Edited by author 09-18-2008 03:52 AM
Post your address and the check is on it's way.

This is swell. How many times do you want to go around this loop?

Thank you for agreeing to pay, I have given you the address to post the check so I assume its on the way.

My home address it is publicly available in a myriad of places but I would like the check sent to the address I have given you please.

Thanks


Guy

< replied-to message removed by QT >

Ive refused nothing.

Demostrate or pay.

>> Demostrate or pay.

You seem to be forgetting a critical factor. There is no agreement in place. You refused to accept mine or produce your own. There is no "demonstrate or pay" to it. I haven't "agreed" to pay. I "offered" to pay simply to prove that you wouldn't conduct this transaction over this public forum as you insisted we do.

Post your address or STFU

What's wrong - no stupid "give me money for nothing" comments?

My money is here Spork, I can write the cheque today.

Demonstrate and you will get it or name a secure independent escrow that holds your 100,000 and he will get mine but you will still need to demonstrate or come up with the cash yourself.


Guy



Guy

Ahhh - still trolling I see.

Demonstrate what exactly? You didn't like my descriptions and terms, and you refused to propose your own.

A sailboat is not powered by the wind it’s ultimately powered by relative airflow. The wind certainly makes up a large part of this relative airflow. The wind causes the initial motion of the sailboat but as soon as the sailboat starts to move its relative airflow is cause by a combination of the wind and its own motion. This is why sailboats and iceboats can sail faster than the wind but they cannot sail faster than the relative airflow that is influencing them.

Sailboats, iceboats and the “vehicle such as THIS “ that you mention cannot go directly downwind faster than the wind. Drag is in the direction of the relative airflow that caused it so the more a vehicle moves as a result of drag the less drag it generates. With no outside force
opposing its motion a vehicle will accelerate to the speed of the wind (as a result of drag) where its drag will be zero. There is an aircraft that shares this dynamic. The faster it goes the less drag it generates until it reaches top speed where drag is zero. A balloon does not move readily with the wind if it did there would be no difference in velocity between the balloon and the air and thus no relative airflow and thus no aerodynamic force to accelerate down wind. The balloon is held in the flow by its own inertia.

When a vehicle moves as a result of lift it does not lose any of the relative airflow that caused it to move and now has more relative airflow as a result of its motion due to lift. A sail boat cannot sail directly downwind faster than the wind using only drag but it can sail faster to a point downwind using lift by jibing. This fact has nothing to do with the prop cart despite the fact that it has a lift-generating propeller. The propeller on the cart is powered by the carts downwind motion and that motion is due to drag. The faster this cart goes the more it gives out of power and if it had no rolling drag at all it would totally give out of power when it reached the speed of the wind. The only way to increase its power is to slow it down. The cart is propelled by drag and drag will only be at its maximum when the cart is being held still in the wind. If the propeller helps it go downwind faster it only helps it to give out of power faster.

Edited by author 10-26-2008 02:47 AM
Wow. Lots of words. Some of it right. None of it uncertain. Sounds like you're wanting to take my bet. Unless you're just trolling like our other friend, you can take my $100K - since you're so certain this cart can't work.

Of course if you wanted to understand how it *does* work, I'm more than happy to explain it - in any number of ways. But if you're certain it can't (as it seems), you should really just take the bet - and take my money.

No relation to Guy. I live in Oklahoma, but know Spork. He is right and everyone else is wrong. I have seen the device work - it is real.

Edited by author 11-29-2008 09:48 AM
It should be noted that the poster on this thread called "ThePhysicsPolice" (see post 272) has since his last post been able to duplicate Goodmans tests and is now an absolutely convinced (with his own eyes) believer.

JB

I wrote, when the gear ratios are reversed, not the propeller rotation.

I thought of an analogy to help explain this phenomenon. Instead of wind, imagine a string moving at a constant velocity along a flat track. Is it possible to design a vehicle that can use the string to move faster than the string? The answer is yes, and can be easily demonstrated by "walking the dog" with a yo-yo. This is not perpetual motion; it does not violate any laws of physics; still, it is pretty cool. I'm wondering if it might have any real-world applications...

JC

John,

Good analogy. Please read the previous posts before posting.

Sincerely,
Zafner

Forgive me if this point has been pointed out somewhere else in this exchange; I've only had the stomach to read about half the messages.

Assume that this machine moves DFTTW without external energy input.
Assume that this ability to move DFTTW is not specific to a particular windspeed.
Set windspeed to zero.
If the machine moves DFTTW, then when windspeed is zero, the vehicle should maintain a positive and non-zero speed.
Or to put it another way (and make my conclusion pretty clear), in the absence of wind and external energy input, the machine should have motion perpetually.

If the vehicle always went twice the speed of the wind, it could still be said to go faster than the wind at any speed (I think). This would not represent perpetual motion.

Such a vehicle can't exist in the real world however, since real world losses will always require some minimum wind speed before the vehicle will move.