Demonstrate or pay as you said you would.

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Edited by author 09-17-2008 11:41 PM
>> I offer a simple thought.

I'll offer a simple thought as well. You were so sure it couldn't be done, that you *appeared* to be willing to put $100K on it. But when the rubber meets the road, you just want to flap your gums about it again.

>>
Of course, none of this proves or disproves the possibility of making vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind. However it does demonstrate that THIS vehicle cannot.
<<

In fact the only thing it actually proves is that you can't understand aerodynamics. So here is where it stands now...

1) For anyone that actually wants to know how and why Jack's vehicle can and does work (rather than just explaining confidently that it can't), I'll be happy to explain it in ways that are easily understandable.

2) I realize "Guy" doesn't have the money to take my bet (or even a home it seems), but I'm going to improve on the bet. I'll prove it can be done with the actual cart seen in the video. Not another type of cart, and not one *like* it, but with the actual cart used in the YouTube video.

Of course it would be smarter to ask to see my cards rather than take my bet, but that's the deal.

If there is anyone but Spork and his alter ego left spectating this sad exposition, I offer a simple thought.

On the presented video of the cart accelerating from zero to being faster than the wind, consider the moment when the cart is moving at the same speed as the wind. At this point there is no relative movement between the air and the cart and thus the only relevant forces on the cart are the thrust of the propeller, tending to accelerate the cart, and the drag on the wheels tending to decelerate it.

The drag on the wheels is the sum of the load they deliver to turn the propeller and the total friction in the system.

We know that the thrust output from any propeller is less than the input to the propeller. Thus the drag on the wheels is more than the thrust from the propeller by the sum of the friction losses and the propeller efficiency losses.

The deceleration forces are greater than the accelerating forces, the cart must inevitably be slowing. It can never go faster than the wind.



Jack makes a startling comment in his description. He states that, if the gearing is reversed so the propeller turns in the opposite direction, then the cart will go up wind.

But in both cases (the cart travelling faster than the wind and the cart going up wind) the relative airflow passes the cart (and thus the propeller) in the same direction. The direction of rotation of the propeller would be the same in both cases! The gearing therefore needs to be in the SAME direction.

The reference to a change of direction is a profound logical gaffe.
The truth is that, if the gearing is sufficient to overcome the starting forces then the cart, as configured in the video, will go up wind (whichever way round it is pointing).

There have been many vehicles made, both land and water based, that demonstrate this.

Of course, none of this proves or disproves the possibility of making vehicle that goes downwind faster than the wind. However it does demonstrate that THIS vehicle cannot.

Guy

>> You have really lost the plot haven't you?

Let's see... I'm toying with an internet troll that claimed he knew for sure that it was physically and theoretically impossible to build a wind powered vehicle that goes directly downwind faster than the wind. Then that troll claimed he would accept a bet to that effect, but refused all possible scenarios in which that bet could be carried out. When given the option of suggesting his own rules and such, that same troll simply refused. Finally, to call his bluff, I tell this troll I'll simply send him the money - all he has to do is provide his address. And the troll refuses even that!

So no - I think I'm following the plot just fine. Short version: you're still a useless internet troll that wants to make bold innaccurate claims, but you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

You have really lost the plot haven't you?

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> You have it.

I have the address of the skateboard park where you go to gawk at young boys. Are you telling me that's also your residence?

You have it.

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Please post your mailing address.

Please send the check.


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

>> now when will I get my 100,000?

When you send me your address.

>> I've never been at all secretive.

Right, you just refused to even tell me what country you live in. You still refuse to give me your address to send the check to.

Fine with me, now when will I get my 100,000?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I've never been at all secretive. You have always been able to look me up.
It is you who has no name.

Now when can I expect my 100,000?

Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

I've gone ahead and sent a link to this discussion to your employer. I just think they might enjoy this forum as much as you.

Finally we're getting somewhere. It seems you're a managing director for the Corus Group (in the steel tubes division). You live in the U.K.

You sure are an awfully secretive troll for someone who claims this entire thing has to be conducted directly on this forum without any direct contact even via email.

Will you post your true address for me to send the check to, or should I?

OK please send it to

Guy Glover
Adrenaline Alley
Arnsley Road,
Corby,
Northants
United Kingdom
NN17 5QW

Thanks

< replied-to message removed by QT >