ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.

On 27/09/2010 7:51 a.m., harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.


Perpetual motion - what a great concept! AND it's no use to terrorists!

It's a real shame that this thing will never get off the ground. What I find
amusing is the contrast between this artist's rendition and a real zeppelin, in
terms of the relative sizes of the buoyancy chamber(s) and the rest of the
machine, even ignoring the fact that the zeppelin used H2, and this supposedly
uses He.

If Christine O'Donnell learns about this it'll become a campaign plank.

On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. *Heh Heh.

The Zeppelins were huge for a good reason: to lift a heavy payload of
engines and passengers. The laws of physics haven't changed in the
last 50 years, this thing seems to be an empty lightweight structure
that has no useful purpose as it cannot lift anything.

rusty

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 7:51 a.m., harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.


Perpetual motion - what a great concept! AND it's no use to terrorists!

It's a real shame that this thing will never get off the ground. What I
find amusing is the contrast between this artist's rendition and a real
zeppelin, in terms of the relative sizes of the buoyancy chamber(s) and
the rest of the machine, even ignoring the fact that the zeppelin used
H2, and this supposedly uses He.

If Christine O'Donnell learns about this it'll become a campaign plank.
S'rah Palin shirley?

On 27/09/2010 11:48 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 7:51 a.m., harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.


Perpetual motion - what a great concept! AND it's no use to terrorists!

It's a real shame that this thing will never get off the ground. What I find
amusing is the contrast between this artist's rendition and a real zeppelin,
in terms of the relative sizes of the buoyancy chamber(s) and the rest of the
machine, even ignoring the fact that the zeppelin used H2, and this supposedly
uses He.

If Christine O'Donnell learns about this it'll become a campaign plank.
S'rah Palin shirley?

There are a few of them. The Tea Party movement is a haven for loons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_739131.html

This Krugman piece is particularly relevant to the gravity plane:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB

On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

Gravity powered aircraft? As useful as a lead Zeppelin.

On 27/09/2010 2:20 p.m., Onetap 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.


Heavy, man!

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 11:48 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 7:51 a.m., harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.


Perpetual motion - what a great concept! AND it's no use to terrorists!

It's a real shame that this thing will never get off the ground. What
I find
amusing is the contrast between this artist's rendition and a real
zeppelin,
in terms of the relative sizes of the buoyancy chamber(s) and the
rest of the
machine, even ignoring the fact that the zeppelin used H2, and this
supposedly
uses He.

If Christine O'Donnell learns about this it'll become a campaign plank.
S'rah Palin shirley?

There are a few of them. The Tea Party movement is a haven for loons.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_739131.html


This Krugman piece is particularly relevant to the gravity plane:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/op...R_AP_LO_MST_FB


I rather liked 'after the War on Terror, the War on Arithmetic'.

On 27 Sep, 02:20, Onetap wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On 27/09/2010 10:12 p.m., 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..

This seems plausible

also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly
downwind..less sure about that, though.

Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative velocity
goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high kite you could go
faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 10:12 p.m., 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..

This seems plausible

also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly
downwind..less sure about that, though.

Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative
velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high
kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

That was more or less my thought.

On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.

care to asess this

http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

interesting? site that..... (NP quotes from it too.....)

Jim K

Jim K wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:
ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.

care to asess this

http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html


I think that's doable. You are sort of slowing the earth down to get the
energy as it were.

So its a bit like tidal power in that respect.

Engineering massive gyrsocopes is non trivial though.

I'd rather use a reactor..


interesting? site that..... (NP quotes from it too.....)

Jim K

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.

On 27 Sep, 12:04, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 10:12 p.m., 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..

This seems plausible

also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly
downwind..less sure about that, though.

Faster than the wind, downwind? *I don't think so. *As the relative
velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. *With a big, high
kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

That was more or less my thought.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mistaken as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

On 27 Sep, 14:41, Jim K wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:

ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. *Heh Heh.

care to asess this

http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

interesting? site that..... (NP quotes from it too.....)

Jim K

Friction is the problem as with the "flying machine".
However there's a much simpler way of harnessing the Earth's
rotational energy. Tidal power.

On 27/09/2010 10:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.



You can go as fast as you like in any direction, provided you have one
thing moving against another that you can extract energy from.

Typically this is the wind blowing over the water, or the land.

There is no theoretical speed limit; it's just the faster you go the
more the efficiency of your aerofoils / hydrofoils / wheels matters.

Andy

On 28/09/2010 5:51 a.m., harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 10:12, The Natural
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.
It's common knowledge to anyone with even a slight knowledge of
physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

Yes, I know about sailing. Did you read the post? Here, I'll cut out the
appropriate part for you, to make it easier:
"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"
Do you see the reference to "using a turbine"? OK, now the question is this:
"Can a WIND TURBINE-POWERED vessel or vehicle go faster than the wind DIRECTLY
DOWNWIND?" Think about it.
By the way, a sail-driven craft cannot go faster than the wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND
either. Get it? Your slight knowledge of physics should be adequate to grasp this.

On 28/09/2010 8:40 a.m., Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/09/2010 10:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.



You can go as fast as you like in any direction, provided you have one thing
moving against another that you can extract energy from.

Typically this is the wind blowing over the water, or the land.

There is no theoretical speed limit; it's just the faster you go the more the
efficiency of your aerofoils / hydrofoils / wheels matters.

Andy

OK, Einstein, when you are travelling at the same speed as the wind, in the
direction of the wind, what "thing is moving against another", except for the
vessel moving against the water, which creates drag?

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

It's not *complete* ********, just close to it.
There is an energy input, but I really doubt it could be made large
enough to compress all that air, and afaics, the lifting bodies would be
far too small.
I'd not be surprised if a man-lifter using the idea could be built, but
for larger scale use, probably not.

On 27 Sep, 21:31, Gib Bogle wrote:

Compare and contrast:
directly into the wind using a turbine facing the wind
and
DIRECTLY DOWNWIND?"

See it now?

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.

harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 12:04, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Gib Bogle wrote:
On 27/09/2010 10:12 p.m., 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..
This seems plausible
also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly
downwind..less sure about that, though.
Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative
velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high
kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.
That was more or less my thought.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mistaken as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

Dear old harry puts his foot in it as usuall

From his cited source

*Such devices cannot do this when sailing dead downwind* using simple
square sails that are set perpendicular to the wind, but they can
achieve speeds greater than wind speed by setting an angle to the wind
and by using the lateral resistance of the surface on which they sail
(for example the water or the ice) to maintain a course *at some other
angle to the wind*.


So where harry, does it say that any boat can sail faster then the wind,
directly downwind?

go and get some more horlicks.

harry wrote:
On 27 Sep, 14:41, Jim K wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:

ie Complete ********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related
The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh.
care to asess this

http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

interesting? site that..... (NP quotes from it too.....)

Jim K

Friction is the problem as with the "flying machine".
However there's a much simpler way of harnessing the Earth's
rotational energy. Tidal power.

Bwahaha.

"The government looks likely to rule out the use of public funds to
construct the controversial Severn Estuary tidal barrage.

A report in the Guardian states that the government will make an
announcement this month excluding the use of government money to build
the £20bn tidal energy scheme"

Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On 27 Sep, 14:41, Jim K wrote:
On 26 Sep, 19:51, harry wrote:

ie Complete
********.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. �Heh Heh.

care to asess this

http://mb-soft.com/public2/earthrot.html

interesting? site that..... (NP quotes from it too.....)

Jim K

Friction is the problem as with the "flying machine".
However there's a much simpler way of harnessing the Earth's
rotational energy. Tidal power.

Tidal *stream*. That way you don't have to spend �20 billyun before you
see a single unit of energy, as with the Severn barrage. You can add
incrementally. But its small potatoes just like wind.

And equally as useless.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 27/09/2010 10:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.



You can go as fast as you like in any direction, provided you have one
thing moving against another that you can extract energy from.

Typically this is the wind blowing over the water, or the land.

There is no theoretical speed limit;

There is with a normal sailing rig, if you move exactly with the wind,
your sails are in fact becalmed so to speak.


it's just the faster you go the
more the efficiency of your aerofoils / hydrofoils / wheels matters.


across the wind, yes.

With the wind, I challenge you to find a way to move faster than the wind.


Andy

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

It's not *complete* ********, just close to it.
There is an energy input, but I really doubt it could be made large
enough to compress all that air, and afaics, the lifting bodies would be
far too small.
I'd not be surprised if a man-lifter using the idea could be built, but
for larger scale use, probably not.

er.. my understanding was that the energy for compressing the gas comes
from turbines powered by airflow. Unless there is some way to initially
power the pump at altitude, there will be no airflow as the device is at
equilibrium WRT the atmosphere.

Before you all jump on me, I didn't watch the whole clip:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On 27 Sep, 21:31, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 28/09/2010 5:51 a.m., harry wrote:





On 27 Sep, 10:12, The Natural
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.
It's common *knowledge to anyone with even a slight knowledge of
physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

Yes, I know about sailing. *Did you read the post? *Here, I'll cut out the
appropriate part for you, to make it easier:
"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"
Do you see the reference to "using a turbine"? *OK, now the question is this:
"Can a WIND TURBINE-POWERED vessel or vehicle go faster than the wind DIRECTLY
DOWNWIND?" *Think about it.
By the way, a sail-driven craft cannot go faster than the wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND
either. *Get it? *Your slight knowledge of physics should be adequate to grasp this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously is soon as it went "as fast as the wind downwind" there
would be no wind (relative to the machine/boat etc). Therefore
impossible.

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?.

On 28 Sep, 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

ie Complete ********.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaM...eature=related

It's not *complete* ********, just close to it.
There is an energy input, but I really doubt it could be made large
enough to compress all that air, and afaics, the lifting bodies would be
far too small.
I'd not be surprised if a man-lifter using the idea could be built, but
for larger scale use, probably not.

er.. *my understanding was that the energy for compressing the gas comes
from turbines powered by airflow. Unless there is some way to initially
power the pump at altitude, there will be no airflow as the device is at
equilibrium WRT the atmosphere.

Before you all jump on me, I didn't watch the whole clip:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

It's not worth watching the whole clip. You are excused :-)

Gib Bogle wrote:

Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative
velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high
kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

Google have been sponsoring development of one effort

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/

or search for other DWFTTW projects, less useful if you want to go in a
different direction to the wind ...

harry wrote:

On 27 Sep, 21:31, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 28/09/2010 5:51 a.m., harry wrote:

An ordinary sail boat can sail faster than the wind without the
benifit of strange turbines.
It's common knowledge to anyone with even a slight knowledge of
physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

Yes, I know about sailing. Did you read the post? Here, I'll cut out
the appropriate part for you, to make it easier:
"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"
Do you see the reference to "using a turbine"? OK, now the question is
this: "Can a WIND TURBINE-POWERED vessel or vehicle go faster than the
wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND?" Think about it.
By the way, a sail-driven craft cannot go faster than the wind DIRECTLY
DOWNWIND either. Get it? Your slight knowledge of physics should be
adequate to grasp this.- Hide quoted text -

Obviously is soon as it went "as fast as the wind downwind" there
would be no wind (relative to the machine/boat etc). Therefore
impossible.

No, that's a faulty conclusion. It correctly answers the wrong question.

The question was whether it is possible for a boat to sail directly
downwind faster than the wind, powered only by a wind turbine. That means
whether it is possible for a boat *to sustain* such a speed.

The question you've answered, however, is whether it's possible for the
boat *to reach* that speed, subject to the constraint that it must start
from rest and only ever head directly downwind whilst accelerating. That's
a completely different question, doomed to a negative answer by the fatal
constraints imposed.

Anyway, your answer correctly observes that the relative wind speed
approaches zero as the boat's speed approaches that of the wind, and
so the turbine is faced with the impossible task of extracting power
from a dying wind. Therefore crossing the barrier of actual wind speed
is going to be impossible in those circumstances, and in practice there
will be a top speed which it is possible to reach but not exceed.

Suppose this practical top speed is about 90% of wind speed, so that a
10% difference or so is enough to provide the power needed to keep up with
water resistance etc.

But if a 10% difference is enough, then travelling at 110% of wind speed
should also be sustainable.

The only problem remaining is how to reach that state to begin with.
Clearly it can't be done subject to the constraint of your scenario,
but it could be done by other means, including by "cheating" and using
stored energy.

I dare say another way would be to use the wind turbine to accelerate
to beyond wind speed by going downwind *but not directly downwind*, and
then quickly turning directly downwind, relying on inertia to lose not
too much speed in the turn.

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Gib Bogle wrote:

Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative
velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high
kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

Google have been sponsoring development of one effort

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/

or search for other DWFTTW projects, less useful if you want to go in a
different direction to the wind ...


The only way it can work is if they are storing energy somewhere.
I expect its a flywheel, maybe even hidden in the design .
To travel faster than the wind (down wind) for any length of time requires
you the extract energy from somewhere and it can't be the wind. maybe its
cold fusion? ;-)

dennis@home wrote:

"Andy Burns" wrote:

http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/

The only way it can work is if they are storing energy somewhere.

They jokingly refer to one of their fairings as "the engine cover"

I expect its a flywheel, maybe even hidden in the design .

Obviously the wheels and the propeller will act as flywheels, you can't
avoid that, but they travelled an average of 2.8x the tail wind speed,
accelerating over the measured run.

To travel faster than the wind (down wind) for any length of time
requires you the extract energy from somewhere and it can't be the wind.
maybe its cold fusion? ;-)

I don't know who NALSA are, other than what is says on their website,
but I'd expect their observer to be able to spot a heavy flywheel, a set
of pedals or batteries and motors hidden within the polysytrene ...

http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html

dennis@home wrote:

maybe its cold fusion? ;-)

There is an explanation of sorts on their website, more or less it's not
the propeller turning the wheels, but the other way round ...

https://docs.google.com/View?docID=0AdRsKX7aaZTPZGRnbjhkajdfMTY0aGRzNWtnaG M&revision=_latest&hgd=1

"The reason the car works is that the propeller is pushing on air that
is moving slower than the speed of the car because there is a tailwind.
This allows energy to flow into the system for propulsion, something
that would be impossible if there were no wind."

Clearly between you, Harry and TNP the details can now be thrashed out
for weeks.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:

On 27 Sep, 21:31, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 28/09/2010 5:51 a.m., harry wrote:

An ordinary sail boat can sail faster than the wind without the
benifit of strange turbines.
It's common knowledge to anyone with even a slight knowledge of
physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing..._than_the_wind

Yes, I know about sailing. Did you read the post? Here, I'll cut out
the appropriate part for you, to make it easier:
"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"
Do you see the reference to "using a turbine"? OK, now the question is
this: "Can a WIND TURBINE-POWERED vessel or vehicle go faster than the
wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND?" Think about it.
By the way, a sail-driven craft cannot go faster than the wind DIRECTLY
DOWNWIND either. Get it? Your slight knowledge of physics should be
adequate to grasp this.- Hide quoted text -

Obviously is soon as it went "as fast as the wind downwind" there
would be no wind (relative to the machine/boat etc). Therefore
impossible.

No, that's a faulty conclusion. It correctly answers the wrong question.

The question was whether it is possible for a boat to sail directly
downwind faster than the wind, powered only by a wind turbine. That means
whether it is possible for a boat *to sustain* such a speed.

The question you've answered, however, is whether it's possible for the
boat *to reach* that speed, subject to the constraint that it must start
from rest and only ever head directly downwind whilst accelerating.
That's
a completely different question, doomed to a negative answer by the fatal
constraints imposed.

Anyway, your answer correctly observes that the relative wind speed
approaches zero as the boat's speed approaches that of the wind, and
so the turbine is faced with the impossible task of extracting power
from a dying wind. Therefore crossing the barrier of actual wind speed
is going to be impossible in those circumstances, and in practice there
will be a top speed which it is possible to reach but not exceed.

Suppose this practical top speed is about 90% of wind speed, so that a
10% difference or so is enough to provide the power needed to keep up with
water resistance etc.

But if a 10% difference is enough, then travelling at 110% of wind speed
should also be sustainable.

The only problem remaining is how to reach that state to begin with.
Clearly it can't be done subject to the constraint of your scenario,
but it could be done by other means, including by "cheating" and using
stored energy.

I dare say another way would be to use the wind turbine to accelerate
to beyond wind speed by going downwind *but not directly downwind*, and
then quickly turning directly downwind, relying on inertia to lose not
too much speed in the turn.


Where do the nuts come from?
I bet he has a car that runs on water too.