"Rick Cavallaro" wrote in message
...
On Sep 30, (Alan Braggins) wrote:

My apologies, I misinterpreted your "bull****" comment...

Care to expand on your comment?

JB said it just right - no apologies necessary (except perhaps from
me). I was just being a smart-ass - and giving him the response we
hear 99.927% of the time.

dennis@home wrote:

Have you seen the cr@p in this video?

I can do better than that - I spent several hours with JB making that
video. Welcome to my living room.

dennis@hom also wrote:

The statement that a cart on a treadmill in still air is the same as a
moving cart on road in the wind is just wrong.

Interesting theory. Newton, Galileo, and Einstein make the bold claim
that there is no such thing as a preferred inertial reference frame -
and that no instrument can be built or conceived of that can tell us
whether the air is moving over the surface or the surface is moving
under the air. In fact they tell us that it makes no sense to say
that one or the other is "actually" moving. So you'll have to take it
up with them.

Well you can hire a wind tunnel with a rolling road built in so that you
could actually simulate what is really happening, I guess nobody told them
that they didn't need to go to that expense and could have just used a
rolling road to do the job.


dennis@home wrote:

Any fool can take energy from an electrically powered conveyor belt to
move
the opposite way it just depends on friction. The energy comes from the
electric motor.

Really? Any fool? Are you up to that challenge? Let's see you do
that without reproducing something closely akin to our cart.

Why would I need to build something different, that is what the cart does, I
don't need to build something else that does.


The claim is you can take energy from the apparent wind and accelerate the
cart into the apparent wind.

Wrong again. You really have to start quoting us rather than simply
telling us (incorrectly) what we claim.

If you can do this then you should be able to go out on a still day, push
the cart to create an apparent wind and then go from that.

Wrong again. It's really probably better if you ask questions rather
than tell us what our device can and can't do - and what you *think*
our claims are.

Your claims are that you can travel down wind at a speed faster than the
wind and extract energy from the vehicle to power a prop while at the same
time taking energy from the wind you are going faster than.
You then quote some total garbage like in that video to justify what you
claim.
I guess we will just have to disagree until you have a proper convincing
explanation.


If you do that then that would be pretty difficult to deny. I won't hold
my breath.

I definitely don't recommend holding your breath. I do recommend you
ask some questions and let us explain this. Others here seem to be
getting it pretty well.

You can fool some of the people all the time, maybe even yourself.
You have convinced yourself that a treadmill duplicates an airflow so
anything is possible.

Anyway you remind me of Bart Kahn and he was a fraud I met in the early
80's, he had a number of companies convinced enough to invest cash when I
had to evaluate his claim. needless to say he didn't get any cash from us.
He also used the same argument that you do "you aren't clever enough to work
out why it works". Its more like you haven't put a convincing case even if
you can convince a small number of others.