however had a one-way-transmission, meaning that for downwind the wheels always turn the rotor which always acts as a propeller, never as a turbine.

One munchkin tells me the prop pitch is driver-adjustable. Another munchkin tells me that the prop pitch is fixed in place during a particular run.

The prototype without the black fairings had a fixed pitch:

[youtube]EEuAqq8FINw[/youtube]

The final black version had variable pitch, but only in the positive range and still had a one-way-transmission. So for downwind it never used the rotor as a turbine to turn the wheels. The rotor is always a propeller turning against the aerodynamic torque:

[youtube]5CcgmpBGSCI[/youtube]

 

[7circle]

Thanks endlessplane

The Vector diagrams do help, but highlight to me underlying physical interations we often take for granted. Like the helical constraint axis allowing freedom of motion and the aerofoil lift dynamics.

Is this tensor translation moving between rotating frames of reference?

So your diagram realate
1 Wheel to Propellor linkage constraints defining a freedom of movement for a aerofoil crossection representing the convoluted shape of the propellor. Seeing the youtube video on this helped.
The tangential velocity might be best visualised at 80% of blade radius to define a working point.

2 Combing the wind flux velocity vector to the prop' working point defining the apparent wind velocity.

3. estimating the aerofoil lift and drag forces for the apparent wind at the estimated angle of attack.
- these would be from test of prop's but I'm sure FEM is used too.

4 Resolve the force on prop' to freedom of movement axis.

BUT what about the work from the wheels driving the prop' ?
How does this translate through the torque vector?
Is it defining the remaining component of the propellor force vector?
Also the work done by the "unconstrained force" vector for a distance travelled on the helical path would be more than just the displacement in the vehical motion.

Any clarification of the balance of power between wheels and prop would help.
Say some way to define the chain tension.
Thanks all
7c

 

[7circle]

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

Found a well written description for plane props here
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/props.htm

of course a plane is not locked to ratio to ground with helical pitch. But helps with vector analysis.

So I'm concluding the balance of forces can be added to these propellor vector diagrams showing the retrding force on the coupled wheels and a chassis drag force due to the relative car-wind velocity (zero for 1:1 speed case).

Am I right in thinking props operating at a small Angle Of Attack (aoa) have minimal "wash of" (fan wind flow). The lift force is really caused by the aerofoil.
This changed my anaylsis that the cushion of air building up behind the prop was pushing the car forward.
The view of the prop making a vacuum in the space just infront of the prop and pulling the prop forward is more in line with aerofoil physics. It results in far less drag.
When the cart reaches steady-state velocity the wind passing though the props front to rear is losing energy into the cart as
- drag on the chassis and the
mechanical bearings and chain link bushes
- the retarding or drag on the wheels to keep the proppellor following the helical path of "freedom"

So the energy would be captured into heat in the friction losses which would then stabalise at a temperature differential with the wind. but still transfered from the swept wind.


So as the cart passes through the volume of air sweeping it blades at fixed ratio to wheel RPM, the blades are harvesting energy to over come friction losses. What changes in the air dynamics to wash behind the cart?
Has the air temp dropped?
The pressure dropped, density... volume....

I tend to think these things gain energy ... and also turbulent vortex losses

But something has transfered to the cart to keep it moving.
Windmills and sailng sboats have been around for millenia so can't b3to hard to find answers.
W

it's such a brain teaser.
I wish the Blackbird designers would release the propellor charts or i'll keep hunting for similar info.

Imagine trying to understand this if you were blind and had to listen to explanations.

sorry that's my next 7 cents.
cheers all
7c

 

[endlessplane]

BUT what about the work from the wheels driving the prop' ?

Project "blade force" on "tangential blade velocity". As you see this tangential blade force opposes the tangential movement of the blade, so it needs the be balanced by an equal/opposite force from the wheels. The product of that tangential force from the wheels and the tangential blade velocity represents the power transmitted from the wheels

How does this translate through the torque vector?

In this "unrolled" diagram torques correspond to tangential forces (perpendicular to "vehicle velocity").

Is it defining the remaining component of the propellor force vector?

No, the decomposition of the "blade force" into forwards thrust and torque is not shown, but you can easily picture it as explained above.

Also the work done by the "unconstrained force" vector for a distance travelled on the helical path would be more than just the displacement in the vehical motion.

Not sure how you can compare work with displacement. But yes, the blade sections travel more distance than the car body, if that's what you mean.

Any clarification of the balance of power between wheels and prop would help.

I hope the first answer above does it, if not ask more specific question.

Say some way to define the chain tension.

The transmitted power is relevant. Chain tension is then just a function of sprocket sizes.

 

[endlessplane]

What changes in the air dynamics to wash behind the cart?

Mainly speed. The propeller speeds up the air relative to the car, but slows it down relative to the ground.

 

[TylerDurden]

7C:

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

 

[doctorGONZO]

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

I'm gonna bust a gut laffin so hard!

Beam me up Scotty. They'r all silly as hell. And set a course at a high warp so we can outrun their KAR. It runs on MAJICKE!

 

[7circle]

So in pic I have drawn on the forces that keep the blade on the helical path.
The right to left component is applied by torque from the chain.
The top to bottom component is applied on the thrust bearing of propeller axel.
This loading force comes up from the wheel axel bearings.
This causing the torque input to the transmission.


This links the helical path to the transmission function.
Assuming minimal loss.

I came across a wiki pic of a.Clarke-Y airfoil for ratio of 6
This had coeff lift and coeff drag vs aoa
showing 1.00 and 0.075 vs 10deg resp'ly

I was wanting to consider the Blackbird's helical path.
Thinairdesigns had posted details
27" wheels /w 23teeth sproc
17' prop dia /w 65teeth sproc
and chord pitch line 218"
zero lift line 280"

I read through the Bauer paper .... The ancient interface from 1969.
Maybe i'll get to a worked example for vector lift and drag.

Tyler the pic and linked media article don't go into details of the helical path solution.
This unrolling as endlessplane puts it is what has given me the itch.
I had read them earlier, but thanks for the effort.
I'm expecting to come across a detailed paper that makes the propeller design super clear.

keep it cival and speak your secrets.

 

[endlessplane]

7C:

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

That is a very condensed derivation, but it captures the key point. The AAPT solution expands a little more on this:

And this paper goes into even more detail:
http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content

 

[Frank]

I looked at some of the links at the North American Land Sailing Association site http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html which is the agency that measured the crafts performance. They state very clearly that they examined the craft and found no energy storage device.

Dr. G: the physics has been examined quite thoroughly by people who understand it much better than folks on this site (most of us anyway). If something is shown to be possible in theory and in practice most of us see it as an opportunity to spend our horizons a bit.

 

[Frank]

... that should be "expand" our horizons a bit...

 

[John in CR]

Gonzo is just a troll, so it's best to just not feed it. I apologize for my part in feeding it so far.

 

[doctorGONZO]

Gonzo is just a troll, so it's best to just not feed it. I apologize for my part in feeding it so far.

I am not a troll, but this entire thread stinks like a spamming troll, intended to lure ignorant people to dream of a fantasy that just is not scientifically possible but appeals to a rebellious nature and a near zero amount of real science knowledge, and entices hard earned cash investment in a hallucination.

But, Big Bad John, I don't give a spit if you chase a fantasy and invest your cash and lose it. And I honestly don't give a spit if any other physics illiterate does the same. Your life is yours to use it or waste it and your hard earned cash is yours to use it or piss it away. What do I care...NADA.

Simply in the interest of science I am saying that nothing in this thread so far adds up to making good sense in terms of running directly downwind with no energy storage and going past 1.0 windspeed.

You say that the official agency certified it. Yeah, like MLB didnt catch Bonds eating 'roids. And the cycling board didnt catch Lance Legstrong doing doping. And NASCAR never caught King Richard and many other peer racers storing Nitrous in their cars roll bars. yeah, yeah, yeah, tell me bout it, Big Boy.

You are the quintessential TROLL, popping up again and again after you have failed to explain any of your points satisfactorily but always yelling out again that you want to keep on believing in your non-scientific halucination and being willing to bad mouth anybody who tells the little brat NO!.

If what you are pimping is true, Newton, Leibnitz, 'sGravesande, Einstein, and 40 million other highly educated physicists are spinning in their graves. But you are not explaining to us anything about exactly HOW and WHY the kinetic energy is by majickes coming from SOMEWHERE and getting into thr Kar to make it speed up.

All you are doing is behaving like the stereotype 6 grade school bully, outweighing several of us at once and saying that if we dont kiss your ass you will call us bad names.

Start calling, Bitch.

 

[7circle]

@endlessplane: is the link correct
" http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content"
do you know the title to search for?
They (denmark uni) have lots of papers on wind turbines. but i couldn't download ???

@dr
Got
Obtusively
Numerically
Zero
Objectivity
- perhaps if you could contribute to the debate and explain how much power and torque it takes to
push such a propeller as it interacts with molecules that constitute the air mass.

Then consider what would happen if its rotation rate was fixed to a ratio of the ground velocity.

Then when you have vindicated your ability to understand these phenominum others may feel it worthwhile to exchange their thoughts rationally with you.

On the vector diagram I was wondering if the small force vector that is in line with the helical path could be further analysed to have a forward component and torque component that the cart structure must balance out with weight difference between the ledt and right wheels?

I saw on another forum discussion and images of differnt axel lengths on the blackbird.

 

[endlessplane]

@endlessplane: is the link correct
" http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content"
do you know the title to search for?

The link works for me. Title is:
Theory and Design of Flow Driven Vehicles Using Rotors for Energy Conversion
Mac Gaunaa, Stig Øye, Robert Mikkelsen

 

[endlessplane]

... 40 million other highly educated physicists are spinning in their graves.

Actual physicists have no problem with this, as the solution by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) shows:

 

[doctorGONZO]

Beginning with the original paper in 1964 or whenever, there seems to have been a critically serious oversight. One of the most fundamental factors has not been considered or mentioned.

It is laughable, but the whole (or is that HOLE) coven here has such ignorance about physics in the hard-nosed engineering sense, that it is being totally ignored.

And the HOLE coven has been behaving in the most childish manner possible. I wonder why ?

From the start, I have been simply asking for the HOLE coven to give me information. HOW, step-by-step does energy and momentum become transmitted from a molecule of the wind that is getting left behind, or, from a molecule of the road that the kar wheel is running into, into the kar so that the kar becomes accelerated past 1.0 windspeed?

In an irrational kneejerk reaction, the HOLE coven has put words in my mouth, accused me of being some other past member, etc, etc, etc,etc. and done nothing but write abstract gobbly-gook double talk that explains nothing in any specific way and does massively contradict Newton Physics in every fundamental way.

Perhaps the kar does somehow tap into a new way of harvesting energy out of its environment. 300 years ago Bessler claimed such a thing and apparently proved it. 100 years ago Tesla claimed such a thing and apparently proved it.

Present day, the wind kar is on a youtube alongside the UFOs and the levitating elephants to prove that it REALLY DOES SUCK ENERGY OUT OF THE ENVIRONMENT in violation of every important facet of the Newtonian Physics that has been proved true far too many times to count for over 300 years.

It is not asking too much to ask the HOLE coven to explain to explain IN DETAIL HOW the kar does it.

It dam sure is EXPECTING TOO MUCH to hope that the HOLE coven can or will explain it.

It either does not work and is a bald faced fraud, or it does work but nobody knows HOW and is spamming, phishing, and, trolling for some sucker physicist to flounder along and figure it out and then see the HOLE coven claim the credit.

It aint me babe. You silly turkeys are on your own.

It is a 99% probability that the kar is a bald faced fraud with hidden batteries or capacitors and a clever hidden electric propulsion device (I know exactly several ways it could have been done virtually invisibly).

It is a less than 1% probability that the kar performed as claimed, with none of the turkeys having a clue HOW. And since the turkeys dont know HOW, they are holding an empty bag.

And I'm tired of effing with the silly kar and the silly HOLE coven.

 

[TylerDurden]

Certainly, if the question was whether it is possible to build a car that can go faster than the free-stream velocity in the downwind direction, using a propeller to provide the propulsive force, generating the power for the propeller via the wheels, the answer would most likely be negative. Many such, seemingly "impossible" machines are in fact possible, and do not violate any physical laws. One of the aims of the present work is to show why and how vehicles such as these are in fact possible.


Furthermore a simple one-point design optimization algorithm for the design of horizontal-axis rotors for these kinds of applications is shown, and examples of the obtainable performance of a wind turbine car and wind turbine car for power production using realistic airfoil data are given.

Theory and Design of Flow Driven Vehicles Using Rotors for Energy Conversion
c2009
Mac Gaunaa, Risø DTU
Stig Øye, DTU-MEK
Robert Mikkelsen, DTU-MEK

http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content

 

[John in CR]

DrGonzo aka Troll until you prove otherwise. It's quite simple. The wind is not pushing on the vehicle, except to get started. The thrust of the prop is pushing against an oncoming wind, which makes the vehicle go faster exactly like a plane will go faster relative to the ground when it has a tail wind vs still air. If you insist on looking at it as the wind pushing on something, then you have to look at it pushing against a mass of air moving the opposite direction that I would call the prop wash. Those big blades form a propeller, not a wind turbine. When running directly into the wind, which it can also do albeit much slower than wind velocity, then the blades are a wind turbine which turn the wheels to propel it forward. Traveling downwind the wheels turn the prop, which pushes against the oncoming wind.

 

[doctorGONZO]

Certainly, if the question was whether it is possible to build a car that can go faster than the free-stream velocity in the downwind direction, using a propeller to provide the propulsive force, generating the power for the propeller via the wheels, the answer would most likely be negative. Many such, seemingly "impossible" machines are in fact possible, and do not violate any physical laws. One of the aims of the present work is to show why and how vehicles such as these are in fact possible.


Furthermore a simple one-point design optimization algorithm for the design of horizontal-axis rotors for these kinds of applications is shown, and examples of the obtainable performance of a wind turbine car and wind turbine car for power production using realistic airfoil data are given.

Theory and Design of Flow Driven Vehicles Using Rotors for Energy Conversion
c2009
Mac Gaunaa, Risø DTU
Stig Øye, DTU-MEK
Robert Mikkelsen, DTU-MEK

http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content

Tyler, did you bother to read the link?

If you had actually read it, rather than simply taken it from your employer's hand (paw? claw?) and copied it into your reply, then you would have, possibly, noticed that it specifically stated GOING INTO THE WIND!!

We are having such a sweet friendly little talk about GOING DIRECTLY DOWNWIND!!!!

Wake me up when you have been taught by your trainers what the difference is between GOING DIRECTLY DOWNWIND versus GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE WIND.

LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol LOL lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Tyl, where do you get your halucinogens? They are obviously very, very, strong, and you porbly have already shared with the rest of the COVEN, but just in case there is some COVEN munchkin left out, why don't you post here where all your fellow munchkins can be as addled as you are?

 

[doctorGONZO]

DrGonzo aka Troll until you prove otherwise. It's quite simple. The wind is not pushing on the vehicle, except to get started. The thrust of the prop is pushing against an oncoming wind, which makes the vehicle go faster exactly like a plane will go faster relative to the ground when it has a tail wind vs still air. If you insist on looking at it as the wind pushing on something, then you have to look at it pushing against a mass of air moving the opposite direction that I would call the prop wash. Those big blades form a propeller, not a wind turbine. When running directly into the wind, which it can also do albeit much slower than wind velocity, then the blades are a wind turbine which turn the wheels to propel it forward. Traveling downwind the wheels turn the prop, which pushes against the oncoming wind.

Well, you silly fellow, actually I am a NOT A TROLL until you or some other illusionist presents proof. So there! Yo Mama!

You really are able to say things that take me back to the silly goings on of the 6th grade in school. Are you mentally stuck in the 6th grade? Are you mentally retarded and still only about 12 yrs old?

The real problem is that physics laws demand an accounting of the transfer of momentum and kinetic energy when any massive body is noticed to speed up or slow down. You and the rest of your COVEN has totally failed to explain HOW momentum and kinetic energy can possibly get spewed out of the road, infested into the wheels, and wind up making your prop spin fast enough to knock air molecules back and push the kar forward faster. All you have done is just to say...IT DOES IT.


This has already gotten too silly and boring.

I'm gone. I don't care if you fool any sucker out of their rent money or even their beer money to invest in your majicke kar.

I have a mean streak. So I hope you and everybody in your COVEN has invested all of your rent money and halucinogen money into your majicke kar. Your money aint comin back, Jack.