On 30/09/2010 21:15, dennis@home wrote:


"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 30/09/2010 19:23, Rick Cavallaro wrote:
You know dennis - you look a bit silly simply ranting that we're
liars, fools, and hoaxters without even attempting to tell us
specifically how you believe we violate any law of physics. If there
is a problem with the analysis JB posted point it out. It's about the
simplest derivation you could hope for.

Ignoring Dennis, who delights in proving how wrong he can be on a
regular basis, I have to say I found the explanation of how it works a
bit opaque. I'm pretty sure I've got it,

You think you got it? and you think I am wrong?
Why don't you explain it then?

The best explanation for me is that there's three things involved, and
hence two relative velocities, which allows us to extract energy.

Let's try a different drive method - not a prop. Instead, we'll have the
road and a very long conveyor belt.

I've got a little car, with 6 wheels - 4 straddling the belt, 2 on the belt.

Can I arrange a drive mechanism such that my little car can go faster
than the conveyor belt? (no engines, stored energy, etc, just simple
mechanical connections)

(actually, this is all quite like the various cotton reel problems
covered in 1st year physics)