Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

On 10/04/16 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.
In that this one is a propeller, not a wind turbine, it goes in the
other direction.

On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

The treadmill models just extract the energy from the treadmill motors.

There is nothing difficult to understand.

On 10/04/16 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

The treadmill models just extract the energy from the treadmill motors.

There is nothing difficult to understand.

says you because you don't understand

On 10/04/2016 20:25, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

The treadmill models just extract the energy from the treadmill motors.

There is nothing difficult to understand.

says you because you don't understand

Well if you understand it explain how it extracts energy by going faster
than the wind it is extracting it from.

On 10/04/2016 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

No con, just the inability to accept fact and jump to wrong conclusions.

Power collected at wheels is force x land velocity.

Assuming no losses, the propeller can supply motive power of force x
(land velocity - wind velocity)

You should be able to see that there can be an excess of power developed
by the wheels over the propeller to maintain speed.

Any excess can be used to accelerate the car still further until
propeller and other efficiencies make up the difference.

QED

On 11/04/2016 15:20, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/04/2016 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

No con, just the inability to accept fact and jump to wrong conclusions.

Power collected at wheels is force x land velocity.

Assuming no losses, the propeller can supply motive power of force x
(land velocity - wind velocity)

You should be able to see that there can be an excess of power developed
by the wheels over the propeller to maintain speed.

Any excess can be used to accelerate the car still further until
propeller and other efficiencies make up the difference.

QED

The wind speed when travelling down wind at the wind speed is exactly
zero so where are you getting the power?

QED.

On 11/04/16 15:20, Fredxxx wrote:
On 10/04/2016 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/04/2016 16:58, TimW wrote:
On 10/04/16 16:34, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 10 April 2016 15:38:32 UTC+1, TimW wrote:


https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

There are ones go upwind too.

That's an easy thing, just a windmill powered car. This is not the same
at all.

Going up wind is easy as you can extract energy easily.
Going down wind faster than the wind and extracting energy is a con.

No con, just the inability to accept fact and jump to wrong conclusions.

Power collected at wheels is force x land velocity.

Assuming no losses, the propeller can supply motive power of force x
(land velocity - wind velocity)

You should be able to see that there can be an excess of power developed
by the wheels over the propeller to maintain speed.

Any excess can be used to accelerate the car still further until
propeller and other efficiencies make up the difference.

QED
Yes, you extract energy by blowing backwards against the wind that is
blowing you forwards.

That's how you decelerate the wind to get energy out of it



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain
speeds, provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no
noticeable effect on fuel consumption.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain speeds,
provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no noticeable
effect on fuel consumption.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic physics.

Whatever energy it does produce has to come from the
fuel that is driving the car because the car has to push
against that resistance to the turbine being pushed along.

Even just having the windows open when going
at motorway speeds instead of using the aircon
has a measurable effect on the fuel consumption
and must have given the most basic physics.

On 10/04/2016 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain
speeds, provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no
noticeable effect on fuel consumption.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic physics.

You have previously provided completely superfluous proof that you
dont have a ****ing clue about even the most basic facts about doors
and end grain.

Whatever energy it does produce has to come from the
fuel that is driving the car because the car has to push
against that resistance to the turbine being pushed along.

So turbo's on hot rods don't work?

Even just having the windows open when going
at motorway speeds instead of using the aircon
has a measurable effect on the fuel consumption
and must have given the most basic physics.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain
speeds, provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no
noticeable effect on fuel consumption.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic physics.

You have previously provided completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic facts about doors and end
grain.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

EVERYONE who said they had tried it said that they trimmed the door fine
with a power plane, something you stupidly claimed wasnt actually possible.

Whatever energy it does produce has to come from the
fuel that is driving the car because the car has to push
against that resistance to the turbine being pushed along.

So turbo's on hot rods don't work?

Corse they do, but they are driven by the engine and
clearly some of the fuel is used to drive them, stupid.

Even just having the windows open when going
at motorway speeds instead of using the aircon
has a measurable effect on the fuel consumption
and must have given the most basic physics.

On 10/04/2016 23:20, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until
it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than
the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as
difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain
speeds, provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no
noticeable effect on fuel consumption.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic physics.

You have previously provided completely superfluous proof that you
dont have a ****ing clue about even the most basic facts about doors
and end grain.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

EVERYONE who said they had tried it said that they trimmed the door fine
with a power plane, something you stupidly claimed wasnt actually
possible.

No they didn't, halfwit. You made a massive fool of yourself again.

Whatever energy it does produce has to come from the
fuel that is driving the car because the car has to push
against that resistance to the turbine being pushed along.

So turbo's on hot rods don't work?

Corse they do, but they are driven by the engine and
clearly some of the fuel is used to drive them, stupid.

No they don't, halfwit!

Even just having the windows open when going
at motorway speeds instead of using the aircon
has a measurable effect on the fuel consumption
and must have given the most basic physics.




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman

On 10/04/2016 23:20, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 22:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"David Lang" wrote in message
...
On 10/04/2016 15:38, TimW wrote:
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until
it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than
the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as
difficult
to believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI

Not perpetual motion, but I remain convinced that a high efficiency
turbine built aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain
speeds, provide enough power to run say the air con or radio with no
noticeable effect on fuel consumption.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you dont
have a ****ing clue about even the most basic physics.

You have previously provided completely superfluous proof that you
dont have a ****ing clue about even the most basic facts about doors
and end grain.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

EVERYONE who said they had tried it said that they trimmed the door fine
with a power plane, something you stupidly claimed wasnt actually
possible.

Have you invented Wodney's Law, the DIY equivalent of Godwin's law?
Except Wodney's Law is related stifling subjects by mentioning door
trimming?

David Lang wrote:

I remain convinced that a high efficiency turbine built
aerodynamically into a car bonnet could, at certain speeds, provide
enough power to run say the air con or radio with no noticeable
effect on fuel consumption.

The power to the aircon/radio is coming from the engine whether it's a
belt drive direct from the engine, or a turbine bolted to to the
bodywork being pushed by the air the car is driving past ...

Is this not just the same as what you get with gearing or whatever. It
depends on the area of wind collection and whether the deflection due to
the angle is chaotic or not.
I remember somebody with a land yaught trying to explain tacking to me
once.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"TimW" wrote in message
...
Although it isn't it does look like it.

This is a vehicle which is blown along by a following wind, until it is
going as fast as the wind and then in fact it goes much faster than the
wind that is blowing it.

Fascinating I thought. Not so much difficult to understand as difficult to
believe. and not tricks or hidden magnets.

https://youtu.be/5CcgmpBGSCI