harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 23:53, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:12, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 9:49 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 8:51 p.m., harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 02:20, wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, wrote:
ie Complete
********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related
Gravity powered aircraft? As useful as a lead Zeppelin.
Never a mention of friction.
That's just the start of the reasons for infeasibility.
Actually its ultimately not infeasible, just impractical and inefficient.
From a cursory glance (it deserves no more) all it is conceptually,
is a glider
and a balloon. Balloon lifts glider, glider glides to where it has to go.
The energy to turn a lighter than air volume of gas into a smaller
compressed
volume that then acquires sufficient weight to act as a glider, is not
mentioned.
The whole system is claimed to be self-sufficient. As I recall the
compression is powered by the propellers acting as turbines as the plane
glides down. It's perpetual motion.
Oh? I couldn't be arsed to listen that far.
There was one interesting idea that was mooted, that on analysis I
couldn't find a flaw with: A wind powered boat or vehicle that could
sail or drive directly into the wind using a turbine facing the wind to
drive a water prop or wheels..also said to be capable of going faster
than the wind..directly downwind..less sure about that, though.- Hide quoted text -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Show quoted text -
An ordinary sail boat can sail faster than the wind without the
benifit of strange turbines.
Not directly downwind it cant harry dearest
Go back to your rattle now.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ah. Making qualifications now are we?.
What part of my original post:-
"..also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly
downwind..."
Did you fail to understand?
Or is it reading you have difficulty with.
You are almost as stupid as Drivel.