0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As seen from the vantage point of the earth (e.g. by a spectator), the rotor (acting like a wind turbine) decelerates the air and drives the wheels against the earth, which it accelerates imperceptibly.
As seen from the vantage point of the air stream (e.g. by a balloonist), the wheels impede the vehicle—decelerating the earth imperceptibly—and drive the rotor (acting like a propeller), which accelerates the air and propels the vehicle.
IMO, people who are sceptic about it think that it would enable perpetual motion and overunity energy generators. But that's not the case.
I'm pretty sure that the Blackbird also produces less power than they consume
Is it really supposedly a mechanical linkage between prop and wheels? I'd have gone for electric connection like they use with railroad engines. I've been in one diesel train in my life with an actual mechanical linkage and it was hilariously awkward.
Can't sailing-ships go in an opposite direction to the wind. They can sail westwards against an easterly wind.That might seem a physical impossibility. A sailing-ship is blown along by the wind in its sails, so how can the ship go in the opposite direction from the wind?
Gaunaa is wrong here, and the wiki doesn't have a secion pointing out the flaws in his argument. In the frame of Earth, the rotor accelerates the air since it is pushing from behind. Since both air and car accelerate, that violates energy conservation.
Again wrong. Relative to air, the earth and car are moving in opposite directions, so the thrust on the Earth again serves to accelerate both Earth and car, same violation.
That's my argument, yes. Show me where It's not the case. I'm referring to the case of going with the wind.
Exactly. That means it must be consuming stored energy, which is what a normal car does when going faster than the wind. It's cheating. There's a battery in it somewhere.
British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated three adages that are known as Clarke's three laws, of which the third law is the best known and most widely cited. They are part of his ideas in his extensive writings about the future.[1] These so-called laws are:When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
You would know this if you had bothered to read the stuff cited but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacking_(sailing)
Tacking is a sailing maneuver by which a sailing vessel, whose desired course is into the wind, turns its bow toward and through the wind so that the direction from which the wind blows changes from one side of the boat to the other, allowing progress in the desired direction.[1] The opposite maneuver to tacking is called jibing, or wearing on square-rigged ships, that is, turning the stern through the wind. No sailing vessel can move directly upwind, though that may be the desired direction, making this an essential maneuver of a sailing ship. A series of tacking moves, in a zig-zag fashion, is called beating, and allows sailing in the desired direction.
The vehicle collects energy by reducing relative velocity between earth surface and the air. It would be easier if the analysis is done in a reference frame where the total momentum of interacting system is 0. Conservation of momentum guarantees that observers staying in this frame doesn't change their velocity due to the interaction.The fact that the vehicle only interacts with a small part of the wind adds the complexity of the problem. So, to simplify the system, we can replace the salt lake bed with a conveyor on the floor moving to the left. The wind is replaced by a conveyor hung on the ceiling, moving to the right.
So, we can build a machine that ...
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2021 11:15:16So, we can build a machine that ...As far as I can tell, that's a non sequitur.Just because we can use one form of energy supply to do one job, does not mean we can use a different form to do some other job.
I think this contraption can go faster than the wind for a few moments but that would be it. When the wind causes the vehicle to begin moving the wheels will cause the fan blade to to spin and it can certainly get it to move a bit faster than the wind, but it will immediately begin to decelerate as it exceeds the wind speed due to friction (both from the ground and air). So while the vehicle could exceed the speed of the wind for short periods it will on average move slower than the wind.
If the average speed was faster than the wind that would violate conservation laws, clearly if there is no force from the wind (because you are moving faster than the wind) why would you continue to maintain speed? It is nonsensical.
How long is short period?
Did you watch the videos?Did you read the Wikipedia article?Did you read previous posts by me and other members?Your comment indicates that the answers are no for all of the questions above
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 15:04:03How long is short period?87 seconds or less.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2021 15:11:04Did you watch the videos?Did you read the Wikipedia article?Did you read previous posts by me and other members?Your comment indicates that the answers are no for all of the questions aboveThen why ask?