Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Wind energy => Wind energy generators => Topic started by: sterlinga on December 07, 2008, 10:58:48 PM
-
This one will blow you away.
Is it possible to build a device in which the forward motion turns a wheel that turns a propeller which provides enough wind propulsion to accelerate the device forward faster than the air around it? You would think not, but some investigators appear to have accomplished just that.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind
Plans included.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind#Parts_List (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind#Parts_List)
Anyone game to build one quickly and validate?
Sterling
-
Interesting....
Now, how about travelling 64% of current windspeed.
Directly against such wind.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827104702.htm
I'd bet I can count on one hand the number of years ago that many "lettered men" would have scoffed at such a preposterous proposition.
Regards,
TS
-
I talked with Spork33 today, after posting the above. He's the person featured in several of the DDFTTW videos.
He is convinced that existing laws of aerodynamics can explain this phenomena, and he is in process of composing a scientific paper for publication in a refereed journal that will detail the mechanics involved.
Bear in mind that you will not be able to just plop this on a flat surface such as a gym floor, give it a good push, and it take off accelerating. The device on the treadmill is analogous to a cart going along with a tail wind of the same speed, and the mechanism makes it go faster than the tail wind.
He said he has been assembling about 20 of these to ship out to a few people (primarily skeptics) from various forums who have asked to replicate the effect. He said that in doing several at once, the parts run around $40.00 USD. He asks another $5.00 for shipping. So at this juncture he's only doing it on a limited basis for scientific advancement. At that price, he's not willing to make very many.
Until the thing is mass produced, it will be fairly expensive. We (PES Network, Inc.) are in discussion with him about entering into an agreement to build and ship kits with adequate mark-up to make it worth our while, e.g. $80 retail. If you are interested (customer side or business side), please send an email to DDWFTTW.kit@pureenergysystems.com .
Because the gadget won't accelerate across a flat surface but will only move forward on a treadmill, the number of people wanting one will probably be fairly low, and the practical aspects perhaps lower yet.
It certainly is a scientific curiosity. Perhaps the principles underlying it may eventually spur some significant aerodynamic advancements in efficiency.
-
It's counter-intuitive, but physics is OK with this device. This possibility has been discussed at length on Steorn here:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60059&page=5&Focus=2265999
My contribution:
Given access to two streams with parallel velocities (relative to you) Va and Vb, apply net force Fa to the first and Fb to the second.
your acceleration is determined by the net reaction force -(Fa+Fb):
No matter what those relative velocities are, as long as they're different you can acheive any net acceleration force F without expending energy by setting:
Fa = F*Vb/(Va-Vb)
Fb = F*Va/(Vb-Va)
Calculate power expenditure using P=F.v:
P = Fa*Va + Fb*Vb
= F*Va*Vb/(Va-Vb) + F*Va*Vb/(Vb-Va)
= F*Va*Vb/(Va-Vb) - F*Va*Vb/(Va-Vb)
= 0
Check net reaction force
-(Fa + Fb)
= - ( F*Vb/(Va-Vb) + F*Va/(Vb-Va) )
= - ( F*(Vb-Va)/(Va-Vb) )
= F
-
@ All
Does this theory mean that we could apply it to a windmill in reverse to get more energy out of the wind ?
Regards,
Paul
-
Goat, "Does this theory mean that we could apply it to a windmill in reverse to get more energy out of the wind ?"
I would think that they have already tested both and they are nor designed to work off what is best but you never know, it may have been over looked.
I dont have a wind mill to test but if some one else does, please check this out and see and then let us know.
-
It's counter-intuitive, but physics is OK with this device. This possibility has been discussed at length on Steorn here:
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60059&page=5&Focus=2265999
My contribution:
Given access to two streams with parallel velocities (relative to you)
What 2 streams do you exactly mean ?
Can you explain it some more ?
It seems from the videos, that it only depends how fast the wheels
are rotating and this is geared up to the propeller.
So from the test videos on the threadmill
it seems, that this device only needs to be pushed up to 10 miles/hour speed
and then it will accelerate itsself without needing any blowing wind itsself to speed up.
All is probably done via the right combination of the right wheel to propeller gear ratio.
Then it seems to overcome friction and seems to selfaccelerate.
So it seems one could build cars like this, that just only
need a motor to push them over the 10 miles/hour threshold
and then you could switch off the motor and the car would
selfaccelerate. Amazing !
Regards, Stefan.
-
What 2 streams do you exactly mean ?
Can you explain it some more ?
The original thread at steorn was about sailing.
In this case, the 'streams' are the treadmill and the air at rest. Or the moving wind and the road at rest.
It seems from the videos, that it only depends how fast the wheels
are rotating and this is geared up to the propeller.
The air and road have to be moving at different speeds.
So it seems one could build cars like this, that just only
need a motor to push them over the 10 miles/hour threshold
and then you could switch off the motor and the car would
selfaccelerate. Amazing !
Sure. They'd still be wind powered, though, so you'd have to keep them very light, and the speed at which you could practically expect to move is very limited.
-
Even a propellor with zero pitch, once started, should continue turning, as the 'virtual surface area' is increased with velocity. The fact that the prop still works when pitched to provide a modicum of thrust against the tail wind, demonstrates how effective a small surface area can be at creating said increase in 'virtual surface area' when moving perpendicular to the flow of wind.
This still does not fully account for the slight force asymmetry expressed in the higher vehicle velocity, which is why I propose duplicating the experiment with winglets on the prop tips.
It seems plausible that VRS (vortex ring state) may be involved....producing a small area of low pressure ahead of the craft. If such is the case, winglets of sufficient size at the prop tips will serve to modify velocity differentials.
TS
-
@ All:
My main concern is that the fellow said you can't just put this on a flat surface like a gym floor and have it work..it works on the treadmill. This I do not understand. When learning to fly and also building my own small airboat, I had a chance to learn a little about propellers. The main principle I see here is that when a propeller is turning, the relative wind sees it as a solid disk. Now, this only applies when the prop, depending on the pitch and airfoil design, is turning faster than the relative wind, or slower. There is an equilibrium point for all propellers at a certain rpm in a certain relative wind that adds 0 drag and 0 thrust, but this is a small window. They use this when they teach you to land simulating an "engine out" experience. If you just set the engine to idle, the drag produced by the prop would be way higher than in a real engine out scenario, and therefore would be of little use for learning to deal with a real one.
So, I can see where you have a 10 mph tailwind, and the prop is turning via the wheels after an initial push, so the prop then acts as a parachute or sail to catch the tailwind and push the craft faster. Once it reaches the speed of the tailwind, as Stefan said, through proper gear ratios, the propeller turns at its designed rpm and therefore produces thrust which makes it go faster than the wind. All of this works for me with what I know except it not running on a flat surface like a gym floor. This part, I can not explain at all.
Bill
-
@ All:
My main concern is that the fellow said you can't just put this on a flat surface like a gym floor and have it work..it works on the treadmill. This I do not understand. When learning to fly and also building my own small airboat, I had a chance to learn a little about propellers. The main principle I see here is that when a propeller is turning, the relative wind sees it as a solid disk. Now, this only applies when the prop, depending on the pitch and airfoil design, is turning faster than the relative wind, or slower. There is an equilibrium point for all propellers at a certain rpm in a certain relative wind that adds 0 drag and 0 thrust, but this is a small window. They use this when they teach you to land simulating an "engine out" experience. If you just set the engine to idle, the drag produced by the prop would be way higher than in a real engine out scenario, and therefore would be of little use for learning to deal with a real one.
So, I can see where you have a 10 mph tailwind, and the prop is turning via the wheels after an initial push, so the prop then acts as a parachute or sail to catch the tailwind and push the craft faster. Once it reaches the speed of the tailwind, as Stefan said, through proper gear ratios, the propeller turns at its designed rpm and therefore produces thrust which makes it go faster than the wind. All of this works for me with what I know except it not running on a flat surface like a gym floor. This part, I can not explain at all.
Bill
Hi Bill,
The whole things a bit of a mind bender. It´s an impressive device and appears to do something that many people say is impossible which is always a good thing to do!
The only thing I can think of is that on the treadmill, the craft does not see an oncoming airstream and thus sees no air friction. Wheras if you push it along a gym floor it would have to overcome the oncoming air resistance.
Also, I think this craft enables one to move a certain percentage faster than the driving wind, that percentage might vary and have a sweet spot of wind speed where you get the best gain, but in the case of 0mph wind as in a gym then that percentage will be zero so it wont sustain motion. To simulate the gym floor using the treadmill one would have to face the treadmill into a wind that matched the treadmill speed.
P.S.
impressed that you built an airboat! model planes and helis are as far as I´ve gone.
Yucca.
-
I thought this was pretty easy to figure out, on the treadmill the device produces near balanced forces, that is thrust nearly equals drag from the driving components or ground speed nearly equals generated air speed. But if this device is travelling with the wind behind it something really neat happens. To understand this I think you have to concentrate on relative motion and the neutral point of force. If the tail wind speed is 5mph pushing the craft forward then when the craft reaches 5mph ground speed the apparent wind you would "feel" is now zero mph so there is very little air resistance. Also if the ground speed is 5mph or equal to the tail wind speed then directly behind the prop there is a point of zero windspeed which constitutes a pressure boundary.
(Wind) 5mph----->zero<-----5mph(propeller)
One analogy could be standing in an elevator moving upwards at 5mph and jumping upwards at 2mph, you "feel" a 2mph velocity(apparent) but you are moving upwards at 7mph(reality). The reason this can happen is because you are "in an elevator", if you were not in an elevator you would have nothing to push against to jump. We can say that the only reason this craft can exceed the wind speed is because the prop generated wind has something to push against and this something is a wall of "pressure" having an apparent velocity of zero mph but having a real ground speed equal to the craft. A good analogy is having the launch pad of a rocket accelerating behind the rocket but not being attached to it, in this case we are not dealing strictly with reactive mass, we are dealing with a wall of pressure acting in the same direction of acceleration because the gasses ejected from the rocket are pushing against a boundary or obstruction. In this device the forces would look something like this--
(wind) 5mph----->Zero<----------- 7mph(propeller)----->2mph
Total = (wind) 5mph---> + 2mph----> = 7mph ground speed = 7 mph thrust
As the ground speed increases so does the thrust generated by the propeller but the propeller does not "push" the craft----the pressure generated behind the craft does and the wind has provided half of the velocity to maintain this pressure wall behind the craft and all of the energy to maintain the velocity of the craft.
Regards
AC
-
I wonder what would happen if you put magnets on that thar perpeller.
lol?
-
Hi all
Do's this mean an electric motor uses less juice when a fan is fixed to the shaft?
peter
-
Hi all
The principle of this device is very simple and straightforward, the “air car†is getting its energy from the treadmill motor. Friction between the wheels and belt turn a shaft that is attached to an angle miter gear that is attached to a second shaft that drives a propeller, thus producing thrust.
At the proper rpm the propeller will produce enough thrust to overcome the friction gravity, and drag to move the vehicle forward. But it is not producing its own energy it is getting it from the treadmill.
Cool toy though.
-
But it is not producing its own energy it is getting it from the treadmill
Certainly not 'all' of it. In at least one of the videos, it continuously runs to the top of the treadmill up an incline. I suspect there's more than meets the eye here.
TS
P.S. I'm unfamiliar with "friction gravity".....?
-
@ allcanadian:
I agree with you. Hey, I just figured out why this won't work in a gym on a flat floor. NO WIND! Ok, so I may be a little slow, but I usually get there eventually. Ha ha.
Bill
-
Hi
http://home.att.net/~rcsailcars/index.htm (http://home.att.net/~rcsailcars/index.htm)
This looks like a lot more fun to play with, and not only can they travel faster than the wind going downwind but also they can travel back upwind.
There are many good sites on the web that can teach you how to get more energy from your sail or airfoil like this one.
http://www.sailingworld.com/from-the-experts/boat-speed/unlocking-the-mystery-of-sail-controls-1000065648.html (http://www.sailingworld.com/from-the-experts/boat-speed/unlocking-the-mystery-of-sail-controls-1000065648.html)
-
Not bad, but I think Stuttgart's efforts are, by comparison, fantastic....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827104702.htm
64% of windspeed achieved upwind is....in a word, phenomenal.
TS
-
@ TechStuf:
That was really cool. It appears this vehicle works along the same principle as the smaller treadmill "toys". Of course, this one has pitch controlled propellers and the prop can be spun around backwards so I can see how this would work. Thanks for posting this. That vehicle is very advanced and I am happy to know about it.
Bill
-
@ TechStuf:
WOW!! Traveling directly into the wind without tacking.
You are right “phenomenalâ€.
-
They have got it now.
Selfacceleration and driving faster than the wind.
This proves that that system is overunity I would say:
See their 3 new videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TraderTurok
Well done !
Regards, Stefan.
-
I just watched:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDzWh9J1dk4
And I have to ask:
A windsurf board mounted on wheels, with a big sail, can not achive a greater velocity than this "wind car"?
Another question: the terrain is downhill?
-
There have been ice skaters standing inside wings (a whole race scene even), reaching up to 4x the speed of wind, by going neither down or up wind. Lateral tracking on the ice, low friction. Approaching the DOWNWIND velocity I suppose, but adding a lateral vector that happens to be great (90 degrees if possible would offer infinite speed).
As a tall man, and a former mountainbike racer, I've had odd things happen in tailwind. One partical race, on a beach, very fierce stable tailwinds, I was hitting pain threshold (high cadance) at 55kph. I did that for half an hour. Near the turnaround point I wanted to finally catch up with the group of riders in front of me. I decided to hit 60, going through the pain, as 55 was our mutual cruising speed apparently. When I (nearly) hit 60, I gave up, the pain was too great for me, being halfway into a race. However, I did not slow down to equilibrium as quickly as one would expect. I "sailed" towards the group, after the initial push to reach the speed. I don't yet really know how P=MV2 works, but I but it may be part of it. Is it really harder to accelerate a mass from 30-60 than 0-30, excluding friction?
If the propellor mis-matches the wind and ground speeds, I can imagine a lateral thrust component is created. Or in simpler terms, the prop bend the wind around, verhicle is hit from the side, and gets to sail the side winds every sailor and surfer spends his days seeking.
This stuff is amazing. understanding it, may bring new propellor shapes that will enable us to just travel a lightweight cart on a windy day. Very fast down and along the wind, still OK agianst the wind. I was aware of the against the wind vehicles, and thought them up as a kid. Just didn't know at the time it was not down yet. A simple matter of gearing down the wheel axle speed relative to the propellor (air speed). No odd thigns happen there, it's not like it goes faster than a balloon downwind.
-
test
-
Hmmm.....
A sail [propeller] going "across' the wind makes its own wind [apparent wind]
Thats why ice boats can go 5 times wind speed [chasing 200 mph record now]
no OU just some smart fellows having fun with apparent wind and a sail [propeller].
Have they gone upwind yet?[if not they will ,if they can limit losses enough]
Chet
-
I read and watched what I could find on this topic yesterday.
Apparently, soon a DDWFTTW speed of 2+ times the wind speed, downwind, will be confirmed. Expected short-term records are expected around 3x wind speed.
It seems to be a matter of using the push of the wind, and minimizing friction.
Directly against the wind, Aeolus racers are working to be the first to reach 100% the wind speed, heading into it. Harder to reach than 2x downwind due to the match involved, but apparently the math does not offer a maximum speed to be attained, either away from or into the wind.
The way I simplify it for myself:
- Using a big fan to propel a tiny car. the mind breaking is that the big fan is ON the small car. And we need to remember that a spinning fan has a different drag than a garage door.
This research undertaken on private and corporate budgets is great towards making wind powered transport partly viable.
Seems that a car with a collapsible prop on the roof could be put to great use both in tail- and headwind to reduce fuel consumption. Sensors and GPS could automate this. Detect a significant headwind route, and deploy the prop to make the best of the situation. On a heavy bulky car efficiency levels will be lower, but it could prove worthwhile. I have some thoughts on sidewind mods for existing vehicles as well. Side wind really slows down a vehicle, sometimes more than headwind. Yet, sailors go faster in those conditions. So, deploy telescopic chimey air foils. Simple levers could on-the-fly adjust orientation. Deployment could be accomplished largely on wind power directly.
And, WHY would a parked car in a wind parking lot (aren't they all) not fill up some batteries while waiting for the owner to complete work or shopping? We can't place stationary windmills on parking lots, but a windmill is stealing nothing from anyone.
-
Hi All,
it has nothing to do with the wind !
Look at the videos on the automatic exercise treeadmill belt.
There is NO WIND !
But the vehicle drives faster than the treadmill belt !
It has in my opinion to do with the gearing
of the propellor to the wheels and with the
inertia of the propellor mass and the wheels.
Somehow the gearing transmission factors must be right
to the thrust the propellor is generating from the rotation.
Regards, Stefan.
-
They just posted new videos:
See for example this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86vhmTp7tKU
There the truck pushing it to start drives just 14 miles/hour but the vehicles just accelerates faster than it.
So you see, it is selfaccelerating and also drives faster than the wind !
-
Stefan
Quote:
"Look at the videos on the automatic exercise treeadmill belt.
There is NO WIND !"
-----------------------------------
Ouch!!
That hurts my head!
hard to get your brain around that.
So this is no hoax [the treadmill]!
Seems impossible !
Although I know it is, having sailed my 38 foot catamaran race boat at almost twice wind speed any time I want ,with almost 80 foot of hull dragging along in the water.
Only stands to reason something like this is possible with the proper
set up .
Whats next ?flying without a motor?
"Apparent wind "
WOW!!
Thanks ,Its good to see someone think this far out of the box
And get seemingly impossible results!
Chet
PS
Looks like we'll be putting propellers on the race boats [sail] ;D
-
Well, here is a video shot from behind the driver.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TraderTurok#p/u/2/39LhFo3P-bw
Too bad they are on this bumpy saltlake terrain, so they could not let it run
faster with shaking it apart...
Would have liked to see it go 100 mph !
;)
-
Funny,
I just shared these vids with a friend that sells to all the big sailboat racers around the world and their zillion dollar boats,
His comment was "yes I know its a perpetual motion machine"
Never thought I'd hear those words from a fellow like him!
This is amazing!!
How do we do this with electricity or gravity ?
Push past the speed limit?
Something as simple as a sail that makes its own wind[apparent wind] and will do work indefinitely!
Good stuff!!
Chet
-
Larger wheels are usually worth it, even if they add air drag. I could write books on the important of sufficient wheel size for a job. Some would wish I had, to I'd preach it less online and hope people would get the book.
Here's a brain teaser. As if this stuff isn't complicated enough as it is.
In the video's, we see a vehicle which has the 100% traction wheels 1:1 connected to the propellor, in whichever gear ratio and blade pitch.
Now, HOW VITAL is this (1:1 or otherwise) hard link to make such speeds possible?
Could selective braking on the wheels and/or the prop seperately, to keep spin ratios in a preferable zone, make the cart "think" it's outfitted with such a physical link?
So, the prop upon self-start wants to turn backwards but is withheld by the wheels, right? A one-way clutch on the prop could do that. But not get it turning the "wrong way" when the cart gets moving due to the force pressig against the uncooperative prop. Then, why not use an on the fly adjustable prop. Let the prop spin up while the cart is held in place. Adjust pitch to get maximum kinetic energy storage at high rpms. An additional flywheel could store some more, later to be used to boost the wheel.
Then adjust the prop pitch to the other side, effectively reversing thrust. Don't waste rpms, and crank it open. Clutch the flywheel to the wheels. Cart will accelerate, and hopefully cross the threshold after which the magic can occur without further gearing tricks. Prop speed and cart speed line up, and are from there on brake-adjusted. The flywheel is dropped, not needed for the run itself.
An air ship might need to start with a wire to an anchor, wrapped (indirectly) around the prop axle. Same as wheels on a cart.
Would, whel the wire runs out and off the axle, the ship be able to accelerate towards 3x wind speed? The around the world record could come into jeapardy then. Imagine hitting the jet stream and merely doubling the speed.
When it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. But could a simulation give the answer?
-
Clo
your goin to fast for me!This is a holy cow idea
Quote:
"Then adjust the prop pitch to the other side, effectively reversing thrust"
------------------------------------
You are a very smart fellow!
Having started life on this planet as an aircraft mechanic, I can fully appreciate where you are coming from!
WOW
gotta go back to work,thanks for the redirect![something to think about]
Chet
-
Clo
your goin to fast for me!This is a holy cow idea
Quote:
"Then adjust the prop pitch to the other side, effectively reversing thrust"
------------------------------------
You are a very smart fellow!
Having started life on this planet as an aircraft mechanic, I can fully appreciate where you are coming from!
WOW
gotta go back to work,thanks for the redirect![something to think about]
Chet
Thanks Chet, appreciate it.
Being 100% uneducated I think sometimes allows me to think outside the box, into the obvious.
I'm pretty sure this has been invented before I wrote it. Like by a Wright brother too lazy to first dismount and then push his biplane rearward into the garage.
Too bad flywheels tend to be overly heavy to bring along for the few times they actually come to good use. Just my bold observation though. A flywheel can however be stuffed with KE indefinately, as long as the bearing is sound, the shape round, and the gearing up for it. If you let the car sit on the parking lot during the 9 days of your working day, being fed by the roofmounted prop, how much KE might it have stored? Might made for a sweet burnout down the office parking lot as you head back home.
The pitch flip would meet some good resistance (open a car door on the highway), being at top spinning speed, but then also might give a good initial kick to get up to a start, and the prop in sync.
I hope I can sleep before I have a Zeppelin freewheel its prop when having its tail pointed in the wind. Could it possibly be, that the negines internal resitance and mismatching rpms have kept a century of air ships miss out on a quick no-fuel orbit of the earth? Nah...
-
Hi OU blokes,
I have already seen videos of a similar(?) toy device that went "Downwind Faster than the Wind"
It is on:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind)
Perhaps, this guy has *just* enlarged this kinda device?
Very Best
Same team I believe, before they upscaled.
Will we soon see a "wind" class at the RC car races? Very small startup battery allowed for some controls, the rest will have to come from the wind.
-
Being 100% uneducated I think sometimes allows me to think outside the box, into the obvious.
I'm just wondering whether achieving OU were not a question of education but mainly a question of daring. Just like Fire Walking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking)
At the first glance it sounds impossible witout being burnt.
Actually, anybody can safely do it.
-
This confirmation makes me wonder so many things.
- Rotor size. Does it need to big, or could a smaller prop be imagined that does just as well?
- Vehicle shape. Frontal surface of non-propellor part needs to be minimized, obviously as the vehicle at 3x wind speed still faces 2/3 of its ground speed in headwind.
Would an optimized vehicle be a prop, and nothing else? Or a prop front, then a tapering body behind it, and a smaller prop at the back (air compression, faster air exhaust)?
Although tail wind powers the vehicle, what is it pushing against, physically, if the cart always generates its own headwind? Is the surface of the air displaced aft of the prop important to be large, or is the main point to grab as much air as possible on the front side?
I can't wait to learn about the potential of a relatively small, say 1m across prop being stuck to the roof of a car. A small rotor line coming from the rear axle for instance.
Or better, two 50cm fans alongside a generic bicycle, driven by the rear hub or even the tire.
Could auxiliary props make significant speed and efficiency improvements?
It's probabaly been done already, but I sketched a simple airship. A string tied to a solid structure on the ground on one end, and wrapped around a pulley on the ship, spins a prop. The wire auto-centers the air ship down wind. Lacking wheels , the thing might be pretty darn fast.
I bet a prototype from a party balloon with helium and ultralight fishing line and pulley could be made to work. The balloon is self-supporting and ultra-slick through the air. Would, once the equilibrium speed is reached and the wire is released, the ship continue to speed along, or soon lose its feedback loop? Anything that could prevent this? Else we might see airships of the future throwing out an ancor at 100+mph speeds, and go even faster as a result :-)
-
The wind is always moving 14mph relative to the ground. This provides the power in the system. Doesnt matter what portion of the wind he is in. It is a great demonstration that what appears as static is doing work staying static. Like a motor in a car. The mounts and frame are doing work resisting the counter torque produced by the engine. When an aircraft touches down the wheels are motorized to high rpm otherwise the Earth does some work on them heating the rubber up pretty good. To save on tread the wheels are motorized to reduce this work. Put some piezo crystals between your motor mounts and the frame. Theyll generate. Line a muffler with them. Theyll generate. Line a cylinder wall with them and lean out the mixture so you get detonation. Theyll generate.
-
Sparks
Yes the ground is very important here.
This will not work unless connected to the ground,ice or water some how.[yet]
The first time I experienced this [going faster than the wind]
I was 14 years old in the waters of Long Island sound on a catamaran,
There is nothing like it ,and now I see why.
It is very hard for me to get my head around this, When men that race sail boats told me "its what we call apparent wind ,the sail makes its own wind".
Since they weren't giggling when they said this,I just shrugged and said "OH".
I didn't understand, Knowing in my head that if that where true.
Then something like what we see here is possible.
I'm still having a hard time ,even though I have done this "many" times in the last 40 yrs.
It blows in our faces every day.
The freakin wind!!
WOW
Chet
-
Hi Chet,
what do you mean by going faster than the the wind on
just a catamaran ?
Do you mean having the wind behind you or is the wind then
blowing from the side ?
Probably only possible with a catamaran, when the wind
blows from the side, but not from the back as it is here.
So this catamaran thing does not count.
It is a totally different thing.
With this vehicle we don´t need wind at all.
If it is accelerated by the car to 14 mph WITHOUT wind,
it just takes off and generates its own thrust.
This will never wiork just with a catamaran !
Regards, Stefan.
-
Stefan
The prop is a sail
A catamaran [close to two times wind speed]
An Ice boat [5 times wind speed [200 mph]]
Yes the sail "must" be set on the boats at the "same"
angle of attack that the propeller has when it does its job in these vids.
30 to 45 degrees
this propeller does not know it is going "down wind"
It knows it see's the wind the same no matter where it is coming from.
This is "Exactly" what is going on [in regards to the prop]
Chet
PS I may not be describing this accurately enough
you can not ask a sailor about this ,only if he sails hydrofoil[hobie tryfoiler]
catamaran or Ice boats.
-
The idea of the spinning propeller geared to the wheels on the tread mill gave me an idea. Why not stick the propellers on the end of a fixed bar which is free to spin on a central shaft. The moving ground could be a motorized lazy susan or turntable.
I had a hard time trying to find pieces in the software to conceptualize the idea, so I made a very rough design. I used Lego Digital Designer which is freeware and good enough to get the basic idea out.
The center shaft would be mounted on a spike or needle like a weather vane is and be freely turn-able. The gearing would be geared up, since I couldn't find the right gear pieces I used the same as reference in the drawing. Also the propeller blades would be much larger.
-
Well... So if we put this "wind vehicle" on a round track, or on a square track, or any kind of closed loop track, this will become a perpetual motion machine, even if the natural wind stops completely?
Cool...
Next step: use the vehicle motion to generate electricity somehow.
-
Yes, good ideas !
I agree !
Many thanks for these ideas !
Regards, Stefan.
-
Wait a minute... If this thing can really generate its own thrust WITHOUT natural wind, then they can make a test inside a large covered football stadium (like Veltins-Arena or Amsterdam Arena) where there's no natural wind. And if this thing can run in circles in a closed loop path, then they can put hundreds of thousands of piezo generators under a track and use this perpetual motion machine as a perpetual electrical generator.
-
@Stephan
Can you confirm that this machine runs even without any wind. The streamers on the vehicle reverse but the bulk air mass he is moving through is still moving relative to the ground. This allows the propellor to act as both a sail and a propellor. As a sail it anchors itself in the inertial frame of the air. As a prop powered by the wheels it moves forward in this bulk. The result is added to the velocity of the vehicle.
-
Hey, think about it. IF this principle works as we think it might in air, why not use the same idea underwater? If it does not work in zero wind than one could make the water version to work in slight currents of the ocean.
The water version would/should be more efficient since water does not compress and less loss due to viscosity level of water vs air.
Just a thought.
This is a fascinating device. Seeing the full scale version is really wild.
Bill
-
A sail is a propeller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_wind
In sailboat racing, and especially in speed sailing, apparent wind is a vitally important factor, when determining the points of sail a sail-boat can effectively travel in. A vessel travelling at increasing speed relative to the prevailing wind will encounter the wind driving the sail at a decreasing angle and increasing velocity. Eventually, the increased drag and diminished degree of efficiency of a sail at extremely low angles will cause a loss of accelerating force. This constitutes the main limitation to the speed of wind-driven vessels and vehicles.
Windsurfers and certain types of boats are able to sail faster than the true wind. These include fast multihulls and some planing monohulls. Ice-sailors and land-sailors also usually fall into this category, because of their relatively low amount of drag or friction.
These boys are onto somethin
Very hard to get the "brain" around this!
But the proof is in the vids no BS here.
Chet
-
The most impressive thing about this vehicle is that, if it's really generating its own thrust, then it can move in any direction (north, south, east, west) at any time (unless the natural wind in the contrary direction is at very fast speed).
The definitive test will be the guys who built it showing it moving in a place with almost no natural wind, and moving in any direction, regardless of the direction of the weak natural wind.
Of course it will need a initial artifical acceleration, because, if it works the way we imagine, the wheels must be spinning at a given minimum speed in order to make the helice (propeller) spin at a speed enough to push the mass of the vehicle forward (if the vehicle was lighter, with less mass, this minimum speed would be lower).
-
I believe torpedo's have been made, powered in part by a wire back to the launching tube.
It needs some wind, however low the total drag of the vehicle.
The magnification factor (land speed vs. wind speed) is however infinite. It all depends on your media and refinement of rolling resisance (maglev would help) and transmission (what about supercooled ferrofluid?) , slipperiness of the vehicle through the air, and prop efficiency. Then, gear ratio greatly effects performance, and will need to be variable to ever become practical.
With this infinite gain ratio on a perfectly built wind car on a perfect road network and support/traction interface, only absolute windless day would result in being "stuck in traffic". Exploiting all wind energy from all directions and using those to power your superlight and super slippery vehicle, you'll collect a lot of speeding tickets. How many no-wind days are there anyway, in most inhabited nations? We like to live by the coast.
Any idea on how to get more thrust from a special prop (system?). I am think 2 fans in a jet style cylinder enclosure, larger fan front, smaller rear. Wind is accelerated aft by the front fan, pressure reduced. The narrowing enclosure negates that, feeds accelerates and compresses air into a smaller prop, plowing through the air faster than the front one of course. Would this be faster than the single large prop, slower, or does nothing you try really matter?
What about no enclosure, and just 2 props in line, with slightly different gearing?
Or, could a single prop of half the diameter, turning at double speed bring the same thrust?
It seems to be all about frontal surface vs. prop surface. The fun thing is that the huge prop doesn't really have much wind drag, due to it thrusting more than it drags.
Downside I see for this DDWFTTW principle, is that vehicles will need to be long in terms of cockpit, and tall in terms of prop.
If train tracks would prevent a train for tipping over (hold them in place), all kinds of airfoils and props could be placed in front, back, side and on top. If would not need to be heavy for stability, as are regular trains. This also aids quick braking.
-
Hi all,
I read some (not all) of the comments and watched the videos. This is a CRAZY FANTASTIC concept, but NOT OverUnity me no thinks.
In sailing you can:
Sail directly into the wind oldies call this "In Irons" because you ain't goin' nowhere. But put a little angle into the wind and you are "Close Reached or Close Hauled" you are sailing into the wind but slowly. 90 degrees to the wind or "beam reach" is really fast and you take full advantage of the boat's keel, and sail geometry.
With the clever concept shown here, you are able to go directly into the wind. Now if you were to pivot the propeller mast so that the propeller was pointing head-on into the wind ALWAYS you would have the most "efficient" Land Yacht ever made.
Clue:
gear drive from the prop (90deg gearbox), drop with a vertical drive shaft to a drive 'ring and pinion' on the rear axle. Maybe even a wind vane steering the propeller head ... like a wind turbine.
My two cents,
Greg
-
Let the prop spin up while the cart is held in place. Adjust pitch to get maximum kinetic energy storage at high rpms.
Then adjust the prop pitch to the other side, effectively reversing thrust.
/quote]
This principal is often used to jump launch gyrocopters which I think are a flying version of this device.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro
It's interesting that a much much smaller engine can be used, compared to a powered helicopter, to sustain flight in these aircraft. The vehicle weight is balanced by the lift generated by the free rotating blades which are moved by the air flow running through them which in turn is generated by a small engine only necessary to create forward motion. A very neat trick.
Is not a glider the ultimate embodiment of the device, able to climb and travel faster than the wind so long as a temperature thermal exists. Or even better, the solar powered flying wing that stores electrical energy all day and uses it to stay aloft at night. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-034-DFRC.html
This is a perpetual motion flying machine so long as the sun shines and there is no mechanical failure.
-
Let's clarify some things here.
The inventors claim that in this device is not the propeller that provides torque to the wheels, but the opposite: is the rotation of the wheels that provides torque for the propeller. It's what they try to show in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nudBjrOF3LE
So what is alleged is that the movement of the wheels causes the movement of the propeller and the movement of the propeller creates all the necessary wind to propel the vehicle. There is no need of natural wind. The wind speed in the natural environment can be zero.
This naturally requires that, first, the wheels are put to rotate at a minimum speed, which is transmitted to the propeller. The propeller needs to achive the minimum rotating speed necessary to create the artifical wind that can push the vehicle forward.
Once this minimum speed is achieved, the vehicle becomes (allegedly) a perpetual motion machine, because the rotation of the propeller generates an artifical wind that pushes the vehicle forward. And, the movement forward make the wheels rotate, and the rotation of the wheels make the propeller rotate, etc...
So, with ZERO enviromental wind speed, the only thing that is needed is a initial acceleration, that can be given by any mean, in order to make the wheels (and the propeller) rotate at the minimum speed necessary to generate the artificial wind. After that, the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile, and never will need to receive any more energy from external sources.
So, this thing can be adapted to become a perpetual electricity generator, and this infinite electricity can be used to charge the batteries of our Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster.
-
Let's clarify some things here.
The inventors claim that in this device is not the propeller that provides torque to the wheels, but the opposite: is the rotation of the wheels that provides torque for the propeller. It's what they try to show in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nudBjrOF3LE
So what is alleged is that the movement of the wheels causes the movement of the propeller and the movement of the propeller creates all the necessary wind to propel the vehicle. There is no need of natural wind. The wind speed in the natural environment can be zero.
This naturally requires that, first, the wheels are put to rotate at a minimum speed, which is transmitted to the propeller. The propeller needs to achive the minimum rotating speed necessary to create the artifical wind that can push the vehicle forward.
Once this minimum speed is achieved, the vehicle becomes (allegedly) a perpetual motion machine, because the rotation of the propeller generates an artifical wind that pushes the vehicle forward. And, the movement forward make the wheels rotate, and the rotation of the wheels make the propeller rotate, etc...
So, with ZERO enviromental wind speed, the only thing that is needed is a initial acceleration, that can be given by any mean, in order to make the wheels (and the propeller) rotate at the minimum speed necessary to generate the artificial wind. After that, the machine becomes a perpetuum mobile, and never will need to receive any more energy from external sources.
So, this thing can be adapted to become a perpetual electricity generator, and this infinite electricity can be used to charge the batteries of our Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster.
What sources have you been reading to make these statements?
The wind does all the work. Bring the cart to (close) its own speed. The prop on the cart, being powered by the wheel resists this, making it a sail that flaps back at the wind.
It would be easier to hold the prop from turning (had it been disconnected from the wheels) than to hold the wheels, with that tailwind blowing against the back of the whole structure. So the prop doesn't have a whole lot to give, but what it has, is EXTRA.
Simplifying the system, I would say that the unused wind force is being extacted by the positive feedback loop. Once wind force - drag components equals prop thrust, equilibrium speed is reached.
Without a speed difference between wind and road, there is nothing to put into the feedback loop. The prop works so well because it sits on a flying carpet that matches the wind speed. The slightest input is going to druft the carpet forward compared to a standard carpet.
Hard to explain, and hard to understand, but if once chooses to not believe, it gets even harder.
Fact: behind a turbine, the wind still moves. Only the amount it was slowed down, is input. This feedback loop gets the most out of the prop. Perhaps a smart person can pull a trick on wind turbines as well, to produce more power for a given rotor surface. Dead wind gets in the way though.
-
Well, I don't know what REALLY makes this vehicle move forward, but I think it's clear that the inventors are claiming that is the movement of the wheels that provide torque to the propeller.
-
Clo
to say there has been a lot of research into prop or sail design would be a stupendous "understatement"!
What the heck is going on here?
Do these fellows share specifics anywhere?
any theory?
Claims ??
expectations?
Chet
-
Heeeey! Now I remember! I had this same idea when I was 17 years old!
I know nobody will believe what I will say, and nobody has the obligation to believe, I do not want anyone to believe me, just need to say this, because it's something that just left me shocked.
Over ten years ago, when I was 17, I was on a beach here in Brazil when I thought of an idea that was exactly like this idea that we are analyzing here ... I just thought of a small car where the movement of the wheels would be transmitted to a rear propeller, which would create a wind that could push the car forward.
The day I thought about it, not told anyone my idea. I simply dismissed the idea, thinking that friction somehow should prevent that from work. I ended up completely forgetting the idea. Just now I remembered that toughts of that day!
Nobody needs to believe me, I'm very happy just to know that someone had the same idea I had that day, and, better, someone had put it into practice!
Just registering this recordation. Please don't pay attention to this post.
-
Let's clarify some things here.
The inventors claim that in this device is not the propeller that provides torque to the wheels, but the opposite: is the rotation of the wheels that provides torque for the propeller. It's what they try to show in this video:
Yes, well that's fine but in the full scale model on the 'flats' the wind starts out moving the wheels (no doubt about that) and if the wind stops then the car stops (no doubt about that).
The treadmill demo is more complex than it appears. The ground (belt) moving by in stationary air is not the same as the full scale machine. On the treadmill the air and the cart start out at the same speed (zero) and remain that way. I admit it is intriguing and it's hard to nail down what's really happening with the treadmill videos. So that's why we have forums.
Still it is potentially the most efficient Land Yacht ever contrived.
Greg
-
You see this thing operating and it brings back many memories of independent inventors coming into my machine shop and asking me to help them build the most famous of all overunity gizmos:
...a generator charging a battery that's running the motor that's turning the generator...
Everyone here has passed that O.U. Hopeful by their brain cells more than once I'm sure.
But this actually appears to be doing something similar
-
Greg
my favorite part is when he stalls the telltales and keeps on truckin.
makes my head explode!
Seems like it really wouldn't need any wind, dare I say
"It can make its own"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_wind
Chet
-
Sailing was explained to be as the action of squeezing an oiled jellybean. It pops forward if the hull is shaped correctly.
Pullup the centerboard in a boat on what is called a reach or when the wind is perpendicular to the hull and you start sliding sideways in the water slowly. Instead of decreasing drag on a vehicle perhaps we should actively manage it. Put a big funnel and drive the apparent wind through a turbine. The drag will turn into more useful production. Instead of the car creating a low pressure vortex or draft behind it which the car always wants to go back into the low pressure area is set up in front of the main body of the car in the shelter of the turbine.
-
Instead of decreasing drag on a vehicle perhaps we should actively manage it
Spoken like a tried and true Schauberger afficianado!
I would even go so far as to say that micro-management is in order.
I'll have a double Schauberger to go....and make it snappy....
I've got places to go and people to see!
-
The cart makes its own wind, perhaps, but it's the apparent headwind powering it past the wind speed.
The prop sitting ON the cart must be scooping up air at a modest rate. To high a rate, and the drag of the prop will slow down the wheels, or they lose traction.
I have some sketches here also, funnel shape with a large prop front, small prop rear. It can do what we want, but will the tailwind be sufficiently impressed to push the cart out in front?
Without wind, from standstill there is just a massive wall or air in front, and no thrust. And at 10mph kick started speed, generating a little bit of power on the funnel, we can't expect the system of props to generate more more than Mr Hand used to get the system to 10mph. For, that's what we need to do away with nature's wind input. That's a lot of wind to make from scratch!
If one builds the little cart Spork offers building vids for, it may be interesting for those who smell OU, to try some gearing and kick start speeds, to see if it'll keep going. The smartest guys in this field, Spork's team, are not betting on this. They go for actual wind, however weak, and build a low-drag cart that can use the mechanical advantage to get better speeds than a ballloon.
If ice racers do 5x the wind speed...(200mph, is that in Guinness??) it would be interesting what a DDW cart can do. A prop may be less efficient that an airfoil, but when geared well, at least it has not frontal drag, it pulls harder than it pushes.
With a refined system of foldaway airfoils and props, a cart could on a windy day set repectable lap times around a typical car racing circuit. Only but: wind must be blowing.
For the slow acceleration up to wind speed, I would recommend a simple sail. Like a projector screen, it rollsup into a frame tube when the wind speed is matched :-) A set of small support points would make it an efficient sail shape.
Requiremensts for a DDW race cart:
- big prop (unless an over-geared small prop can be substituted, I doubt it)
- tiny cockpit
- all other parts reduced to minimum resistance : structures, wheels, everything.
The amount of force at a given wind speed acting upon the cart from behind, with it's self-backspinning rotor, minus the drag on all the parts, is what's left of acceleration.
Yes, lots of research into prop, yet not giving the actual wind movement relative to the ground much thought, we are after all making air speed, not ground speed? I also have a sketch here of an airship dragging a heavy cart, to get mechanical movement transferred. A really better idea for the feedback loop, I do not have.
Could we make a track of reppeling magnets, the other set in the vehicle, for maglev?
With wind, the magnets running by each other would be like a turning wheel, this could be extracted. We have to use it for a low-tech prop however, can't let another wheel turn faster, as we'll only end up with resistance greater than gain. At low apparent wind, the prop is just marvellous thing for lift vs drag.
Can you see it? A levitation craft, with a prop on its tail. It needs a magnetic track though, or it'll crash down. When you add vertical lift airfoil, and pedals, you have what I one dy intend to build, a human powered ground efect plane. These have existed (cross the Channel) in the bi plane variety, and worked, but I want something smaller and faster.
-
@Rapadura, I seem to have mis-read your post above I responded to, or maybe your edited it. Anyway, my apologies.
-
No, Cloxxki, I didn't edit the post.
I did not say that the vehicle works this way or that way. I just said what the inventors were claiming. I don't know the extent to which the inventors are correct.
Anyway, your answer was welcome, no problem with it.
-
Unfortunately, this thing doesn't work (at least not the way the inventors claim).
Look these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjDPhLoPJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk5g-fS3pY
At the end of the videos, we can see that, when the vehicle is separated from the truck that was pushing it, the propeller quickly slows down.
It seems to me that these videos where made in a place with low speed enviromental wind. And with low speed enviromental wind, this thing don't work. The thrust created by the rotating propeller is not sufficient to compensate the friction in the wheels. So, the friction make the wheels slow down, and with the wheels slowing down, the propeller slows down too.
This might work if the RPM of the propeller were sufficient to create enough thrust to keep the vehicle at a speed at which the rotation of the wheels were in the same RPM of the propeller. I think it may depend of the size of the wheels, gear ratio, etc... Maybe bigger wheels could be better...
-
I am tired of wasting time and money traveling to work. Now if I could anchor myself to this one point. My job would come to me at a 1000mph. But oh oh the Earth is moving 60,ooo mph relative to the Sun so if I anchored myself to just this one spot then the shop would kinda get to me a little faster than I could let go the anchor. Oh oh the solar system is moving around the galactic cores and I'm not too sure how many miles an hour this is so I could end up letting the anchor go and find myself way down the road from the shop. Damn it the galaxy is moving too. No idea how fast the old milky way is going. My rear end could end up in Jupiter when all I wanted to do was save a little time getting to my job. If there is such as thing as a fixed point in the Universe and time doesnt dialate and there is an aether to reference then my job would be moving somewhere else at over a million miles an hour. No wonder alien craft move so fast. They just no how to get stuck.
-
Unfortunately, this thing doesn't work (at least not the way the inventors claim).
Look these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjDPhLoPJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk5g-fS3pY
At the end of the videos, we can see that, when the vehicle is separated from the truck that was pushing it, the propeller quickly slows down.
......................................................................
Oh my ... I just know there are aerodynamicists both professional and 'armchair' that are just shaking their heads. Number one, the L/D of the props they are using is far from optimum and certainly only in the mid 80% efficiency, at best. Oh yes, and they are transferring power between the wheels/propeller far less efficiently with that belt drive than they think.
I don't know why people just aren't seeing that this is the most incredible adaptation of wind to mechanical energy (I've seen anyway).
As an example: take a hydroplaning catamaran and place a prop on a pivoting mast that allows you to always 'aim' the prop into the wind. Put a collective pitch control also on it. Drive via a 90deg gearbox vertically down to another 90deg gearbox and out the back of the vessel to a high aspect prop in the water to drive the vessel forward (like a regular power boat).
You can go any direction you want. No polished sailing skill needed ... go up wind, down wind, cross wind (I think that's it). You would have a very respectable 'effective' sail area. Now get to where you want to sip your champagne, drop anchor, let the propeller keep turning but now running a generator that's keeping batteries charged up to run the lights, galley, an oh yes, that ultra-efficient electric motor also linked to the prop shaft (you'll never be dead in the water).
For close maneuvering near the docks the propeller folds, you now run electric also with electric bow thrusters, etc.
How cool would that be?
Greg
-
What I always dreamed of doing is setting up a fleet of sailing ships. Those elgant creations that came before the smoke spewing steamboats. Ply them up and down the tradewinds with built in hydrolizers. When they had a full load of solid hydrogen aboard bring her into port. Then go on back out and sail the seven seas fishing for energy. This is how dumb people are. The average whaling ship which was not optimized for speed could achieve over a thousand horsepower. They neglected this scource of energy in pursuit of animal fats they could burn. They spent more energy chasing the whales and killing them loading them etc than the whale catch produced.
-
What I always dreamed of doing is setting up a fleet of sailing ships. Those elgant creations that came before the smoke spewing steamboats. Ply them up and down the tradewinds with built in hydrolizers. When they had a full load of solid hydrogen aboard bring her into port. Then go on back out and sail the seven seas fishing for energy. This is how dumb people are. The average whaling ship which was not optimized for speed could achieve over a thousand horsepower. They neglected this scource of energy in pursuit of animal fats they could burn. They spent more energy chasing the whales and killing them loading them etc than the whale catch produced.
.
I hate the whaling industry. I can't imagine the agony those poor creatures suffered after being harpooned. Even with the modern grenade tipped harpoons, the whole thing is disgusting. I'd like to send one of those whalers running on foot and fire my spear gun into his back then yank his ass to the ground and see how he likes it.
I'll bet you can't tell that topic gets me all bothered. The things we humans have done ... sometimes I'm ashamed to identify myself as human ... hey wait a minute, that's right ... I'm an Alien ... got six toes, six fingers and ... oh darn, still only two of them things.
-
----------------------------
Man, you sure lucked out landing your handle "sparks", especially for an alternative energy forum.
Congrats
-
Unfortunately, this thing doesn't work (at least not the way the inventors claim).
Look these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBjDPhLoPJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk5g-fS3pY
At the end of the videos, we can see that, when the vehicle is separated from the truck that was pushing it, the propeller quickly slows down.
It seems to me that these videos where made in a place with low speed enviromental wind. And with low speed enviromental wind, this thing don't work. The thrust created by the rotating propeller is not sufficient to compensate the friction in the wheels. So, the friction make the wheels slow down, and with the wheels slowing down, the propeller slows down too.
This might work if the RPM of the propeller were sufficient to create enough thrust to keep the vehicle at a speed at which the rotation of the wheels were in the same RPM of the propeller. I think it may depend of the size of the wheels, gear ratio, etc... Maybe bigger wheels could be better...
Those vids were taken before the successful lake bed ones. Some last-day adjustments were made, I think. I did not see inventors claim any speeds in still wind. I can see that any vehicle will have a minimum level of wind it operates in. Rolling resistance (they claim its way low) must first be overcome. In the case of thise DDW cart, the drive system from the wheel to the prop is part of the initial drag, it's a fixed ratio connection. With a foldaway sail and manual clutch, it would not need the truck's push.
It would be interesting to learn of their dyno tests, at which speed the prop offers which thrust. In their cart's case, the wind first needs to bring it there. As often said by the team, acceleration up to around wind speed, is very slow. This might be due to the prop blade style chosen? Anyway, this is not a drag race.
I happened to know (or claim to know) a thing or two about wheel for low-power, low weight, off-road applications. I am a recovering mountainbike tech weenie.
I can tell you, but vast majority of cyclists didn't start believing this until recent years and most still don't, that larger wheel are (almost) universally better for performance. A little bit more so if it's no drag race.
In this DDW application, traction oddly is a factor. They want a light craft, but it must offer sufficient traction to have the wheel slip from the wind forced on the prop.
How does one improve mechanical traction without just throwing on lead weight on the vehicle?
- reduce tire pressure (depending on surface conditions, rolling resistance might go up or down)
- softer tire tread rubber
- thinner tire casing
- don't use an innertube, seal up with tape, liquid latex and slime
- but really, increase wheel size
Larger diameter (not width per se) wheels, will have a longer and narrower contact patch with the surface. This is already visible when going from 22.5" to 25" diameter rims (26" vs 29" wheels) with otherwise identical tires. The traction is noticed in braking and climbing.
Furthermore, lateral stability is greater, as is cornering grip.
Would the team go from 26" to 29" MTB wheels, all other factors remaining the same, they'd reduce rubber interface rolling resistance and more importantly : traction. Slipping wheels, drag. Even if the wheels are trying to spin faster than the vehicle (might happen with that prop attached).
As their cart is not really bike-light though, I like the changes of using 36" wheels. Tires available are pretty much motor cycle quality (being relatively draggy), but their pure size makes them insane rollers. I once rode such a bike on an exhibition floor, and it was just utter silence and peace. Friends of mine have taken my designs, and make them reality, 36" wheels MTB's. They report unreal traction, from the super low tech tires. And, over rough terrain, it just outrolls everything, even when the smaller wheeled bikes are fitted with suspension system to smoothen their ride.
I wrote to Spork to look into large wheels, hidden inside the prop's support structure. It would be a 30 or 37" by 3" aero shpaed casing. Narrower above the wheel. Like with recumbent bikes, the tire would barely peek out from under the wheel casing. Little aero drag for stunning tire traction and rolling performance.
I'd rather bet my life on 36" wheels when crossing a salt lake at 150mph, than 26". Especially when power input is limited and speed is the goal. Supsension helps a vehicle run smootly, but just sucks out kinetic energy. There is a reason why carriage wheels were man-tall, or better.
I am a bit questioning the 3-wheel setup though. Although the steering is relatively simple, the balancing is more challenging (tipping over is game over). A 4-wheel setup would allow a very aero setup, wheels inline on either side. Usually, more wheels engaged, actually reduces rolling resistance. This at least goes for uvicycle vs bicycle, and for inline skates. I tested my inline with 2, 3 and 4 wheels in each, and the difference is clear. More wheels rolls faster. On asphalt hard to explain (in softer terrain you dig in less deep with more wheels spreading the load), but hey, all inline skates see is asphalt. Maybe is does compress under the wheels...
If it would be my project, I'd have most trouble figuring out the prop setup itself. One naked large one like this, multiple small ones parallel, or even in series, with or without ducts around them.
I support all would need to be tested for trust at various gearings, and them eventually incorperated into the final design.
I'd like a basic delta shape flat chassis, front wheel fully enclose of course. Rear wheel just sticking out the sides, and very thin aero blades making for the top part of the prop support. Preferably sitting well in front of behind the prop itself, unless they could double as air duct to improve prop efficiency. I could even imagine the prop being only halfway (bottom part) enclosed. The structure is handily there to provide some.
-
Well
Very Cool that it was scaleable!
It seems to be an old school prop design , but there "must" be something special there!
Gotta be something special to over come all that drag and still make power to move?
@Clo
A Tiny replication?
I'll play![gotta be cheap]
Chet
PS
Greg Do you remember the guy that had that "3 winged" sail rotary
Configuration?
About 15 /20 years ago?
Had it on a "BIG" catamaran ,was supposed to be the future,you
could drive it like a car,I don't know about going "Into" the wind.
Hmmm....... I do know someone that Should know, I'll ask him on Monday.
-
Well
Very Cool that it was scaleable!
It seems to be an old school prop design , but there "must" be something special there!
...................
The prop is 'old school' in the sense that it is for relatively low speed (tip velocity) and lifts (like a wing), or produces a thrust force almost all the way to the hub ... like the Wright Flyer (Wright Brothers, Kitty Hawk 1903).
-
Thrust Calculator:
http://personal.osi.hu/fuzesisz/strc_eng/index.htm
How can this help us?
-
Well
Very Cool that it was scaleable!
It seems to be an old school prop design , but there "must" be something special there!
Gotta be something special to over come all that drag and still make power to move?
@Clo
A Tiny replication?
I'll play![gotta be cheap]
Chet
Hi Chet, check this out for a build plan! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-ArigMKhi4
Cheaper than a Mylow replication, I suppose.
Easiest to appreciate result (involving less running after the thing) would be to gear it to fight an upwind.
-
Clo
Sweet!
But I think where missing something ?
what kind of claims are these fellas making?
I can't find any claims as to where they are going with this?
Perhaps Greg [gmeast] has a point, or is this the best thing since canned beer?
Chet
-
It's the best I've seen for sure, just it's not OU. It's the afterburner button we'd not found before.
Claims? A vehicle can take the wind's energy, and attain fast-than-the-wind speeds, I suppose?
The positive feedback loop seems able to extract more energy from the wind than it would be willing to give to a simple sailing cart. In stead of settling for equal-to-wind-speed, the feedback loop boosts cart speed, to a much higher equilibrium wind speed than 100%, limited only by the no-prop drag of the vehicle, and the size and efficiency of the prop used.
We'd not be surprised to learn that a 500ft tall wind turbine could extract sufficient energy to let a toy car on a race track reach 100mph, while the turbine is seeing only 10mph winds. We'd be more surprised to see the same fan, stuck on a relatively vehicle, in the same 10mph winds, hitting 30mph. Still, it's not all that different from an input-output point of view.
I asked Spork whether the world would need to re-think current technology because of his team's findings, and his answer was quite modest, but possibly true.
Wind turbine are not going to extract 3x more energy for the same diameter, I think.
Wind however, IMO does become a more viable (main) power source for a personal vehicle, in everyday traffic. We're learning a lot about storing on the fly (re)generated energy into batteries, and now wind power will need to be reconsidered for our high-speed traveling in low-speed winds. Wind is not just a drag factor that keeps changing, it's a power cource that keeps coming from different directions, every time you take a turn. The way I see it, we now have efficient wind propulsion systems for wind acting on a vehicle from any angle. The +/- 20 degress DDW and upwind, have been little exploited, expecially not on vehicles confined to narrow, straight roads.
-
Cloxxi
SO...........
If we can go faster than the wind,we should be able to go in "no wind"?
Why not?
I'm not being a wise guy, I can't understand this.
Once you exceed wind speed down wind the tell tales go slack!
I have NEVER seen this EVER!
and I sail past wind speed ALL THE TIME![never down wind].
Do you understand whats going on here?
Can you make "apparent wind" in no wind?
That would be a "miracle" No?
Chet
-
I'm with Chet on this.
I can't say I'm much of a sailor. I had a 21' sloop and spent a lot of summers alone on it. If the tell-tales are slack there is no wind seen by the vehicle.
This thing's function seems natural but I still can't explain it.
At least, the armchair debunkers will stay busy.
-
It's all about the positive feedback loop. No energy is being created. It's sucked out of the wind better.
If 5m² of sail can extract x amount of energy from the wind at wind=ground speed V, it can power a 1m² car by more than V.
The propellor, in contrast to a sail, had no negative drag. It's (geared to be) scooping up air faster than it hits the prop at. So, it only offers positive thrust, on top of the speed of the cart.
Only when the losses of the cart (cockpit air drag, rolling resistance) equal the maximum energy input of the wind multiplied by prop efficiency, is equilibrium speed reached. I am not engineer, but that's how I understand it at this point.
Another thought expirent, before testing it in reality:
We have a sloping road, and no wind.
We mark a start and finish line.
We let the cart go at start line, from standstill
We let a cart with freely spinning prop go down it, and time it.
We let the cart, less prop, but with compensating ballast do the same. We likely find a quicker descend time.
Next, we gear the prop to always spin faster than the cart is rolling.
Does the latter cart beat the propless cart? This time there is no difference in cart speed and apparent wind speed to exploit.
It's not meant as a trick question, I haven't thought about it long enough to come to a hypothesis yet.
In stead of the wind (which is proven to work DDW) we'd be trying to exploit the pull of gravity. Gravity has a pulling potential related only to mass and angle, but it doesn't push back when you decide to move "down" quicker than 9.8m/s².
-
Except for the need of drag on the wheels and atmospheric pressure, I doubt gravity has much to do with it.
It seems to just be a difference of potential. The driving wheels create a greater difference of potential between the air in front and behind of the prop. This difference creates more acceleration. More acceleration creates more difference in potential, etc.
This seems more like the air pressure equivalent to a static charge, except a static charge can't continuously increase its own charge.
Maybe reverse of common logic? Perhaps it is a motionless object tends to stay motionless. Maybe they can only travel from East to West?
Enough. Off to work....
-
Except for the need of drag on the wheels and atmospheric pressure, I doubt gravity has much to do with it.
Perhaps the term "traction" fits better than "drag". A perfect cog/rail system will create zero drag for unlimited traction. Actually, a large bicycle wheel offer greater traction for the total load on it, while at the same time reducing rolling resistance compared to the smaller wheel.
It can't be overstated, in case of the DDWFTTW cart, it's all about the speed difference between the ground and the wind. One could also see the prop driven by the wheels as a the cart creating a smaller surface area at its front, compared to its big butt being pushed by the wind. A solid shape can't do that to the same effect. And with DDW, the wind from head is always weaker and slower than from behind. This strength difference is being exploited to get teh wind to push a "second, and third time", if you will.
Any takers for the wind still downhill rolling prop cart's performance vs. a textbook V=1/2 G*T²?
Eternal respect is to be won! I have not asked Spork or other prop cart owners to test this, but it would be equally controversial, if anomolies were to be found...
-
Hi folks,
for all out there who think that this is a joke see the work in progress:
http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/2009_10_01_archive.html
the idea bases on the project of Dr. Andrew Bauer:
http://projects.m-qp-m.us/donkeypuss/
scoll down to:
DWFTTW Update, Saturday, May 2, 2009
there you can download the paper from Andrew Bauer
You will see that this is not only an idea, it is a reality
-
If the wheels of the cart were bigger than the propeller, couldn't the rotation of the propeller be so fast that would give a very high speed to the cart?
Just make the wheels of a very light plastic material and don't put a pilot in the cart, because humans are very heavy.
And make the best possible propeller, a very optmized propeller, that gives maximum thrust.
To test the device, there is no need for a truck pushing it, just suspend the cart in the air, and use a motor to accelerate only the wheels. The rotation of the wheels will make the propeller rotate too. When the propeller is rotating very fast, producing a lot of wind, put the cart in the ground and let it run.
If everything is OK, the cart will never stop again!
-
Alan
Thankyou for the links.
You seem to be a student of this work?
Where do you think this will take us?
I am not being facetious ,I am genuinely interested
In where this could be applied.
Chet
-
To hell with a propellor put a big old spinning frisby up there and wheels once she lifts off that turn into backward inclined turbine blades. Adjust the angle of the Frisby to the direction of travel intended. The low pressure created on the lift surface of the frisby gives it's ability to fly. You dont throw a frisby to get distance without spinning it.
-
@ ramset
I am not a student of this work.
I haven' t any relation to this project. I only set down yesterday and did some simple research. So I have found this information. I thought it could be helpful for someone.
You ask where could it be applied? I don't know. But it is very impressive to see the little cart driving so fast.
-
Do you guys actually think that the wind is not needed to go fast down level ground? Free energy everywhere, you just need to want to tap it? Right?
If there is any free energy to be had, it's going to have tpo be in conjuction with gravity. Wind turbines are proven to work, just not without wind. All we see is a cart that can reverse the prop to get more speed from the wind.
If gravity's pull could be exploited extra by the prop cart (I can see it, but not believe it), then that might be real OU. Gently push the cart off a 5m tall ramp. If it goes faster than 9.8m/s at the bottom, you have OU, cart should be able to reset itself, ride up another 5m tall ramp.
In this little fairytale, the force of gravity is used twice : once to get the cart rolling, and once to make the wheel turn the prop to a higher speed than the cart's speed, beating the apparent head wind. <zero wind resistance, if you will. If it sounds too good to be true...
-
Do you guys actually think that the wind is not needed to go fast down level ground? Free energy everywhere, you just need to want to tap it? Right?
No. For this or anything to work there must be a difference of potential, a source of usable energy. In this case it is the wind. I think this cart is analogous to a step-up transformer. There is no energy gain. There is only gain in velocity. The prop needs to push against something moving faster than the ground.
If there is any free energy to be had, it's going to have tpo be in conjuction with gravity.
Last time I was on the salt flats it was pretty flat. Gravity could be made part of this but what goes down looses going up, unless there is enough wind.
-
Clo
I have to say ,your gravity "angle" in all this seems "plausible"
I am quite sure that big brain of yours will figure a way to use this
"effect" towards a better understanding of what can be done here.
Listening to you fellas bang this around, is helping to understand whats going on here!
Thanks
Chet
PS
Besides it might help make my sail boat go faster :o
As Bep [or any sailor] knows ,this is always important!
-
PS
Besides it might help make my sail boat go faster :o
As Bep [or any sailor] knows ,this is always important!
Aye! Me Bucko! Not much more fun than jumping a barge wake while under tack with a sloop and 3/4 of your keel showing! 2X wind speed could mean that jump could have been at 50 knots. With a huge prop spinning instead of taught mainsail and jib, it could be an ugly result.
-
I wasn't saying THIS CART is getting its gain from going downhill, I'm not a debunker, I'm a believer.
@ramset
My brain may be volumous, but most empty, untrained and uncoordinated.
Should it be possible, in a simple setup just like DDW, maybe slightly adjusted gearing and prop style, to beat gravity, this would be just like creating your own wind. Or, OU. Setup could be mounted on a wheel of furtune kind of setup, and just mill away. For this to happen, the energy taken from the wheels of the "cart", should somehow bring a gain when converted to prop trust. this has "too good to be true" all over it, but I like it as a brain teaser.
Although gravity doesn't give a back draft when you surpass it, it also doesn't offer anything to press off against, like tailwind does.
It seems, as long as high-tech, efficient system are used, any vehicle used in the outdoors, could benefit from a wind prop to be engaged with its water prop or wheels when appropriate, be it roughtly downwind or upwind. More surface, more power, so mount as many on the sailboat as fit!
-
What about a tailwind powered hovercraft. Could it be done?
Even better than a catamaran would be an aquafoil type craft. Almost only the prop in the water, to turn the wind prop on top. An ground effect hull might offer nicer lift even than an hydrofoil, lift for Watts of resistance?
-
Clo
Well one thing is for sure.
Something very cool is going on with this.
And that setup is doing work, beyond what is expected !
Way beyond!
I don't understand it [yet].
But I like it !
Chet
PS
Clo
I don't know if its good or bad ?
but I understand "most" of what you say!
I'm quite sure you are going to come up with something
that I will just have to try!
Remember "dirty air" [prop wash]
every prop needs to be in clean air!
-
What about a tailwind powered hovercraft. Could it be done?
Hovercraft... These are a passion of mine. That would be great.
The way I understand this, the craft would need one or more wheels on the ground and couldn't exceed much more than 2x wind speed. Using ground-effect a lot of lift surface area would be needed.
Interesting thought.
-
Hovercraft... These are a passion of mine. That would be great.
The way I understand this, the craft would need one or more wheels on the ground and couldn't exceed much more than 2x wind speed. Using ground-effect a lot of lift surface area would be needed.
Interesting thought.
I would be interested to know how much power of a hovercraft's engines (I never saw one in person) is required to properly fill the air cushion, and create the frictionless interface. I suppose surface and weight (psi?) would be a main factor? Still, a hovercraft is supposed to be an efficient (for payload, fuel consumption and speed) form of water transport, correct?
I have a bit of an obsession for ground effect. I want a human powered ground effect wing, that is faster and more manoeuvrable than the existing Channel-crossing biplane type fly-zilla's. It's all about surface to weight I suppose here also. Thus, a matter of efficient engineering.
Unfortunately with an airborne craft, it's hard to drive the prop with a hard fix on the ground speed, to gear it over the apparent headwind, and get forward thrust.
@Ramset : if this stuff fascinates you, and you are not shy for a build project, this seems like great fun. It can always entertain friends. Just keep some balloon on hand to make speed comparisons. Hey, you might earn back your time in bet wins!
Don't expect to build a cart that will ride by itself day and night, as really, it needs wind, preferably tail wind.
-
Clo
Hover craft is a fuel pig!
Ground effect!
Now your talkin, get a plane off the ground [or a boat off the water].
Cut back the throttle 70% in ground effect!
Yes a passion of mine also!
Chet
-
Clo
Hover craft is a fuel pig!
Ground effect!
Now your talkin, get a plane off the ground [or a boat off the water].
Cut back the throttle 70% in ground effect!
Yes a passion of mine also!
Chet
Thanks for the heads-up Chet, fuel pigness reduces hovercrafts back to toys for me :-)
It bugs me that the firm surface-craft traction is required to leverage the power of the tailwind. What's a ground effect wing worth when it drags a pizza cutter to power the prop that keeps it flying?
I just thought that a ground effect wing could feature 2 opposing airfoil chimneys, to possibly negate the lateral drifting, and need for a draggy keel. For the aerodynamics lover that would a fun project, build a wing from styrofoam (sp) or paper mash, and put paper airfoils on it. Make the design adjustable to find a sweet spot. RC the controls. It might work, or it might not, I am not well read into the wind scene.
I am still strugling with my own mind teaser. Can gravity's pull be used to get the part rolling, and can the turning wheel be used to drive an over-geared prop, to give nett thrust that sends the cart accelerating past gravity-only power, in still wind? Or do the wheel feel a braking force (to power the over-geared prop) that surpasses the thrust a prop can offer at any given speed? If a gain can be had, that make it a perpetuum mobile for me. Use wind drag (reversed in the prop) as a power source. All my life I've been thinking about how drag could be reversed. Might this be it? The aeolus racers fought against the wind inching straight into it, not even trying to use it to triple their speed downwind. Now, the signs are that 4x the wind speed may soon be achieved by a prop cart. So, could "tail wind" be replaced by "gravity" as power source? A gravity power generator that relies on the viscosity of air? A man can dream, right? Certainly on here.
Anyone know how good aerodynamic modelling programs are lately? In the relative (to aerospace) low wind speeds that wind powered carts encounter, some extreme prop layouts might be tried to maximize thrust.
-
They made it faster and prettier:
http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/
-
That is really amazing! That new craft should really fly out there. Very interesting reading.
Bill
-
That is really amazing! That new craft should really fly out there. Very interesting reading.
Bill
Well, they rounded some edges, and did good to the sponsors, but they also added roughly 50lb acording to Spork. I am not sure the amount of drag previously generated at ~30mph apparent headwind amounted to all that much, in comparison to the power extracted from the wind with that, what, 12 foot propellor? It may help a couple mph on a good long run. And the weight might aid in being more stable in apparent headwind bursts.
The unpimped cart already performed above anyone's expectations, I suppose, being so basic. One rotor, no aero body work.
-
Clo
Thanks for keeping us posted!
This still "pains the brain" for me!
Seems like other techs could "evolve" from here?
Chet
-
Clo
Thanks for keeping us posted!
This still "pains the brain" for me!
Seems like other techs could "evolve" from here?
Chet
Oh I'm just an intrigued groupie, reading all I sensibly can on the subject. Understanding, I do far from all.
I can totally see alternative prop setups be even more efficient. Boats can use principle too.
But in terms of practicality, it doesn't do much more than offer a (small) auxiliary power source on existing vehicles. You're rolling down a highway, GPS system knows the way. Wind sensors know what's going on. In appropriate moments, the will come from out of it's casing (like a double roof), and via a clutch to the drive shaft, be brought up to desired speed by, effectively, the wheels or engine. It would not do much, but when guided by a smart computer, it could reduce fuel consumption some. And hey, a prop on your car makes all kinds of sense anyway. It only rides 1 hour per day on average, the rest it's standing in the wind.
We need to harness all the free energy we can. If you see a car, or a building without turbine, energy is being wasted right there.
-
a vertical wind turbine would probably work better!
-
Cloxxi
Quote:
If you see a car, or a building without turbine, energy is being wasted right there.
----------------------------
Very true ,we are spoiled ,if wind was all we had we would never waste it.
The tides and the wind they never stop!
HHmmmmm...............
Chet
-
So much can be done with a square kilometer of great tide height difference water.
Float a flat, light vessel on it. It is 5 metres thick and water won't penetrate it.
At low tide, engage anchors to the ocean floor. At hight tide (fully submerged 5 metres), softly allow the surface to float up. Per quare meter of water, that's for instance 5m x 1000kg. For the square kilometer, 1 million times that. And, twice per day. On top if this, water turbines could line the circumference of the vessel, covering a significant depth under the vessel, where strong tidal streams will exist. A bit of water sloshing through a small bay sized area, might power hundreds of thousands of houses.
Take a rugby ball of, what 3 litres?, and bring it to the bottom of the swimming pool (rarely more than 4 metres dee). That's the power you're dealing with here, just about 2 billion times more. And yes, twice a day.
The quick release at the bottom sees a lot of energy going lost on water friction, the ball doesn't jump up all that high. Doing it slowly, can definately do serious work connected to a machine to make use of it.
Greatest obstable is being awarded a square kilometers of stride tide water, and funding to build.
Oh I failed to mention the wind park on the vessel, and the solar cells. Terrawatts in total, rain or shine.
-
Guys, your opinions please, after having looked at the cart.
Take this : http://eolprocess.com/
And substitute the blades with a prop, powered by the rotation of the central shaft.
Can you see what I'm seeing? Can you perhaps tell me why it won't work?
The wind turbine booster we've been looking for? The design itself is ingenious by itself, but it seems to be (although working beautifully in a seperately invented version of gmeast :
http://www.youtube.com/user/gmeast
restricted by the blade taking full wind, not wanting to go faster than the wind, while in all other positions, it does want. The prop, if it operates somewhat efficient off the wind, would be urging the central shaft, and all the props installed, to go faster. Sucking the air out of the wind, just like the cart does. Or am I wrong?
Another way I see is that the blades would not make full rotations, but alternate taking left and right, for fore and aft locations. Speed vs. torque, which is best? For the cart, speed. For the turbine, I am not sure.
-
Clo,
That device appears to be a low speed high torque device!
I didn't translate.
what are they claiming verses a regular prop?
BTW I don't understand your idea {yet].
Chet
-
Animation is top view of a turbine, central shaft is vertical with the ground. Wind shown as coming from above. It is nothing like a prop. I am proposing to substitute the blade for props. Nothing easy about my idea.
gmeast who posts on energetic forums and youtube, built this thing, the French inventor apparently only made a patent, which was not maintained, and now int eh public domain. gmeast made the same thing, and found the patent after. It seems to turn pretty quickly to me. Speed of course is less important than the energy that can be extracted at the central shaft via a load/generator.
OK, so the blades turn on the rotor at half the rotor's rpm, but in one position of the device, the blades always pass in a given orientation. However, if you'd paint them in different colors back/front, I believe now they will switch sides.
NOT good for my propellor idea.
To have a chance of working with propellor replacing the large vertical blades, the propellor blades will need to be phased as well, reversing thrust. Reversing rotation direction of the propellors might be easier to engineer, but it makes my head hurt to figure out whether that's good or bad.
The back-thrusting prop that sit full in the wind (9:00 of animation), will have great thrust on the central shaft, as the DDWFTTW cart. At 3:00, prop blades will need to be perpendicular to the wind direction (vertical in animation), and reverse thrust for the next half-cycle.
I have a good feeling about this, seems it just might work to get the thing spinning fast, and extract good energy from the wind.
Perhaps a similar setup, stretched out rather and circular, without the thrust reverse, and the against the wind part being shielded from the wind, would be both simpler and more efficient. The props when exposed to the moving wind, would be DDWFTTW. In the tunnel or shield on the way back, apparent wind speed is reduced some, to have thrust there as well.
-
No-one understanding my little idea above?
Many wondered how the DDWFTTW cart might contribute to wind energy, this might be one way.
If the prop is generation a greater wind speed difference by thrusting back, and driving the generator by moving DDW, returning at low resistance away from the wind, this to me seems like a potentially very efficient system. Wind speed behind the turbine would be lower than behind a regular fan of equal size, depite the prop as a whole moving through space faster than the wind.
If the prop on the DDWFTTW car can exert greater force when being driven by the wheels (hence the cart going faster), than a similarly geared prop on a seperated drive shaft, might as well extract more energy from the wind, per surface unit of the blade diameter, compared to a statically placed one.
-
shes a runner
http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/search?updated-min=2010-05-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&updated-max=2010-06-01T00%3A00%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=15
-
Helicoil
Thanks for the update!
When are they gonna make that nice slow upwind tack?
{wouldn't that be nice}
3x down wind 2x upwind :o
Chet
-
Man, they are really documenting their efforts really well. This is a most fascinating design and their results appear to be incredible. I wish them the best of luck.
Bill
-
Imagine If the wind could be our "over unity"?
Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants!!
And one heck of a happy day!!
This is getting more interesting all the time, Clo's ideas should at least be "plausible"?
Chet
-
It's all about beating the wind down, right? If the wind still has umpf to make the downwind place windmill turn, the first one didn't quite use all that was there for it to take.
I think my idea could work to make the thing spin fast, yeah. But the turning blade design is so smart, seems to take so much power from the wind for a given frontal surface area, it should do well as part of future building design, to make them as lean as possible on grid power.
-
I believe that smoke generators near the axle or blade tips would reveal that, on the run up to speed, a type of stable VRS is developed which is required for best efficiency. As long as the prop is in VRS, the craft benefits from the maintenance of positive/negative pressure areas and the efficient exchange of air mass via a non-obvious kind of 'slingshot' effect. A simple demonstration of the potential efficiencies of air mass exchange in rotating systems, is the vortex cannon. A toy, called the 'Airzooka' will propagate a vortex ring quite a distance through the air, even as it exchanges it's original air mass many times over. If shot through smoke filled air, this effect is impressive and readily apparent.
I am currently working on a new kind of prop/generator combo which is very promising, as it makes use of vortex generators in a novel way by which to increase efficiency several fold. These props carry the potential to generate the same amount of torque as conventional props up to 3 times their diameter. I am working on modifying an 89 Toyota ext. cab pickup as a test bed vehicle to showcase their potential at generating copious amounts of energy with relatively minuscule measurable drag losses from being mounted at the front of the vehicle. A small portion of the energy produced will be used at enhancing the vehicle aerodynamics.
Exotic EM flux manipulations neither required nor planned. 8)
I had planned on showcasing this platform over at Eco-Modder, but as it happens, they have little tolerance for even a modicum of free speech which might upset their small pond status quo. Especially as pertains to the Truth regarding the lateness of the hour.
As regards the DWFTTW and Stuttgart's direct upwind accomplishments, they could improve considerably as a greater understanding of even more efficient dynamics unfold.
That is, if time permits.
Regards,
TS
-
when i first heard of this i overlooked it.
assumed it was impossible.
searched the web a few weeks back and came across other sites, showing into the wind powered vehicles, with race events held in Europe, never knew they existed
When this vehicle drives forward, Does the airspeed increase behind the blades, aiding in driving the vehicle forward,
or does the vehicle increase speed due to the blades angle and rpm, cutting or screwing itself into the air quicker than the wind speed, without increasing the air speed behind the blades.
would like to see a pair or more of these slipstream formula 1 style.
modify a large air conditioner duct, have mini versions loop around in circles on a special track, generating power, collected through the tracks, "turbo style".
(hadron collider tunnel would come handy)
could use a similar wind turbine as the v-lim.
web page also contains an interesting article titled, rare-earth-shortages-may-put-china-in-the-drivers-seat-on-green-energy,
http://mgx.com/blogs/tag/v-lim-wind-turbine/
http://rogueriverwind.com/VLIM_Hybrid/VLIM_Hybrid.html
if there is in increase of wind speed behind the rotor blades, would a second set of blades behind this increase the speed further, e.g. 2 vehicles joined together, the rear vehicle aiding the first.
Many ideas come to mind of looping these to run on their own generated wind, or underwater in a circular swimming pool, it can propel itself on its own created whirlpool.
(need to make some models, to many ideas, not enough time).
-
You fellows have some cool ideas!!
Techstuff perhaps we could take a closer look at yours?
While we wait!
Chet
-
Techstuf,
looked further into the v-lim generator, almost sounds like the same idea as yours.
http://rogueriverwind.com/VLIM_Hybrid/VLIM_Hybrid_Specs.html
some info from the site
Compact ducted fan design coupled with a proprietary vortex generator aft of the fan induces a low pressure zone that extracts more power per swept surface area from the prop, just like a jet engine, than conventional wind turbines. More here
Smaller size and turbulent wind handling make the V-LIM suitable for rooftop mounting reducing the environmental footprint typical with tower mounted systems.
-
Thanks for the find, Helicoil, I've never seen that one before! My design is substantially different, and with fewer components. (Although my blade geometry is somewhat diabolical to produce with material of sufficient strength) My design relies upon steady, comparatively high wind speeds, essentially highway speeds. At over 45 mph, air's mass can really be put to work!
My design is basically a rip off of these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc
(jk)
I'll try and post more when I get my stationary and rotary vortex generators tuned to the output prop. When I'm done it'll look pretty out there. Something like the Jetsons meets Back to the future.
TS
-
Had a good laugh, looks like they spent a good weekend setting it up. (popular with the ladies),
reminds me of a funny vid i had seen of a pedal powered propellar bicycle being ridden down the city streets, looked safe for the pedestrians.
there no way this could ever be street legal, probably any car with an exposed fan would be illegal,
thought about a similar idea as well, using a huge scoop so fan is not exposed, always thought the drag created would be greater than the power it could produce.
-
Techstuff
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc
(jk)
I'll try and post more when I get my stationary and rotary vortex generators tuned to the output prop. When I'm done it'll look pretty out there. Something like the Jetsons meets Back to the future.
TS
---------------------------------------------
More jetson than this?
Sweet!!
If thats how we can use "Apparent wind"
So be it!
Looking forward to seeing your "Gizmo"!!
Thanks
Chet
-
Hi,
Intresting stuff.
I have played with the idear also. From Schauberger with his vortex theories, i
came up with this concept of a "vortex" harnesser to be harnest in air or water..
Every ring can turn free on its own, you harvest the spinning on the outside of the ring. The inside open.
-
PS. It works both ways.
High pressure low vollume > Into the small opening
Low pressure High Vollume > Into the large opening
-
This is like a jet.
Interesting.
-
Cherryman, you rock. I was working on ideas with cones encapsuplating a set of incresingly smaller relatively conventional props, but you use the encapsulation AS the prop, letting nothing slip past. That's totally awesome, and every wind turbine should have this. Make more use of the space you got!
How about this amendment:
Your device is mounted a few meters off the ground, where you get good clear winds. A pipe goes out the back of it, to just above the ground. The air is slower there, thus should offer more thrust. Furthermore, ground effect makes it more resistant to expansion. Or would that an undesired effect? Perhaps it depends on the application. For DDWFTTW propulsion, my idea might be an upgrade, but if you just have a unit on your roof to supply the household's power, it's waste of energy. A complicated wind powered hair dryer.
-
HHMMmmm
I like the idea of a smaller prop doing more work [Techstuff] ?
That would be very nice!![extra nice!!]
?
Chet
PS
Cherryman very cool!!
A venturi concept? wouldn't you need another "mechanism" to convert
harvested force to mechanical ?
-
PS
Cherryman very cool!!
A venturi concept? wouldn't you need another "mechanism" to A
harvested force to mechanical ?
I suppose energy could be harvested from the outside of the rings, incorperated with the external bearing assembly it would need. An O-shaped electric motor,/generator, why not?
-
Here is a single one, with the same basic rotor design. Only not in a tube/cone shape.
They also draw the energy from the outer circle, some vids also.
http://www.earthtronics.com/honeywell.aspx
-
I like the idea of a smaller prop doing more work [Techstuff] ?
To be honest, technically, there is a trade off. But one that is not hard to bear....the prop's displacement in the axial direction is considerably higher than that of conventional props.
There's more than one way to siphon energy from the 'active vacuum'....and as an 'elastic fluid' air can certainly fill the bill. Remember, we're not talking about something designed to increase wind power efficiency on a general level. This potential innovation is designed to be implemented at constant relative wind speeds reaching in excess of 7 times the average wind speed in North America.
I will probably post the pics, vids, and data on a site of my own after a few test runs are completed.
With this device, I'm not making any claims of OU whatsoever....but thus far, the concept appears very promising as a way to markedly improve efficiency. I am currently working out the methodology to produce the rotor/prop assemblies accurately at full size while retaining the needed strength/durability.
The test bed should really turn a few heads when completed. Who am I kidding? It should turn every head. One could power an average home with the power generated from the averaged daily head turning alone!
lol.
We'll see....
TS
-
TS
Quote:
I will probably post the pics, vids, and data on a site of my own after a few test runs are completed.
------------------------------
Looking forward to that, especially if it does what that forever car seems to be doing [making its own wind to run "forever"??]
Chet
Ps
I here carrots are the new high strength material [better than carbon fiber]
Quite serious.
-
Thanks for the 'carrot' tip, Ramset.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1430.php
http://www.cellucomp.com/
Wow. 80% carrot propellers, perhaps?
What next.....Turnip turbines?
Amazing.
-
TS
The sound isn't working on my computer where I'm staying ,
whats with that forever car??
what claims are they making?
Clo and others have been suggesting this is possible[making power while underway]
does this work??[forever car]
Chet
-
TS
The sound isn't working on my computer where I'm staying ,
whats with that forever car??
what claims are they making?
Clo and others have been suggesting this is possible[making power while underway]
does this work??[forever car]
Chet
It looks like a funny hoax, and I feel stupid for taking it seriously for all those 10 seconds.
I was just thinking of a railway system again. Carts with props and airfoils should do nicely. Underlocking wheels/rails, of course, to deal with (wanted and harvested) crosswinds. With proper computer controls, optimal use would always be made of the wind. Track provides stability required, like the ultimate keel. Airfoils and props could be rather large compared to the 8-person capsule. Huge thrust, tiny overhead. And yes, excess to be fed into the grid. Grid tapped for climbing hills, crossing low wind sections, etc. Also for direct head wind situations, which would be the sole issue.
Automatic distance keeping to prevent wind-stealing and collisions.
It would never be allowed, of course. Someone would tell it's too expensive. 130 year gain back of costs. Except, people are powering their houses with turbines made from scrap. It's not rocket science, it's wind science. The wind was given to us to figure out :-)
-
Study the Velomobile of Stuttgart's. It is designed to provide direct capture no matter the vehicle's orientation. The fact that it can do 64% directly upwind says much. (alot, actually)
Perhaps there is a ratio to be found, regarding how fast the relative wind speed must be in order for the proper vehicle to capture enough energy to achieve something even more remarkable...
TS
-
Study the Velomobile of Stuttgart's. It is designed to provide direct capture no matter the vehicle's orientation. The fact that it can do 64% directly upwind says much. (alot, actually)
Perhaps there is a ratio to be found, regarding how fast the relative wind speed must be in order for the proper vehicle to capture enough energy to achieve something even more remarkable...
TS
I think such vehicles show that a turbine or prop can have lower drag than it has torque or thrust. I bet the Black Bird can reach 100% of wind speed, upwind. Apparent wind speed (2x head wind) is then the same as DDW at 3x wind speed.
The next step would be to start a chain reaction where a "simple" turbine on the roof turns into a jet-like howler, with huge thrust which can be harvested. This step, as much as I want it, seems very implausible.
The Black Bird defies logic, not laws of nature as we know them. It use it's attained speed to take yet more energy out of the wind. I've searched my life (passively) for such a solution, but others had already invented it before my birth, and the BB team put it into life size, manned propulsion.
In my opinion, Black Bird shows that humanity's main occupation seems to be wasting wind energy. Letting it fly past, litterally. Even if we let it feather a wind turbine, some 150m tall, behind, the win is till blowing significantly. And the wind mill to exploit that wind, is not there.
Like being part of a thirsty village, and taking a cappucino cup to the nearby creek, and try to feed the village. There, people have glasses and straws to drink from. All those straws would better be used for a pipeline to get the water to the village. Inside the pipeline, it can't evaporate.
Anyway, vehicles CAN be largely or completely wind powered, AND quick. I firmly believe with some funding could make a car sized vehicle that goes around like a proper car, driving 2-3 hours per day, and never be on the grid. Smart aerodynamic adjustments can make it sail through trafic while staying within the white lines, not even swerving.
A rail system would be easier though, and provide more hours per day, just at hard to predict speeds. And, to add to my rail system idea, 2 carts headed the same direction for a longer distance should be coupled, to share their frontal overhead surface, and almost double their thrust. The front's props would be moved outside, the rear's up, for instance, to not share wind path. With side winds, not need for tricks, each airfoil package will work optimally. Faster for similar reasons why inline tandem bikes are faster than 2 single ones.
Think of it. In sail boots, the limit in speed is pretty much the height of the sail, which is dependent on the keel's stability. I don't sail, but that's how I see it.
Now imagine an infinitely stable keel, with barely any drag (a railway sytem that fixes the vehicle in place, oreventing it to tip). Sails could be seriously tall, to help overcome the overhead wheel/wind friction. And being seriously wide as well, they could be angled steeply in the wind, bring huge ground speeds.
If there's a stretch of deserted railroad out there, through a valley for instance with predictable wind directions, it would be interesting to investigate the actual geomtry of the railtrack to see if a vehicle could be designed to fix itself to it. Wheels ON the rails as usual, and an axtra set coming from the outside, UNDER the rails. It may take a huge grinding job to prepare the track for a proof of concept ride, but you'll get my idea.
-
TS
Sweet
Ventomobile Wind Powered Vehicle
At 15 MPH "into the wind"These guys should break the google speed downwind record![Tsk Tsk.....]
Clo you have a wonderful imagination Bud![the rail thing would be cool]
but whats the BB bit?
Chet
-
Just came across this:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/31/jet-engine-like-wind-turbine-4-times-more-efficient/
It seems I am less original than I had tentatively given myself credit for.....Their design is eminently scalable and is quite similar in principle, to my own.
TS
-
Clo you have a wonderful imagination Bud![the rail thing would be cool]
but whats the BB bit?
Black Bird is the new name of the DDWFTTW cart of the American team.
-
TS
Now that is very cool!!
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/31/jet-engine-like-wind-turbine-4-times-more-efficient/
And these fellows are close by[less than an hour]
definitely looking into this when things slow down at the boat yard.[see if they have gone to manufacture?]
Funny I was looking in to building a bow thruster blade[prop],hence the "carrots".
maybe I'll play in the wind also![HHMMmm. if it works in the wind ,it should work in the water?]
Fixed blades!![nothing moves but the bearing]
Very cool !!
Chet
PS Clo
Thanks on th BB
-
Well,
The thing about wind is it can be fickle,comes and goes,sometimes to much sometimes to little.
My car however................
TS ,
can this be possible?
Could we build a "forevercar"?
I bet the boys in Mass. would help us with that one!
What do you say fellas??
I'll go see them ,But only if we will work together "open source"!
Chet
-
Forevercar would be an interesting challenge.
I propose a special rail track be build for this, roughly a triangle shape, to keep it interesting.
Batteries on board to ensure >0 speeds in low winds, albeit very reduced speeds (low rolling resistance is key here). Flat ground, of course.
Car only goes full speed when batteries are fully charged.
I have some advanced ideas for collapsible airfoils and even propellors. Transformer robot style. More to boost speed than to ensure non-stopness.
Once the thing runs well on wind power alone, batteries may prove the limiting factor, or perhaps reason is found to add solar cells for extrqa speed during daylight.
Properly engineered, I would not be too surprised if a non-stop 60mph could be achieved, with a payload of several persons.
A sailboat may already be able to do this, with some batteries, turbines, and solar panels. How long can a drought of wind be, a few weeks? And boats have the added opportunity to make use of streams and tides to extract energy from the ocean.
How would the self-vortexing rimmed turbines do in propellor mode DDWFTTW, for the same diameter as the Black Bird's prop?
-
Clo
I want to drive !!
A "forever"!
Cadillac had a motor that dropped 2-4 cylinders out at speed,because once you get to speed it requires less effert to stay there.
This little "4 times more efficient " turbine/vortex gizzmo just might make enough power at speed to run "forever".
That would be enough "overunity" for me!!
And no voodoo.......... ,nice wholesome wind![a rushing mighty wind even......]
A little test bed should prove sufficient !??
Any ideas ?
Lets build something!!
Chet
-
This little "4 times more efficient " turbine/vortex gizzmo just might make enough power at speed to run "forever".
That would be enough "overunity" for me!!
I have contacted FloDesign's pres....though I think it highly likely that they are not interested in 'open source' activities, as inexorably chained to the profit motive as corporations are, historically speaking. You see....as DWFTTW and Stuttgart's upwind achievements have aptly demonstrated, there are some serious gains to be made in these areas. No profit motive required.
As for a test bed vehicle, if time permits, I may still go ahead with mine. I feel that Stuttgart's heartening 64% upwind achievement may be eclipsed considerably.....as in 'total solar' fashion.
FloDesign is well positioned to deploy some crazy efficient innovations.....we'll see what we see.
TS
-
How would the self-vortexing rimmed turbines do in propellor mode DDWFTTW, for the same diameter as the Black Bird's prop?
A relatively slow turning prop such as that used by the 'black bird' team aptly demonstrates the gains to be had by even such a relatively inefficient setup as they have to work with. As the prop develops thrust against the tailwind, it's slow moving inner radius, being unable to overcome the tail wind, acts as a slowly rotating vortex generator. Allowing the tail wind to push past, but causing it to be entrained in a spiral flow. On the run up to speed, the swirling vortexes not only increase beneficial drag, but also trade energies with the air mass at the tips, creating, in effect, a large, curious type of vortex ring, such that eventually, it is able to break free of the tail wind behind it, instead now relying largely upon it's own continually generated low pressure area at the front of the vehicle. One which, not only provides a continual negative pressure ahead, but one that helps drive the prop as well.
Once these dynamics are confirmed and studied, a prop may be designed which will exploit these gains considerably. Propeller technology is still in it's infancy.
Imagine props which are specifically designed to use the inner portion to generate vortices in order to increase efficiency, by lowering the engine torque required to turn them.
Essentially pulling ourselves ahead by our own atmosphere's unending supply of bootstraps.
One of the cool things about a vortex ring is that, if structure correctly, it can be made to augment the forward thrust generated at it's outer periphery, with the negative pressure zone at it's core. By shifting the negative pressure zone just ahead of center, one is achieving, among other things, a molecular gyrosopic thrust device.
TS
-
TS
HHMMmm.........
So I see you have a grasp on this [enough to help me understand it!!]
TS Quote:
A relatively slow turning prop such as that used by the 'black bird' team aptly demonstrates the gains to be had by even such a relatively inefficient setup as they have to work with. As the prop develops thrust against the tailwind, it's slow moving inner radius, being unable to overcome the tail wind, acts as a slowly rotating vortex generator. Allowing the tail wind to push past, but causing it to be entrained in a spiral flow. On the run up to speed, the swirling vortexes not only increase beneficial drag, but also trade energies with the air mass at the tips, creating, in effect, a large, curious type of vortex ring, such that eventually, it is able to break free of the tail wind behind it, instead now relying largely upon it's own continually generated low pressure area at the front of the vehicle. One which, not only provides a continual negative pressure ahead, but one that helps drive the prop as well.
Once these dynamics are confirmed and studied, a prop may be designed which will exploit these gains considerably. Propeller technology is still in it's infancy.
Imagine props which are specifically designed to use the inner portion to generate vortices in order to increase efficiency, by lowering the engine torque required to turn them.
Essentially pulling ourselves ahead by our own atmosphere's unending supply of bootstraps.
One of the cool things about a vortex ring is that, if structure correctly, it can be made to augment the forward thrust generated at it's outer periphery, with the negative pressure zone at it's core. By shifting the negative pressure zone just ahead of center, one is achieving, among other things, a molecular gyrosopic thrust device.
TS
-------------------------------------------------
WOW!!
I'm more intrigued than ever!![hard not to be}.
Thanks
Chet
-
@ramset:
As a boy I dreamt up such a car, 12 cylinder, but using them only as necessary. A supercar weighing a typical 1200kg (both for ultra supercars and boring family saloons) could run on 4 for highway cruising, up to 12 for track days. At 4 cylinders and 60mph, it should run more efficient than a saloon, thanks to optimized aerodynamics, the largest loss of all.
Since, I learned that cylinders themselves are flawed, especially when used with crank shafts. Now here is a design that seems such a no-brainer, but is responsible for over half our transport fossil fuel needs, over the optimal design which is much simpler. Tommey Reed is onto some great designs for explosion engines.
Anyway, on wind.
I posted an idea on the http://www.talkrational.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5 discussions, for a system, possibly using the flodesign turbine as a prop, where the air inlet would be low and in front of the vehicle, and the exhaust high up. This, to exploit the wind speed differential between lower and higher air layers. Not sure that makes any sense...
Anyway, to minimize wind drag on the mid section, which transports the air from the lower layer to the upper, wind should be funneled and accelerate into propably a vortex, so the transport tube takes up less frontal surface space. additionally, the (diagonally placed in side-view) tube could have some spoilers to reduce drag. These spoilers might as well house (part of) the supporting structure.
I'm now again breaking my head on whether any of the discussed ideas can contribute to a working to a DDWFTTW groundeffect airplane. Especially the lower/upper wind layers might come in handy here. I can imagine existing real tailwind right over the surface being decellerated as an air cushion is formed for the uniwinged craft overhead. The belly of the craft is a conveyer belt with vanes much like a steamboat wheel, scooping up the slow air, and the belt then running the higher placed prop.
Funny thing is that should the craft come too low, where the actual water speed is likely lower than the wind speed, the belt engaging it would actually increase thrust to the prop, increasing speed, and thereby lift. Hmmm...only if it got to fly at all, of course.
So, the belt might work for an engine-assisted start in catemaran mode, totally like the Black Bird cart. It will just need huge float and low ater resistance. With increasing speed, gradually allowing more air to come under the craft to lift it out of the water, and increasing belt vane depth, length and width.
My ideas tend to be near impossible to construct. But who WOULDN'T want a DDWFTTW aircraft?
-
Quote from TS: "A relatively slow turning prop such as that used by the 'black bird' team aptly demonstrates the gains to be had by even such a relatively inefficient setup as they have to work with."
A large slow turning prop is more efficient than a smaller prop turning at high rpm. (I learned this in flight training) This is why a helicopter can take-off vertically on the same weight/power as an airplane, which can't accelerate straight up.
Bill
-
well Bill I would just like to understand what the fellahs meen by 4 times more efficient!
That vortex deal they have going on focusing spinning etc.. is what I believe TS was reffering to [compared to standard prop tech]
4 times is a lot of times![rediculous]
Chet
Ps Clo ,
Yes ground effect A ,sort of like a frictionless bearing!
Wouldn't that be sweet!!
PPS
Any ideas on how to replicate this?
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/03/31/jet-engine-like-wind-turbine-4-times-more-efficient/
Plexiglass and heat?[making blades]
??
Maybe Tin?
Maybe
?
The Black bird boys proved the wind is scalable,
Start small ,expect big things to happen!
I could see this unit on the treadmill grabbing "boost" and blowin a hole in the wall!
-
@Ramset
What do I know, I have not built anything useful ever. I just come up with ideas for other to throw their skills on. Sometimes that works out nicely though :-)
Anyway, I think the designers of the flodesign kept the specifics out of their images. I'd build a prototype such, that you could still re-do all the important shapes. Especially the vanes and ducts. It could be a spongy foam, with iron mesh, and covered in a shrink-fit type of skin. It would need to be stiff enough to endure the wind pressure and centrifugal forces, yet soft enough to shape it by hand.
Nice thing if you get the generator/engine part right, is that you can use the same unit both as a turbine effeciency and a prop thrust tester.
For a simple device, at leas tto eventually manufacture, it must be quite a task to build yourself.
-
Here is one that has broken the Betz limit ... http://www.windtamerturbines.com/
The main concept behind this one can be used on other designs to make turbines more efficient then what most are today.
-
Nickle,
Thanks, obviously as TS stated this tech is in its infancy!
I believe the "Flo" design has more potential .
All Betz are off!
HHMMMmmm..... maybe paper and hair spray? [mock up foils;}
Chet
-
[A author=nickle989 link=topic=6261.msg242695#msg242695 date=1275048165]
Here is one that has broken the Betz limit ... http://www.windtamerturbines.com/
The main concept behind this one can be used on other designs to make turbines more efficient then what most are today.
[/quote]
Most Interesting!
I like that it has a smaller frontal surface, and a large surface to press against the tailwind should it be used in DDWFTTW mode. This think might work out pretty well...
Added to it might be my little idea to exploit wind layer differences, by tipping the cone such that the lower perimeter is pretty much level with the ground. A smart inner vortex design or simply a longer upper rear lip could do the trick.
-
I like that it has a smaller frontal surface, and a large surface to press against the tailwind should it be used in DDWFTTW mode. This think might work out pretty well.
And though it is not quite as efficient as Flodesign's, it is simpler to construct. You know, it's funny (though lamentable) that many nitwits with overpriced letters after their names who arrogantly impugned the foolish peasant's notion of moving upwind directly against the wind using only wind power, offer no accounting of their own presumptuousness when faced with inescapable Truth.
It really highlights a pervasive lack of character amongst TPTB of this world.
Onward and Upward,
TS
-
"The powers that be"
HHmmm........
Well I think we be missin ,The power that be in the wind!!
There's something in the wind!
Chet
-
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Interrupting Cheese.
Uh, interru....
CHEEEEESE!
lol
But in all seriousness....
Knock knock.
Who's there?
A Mighty Wind!
Alright...A mighty wind who?
BLASSSST!
I just HAD to ask.
TS
-
Quick thought killing time at an airport (long live free WiFi)
Now that we're reading into more efficient prop designs....
Since the DDWFTTW cart uses a positive feedback loop to enhance the power extraction from the wind for the given prop surface, does the efficiency difference for basic props vs. said design still apply? My gut is telling me YES, which means that a cart will go DANGEROUSLY fast in mind winds, when well designed. So awesome...
-
Since the DDWFTTW cart uses a positive feedback loop to enhance the power extraction from the wind for the given prop surface, does the efficiency difference for basic props vs. said design still apply? My gut is telling me YES, which means that a cart will go DANGEROUSLY fast in mind winds, when well designed. So awesome...
DWFTTW is really gaining traction what with the recent full scale results by the blackbird team. Given that the vehicle is continually drawn into a low pressure area of it's own maintenance, and the dynamics of the system are not yet fully realized....
One may expect gains commensurate to the utilization of principles involved.
What's next....TTWFTTW? (through the wormhole faster than the wormhole)
lol
TS
-
As we're into aerodynamics here, I'll take liberty to vent an off-topic idea on aircrafts. I've been cooking on this for all my life, searching for a zero frontal area vehicle. I think I once sketched pretty much this, before the internet days.
So here goes.
A fuselage is open on the front, like a general jet engine.
Air is sped up inside, and channeled through a substabially thinner diameter tube.
This tube could be split into one to the top, one to the bottom of the inner fuselage.
The rest of the fuselage would be fre for payload volume, such as a cabin.
The rear of the fuselage is basically the invers of the front. Tube(s) funnel out, air exists.
Fuselage sits 100% out of the wind, has zero front surface area. This should reduce drag substantially. Reduced drag allow for an more drag-efficient lift aerodynamics package. Less jet liner, more rocket.
A similar design I already proposed for a DDWFTTW vehicle to reduce overhead frontal surface, of course. Increasing x windspeed performance will be greatly about optimizing prop rotor surface vs. overhead frontal surface.
How cool will it be if a few years from now there will be DDW races? Slight winds, but highway speeds reached.
-
Another wind powered transportation idea.
Wind ducts.
Rail way systems adding an under-grip for a second axis system to prevent tilt in side-stresses. Angled against the rails at 45 degrees will suffice for now.
Along the railtrack, imagine huge fences like sideways (vertically mounted) luxaflex style vanes. Designed to, when closed, to contain windstreams for the advantage of a passing craft.
Or, when there is side wind, to convert this into tailwind.
The positioning system of the vanes (a scaled up window sun screen cord system) would be powered by simple wind/solar collectors near the track.
These side vanes should be beneficial to any vehicle passing through the created air duct, as the conditions will in any case offer greater positive downwind than ambient, while drawing in more wind mass and power as a logical result.
Counter-vanes on the chassis of the railcar would similarly trimmed for optimal speed.
I came up with the track side vanes as I was bugged with the wind friction the chassic would be dealing with due to lower near-ground air speeds. Yes, it could all be on an elevated monorail system for safety and performance, but you're looking at further building costs.
The side vanes could be limited to say 2m tall, to accommodate mostly the support of the vehicle and to limit costs. With sufficient with speeds though, a light near-passive vehicle with simples vains, foils, and DDWFTTW props, could already be propelled to significant speeds. We're bringing the wind to the track here. It becomes a wind highway. Even in actual headwinds, there could be a sustained environment of tailwind for the vehicle.
For lower wind speeds, rail car roofs could be outfitted with a very tall airfoil. Unlimited stability from the under gripping chassis allows for great force to be coverted into forward motion without tipping over such as a water, road or ice yacht deals with. The under gripping rail system is the ULTIMATE KEEL.
When no car is approaching, the wind duct would be exploited by efficient turbines emerging from rail-side encasements, to send power to the grid. The use of this redudant power (a train only) every 3 minutes is standard) might actually be of the magitude of being capable to opterate an adjecent old fashioned heavy electrical rail system from it. Far fetched? Imagine a wind turbine the size of a train, the length between 2 cities, say a regulation 5 miles apart. That's a lot of wind.
The passing DDWFTTW race carts would barely start tapping into its total capacity.
With super tail airfoils fitted, speeds might be so high that for satefy reasons they're limited to say 100mph, all the energy left over to be sent to the grid as well.
Of course, we're limited to open fields and relatively level ground here. Of which we happen to have A LOT in country. It's what we get to see from the train.
-
Whats next ?flying without a motor?
"Apparent A "
WOW!!
A ,Its good to see someone think this far out of the box
And get seemingly impossible results!
Chet
if you geared the prop, instead of to wheels,. to a second propeller on top, like a helicoptor..... and geared down to a smaller one, for a controllable gyro. it may be possible.
think about this, a dandilion seeds weighs much more than the air it displaces. yet it uses the wind to fly for miles.....
-
A funnel compresses wind it appears there have been a lot of wind inventions using this concept the wind tube and so on you gather wind from a large area and it compresses with losses due to friction but the volume of air I would assume is increased within the base of the funnel thus giving you more torque it makes since to me logically untested yet due to a major setback I was never able to construct my replication of a wind tube cause no funnel maker was willing to make me a funnel to the specifications I needed but the generation portion for power generation may be way off base of what the original inventor is using I have not disclosed that portion yet myself due to reasons that may incriminate me I may however disclose it on my own website www.mopowah.com once I get it fully up and running.
-
If you get a cart like this airborne, you'll need a replacement for the wheel to drive the thrusting props at a fixed or even controlled relationship to the apparent wind speed. You can "just" use a turbine for this. It will bring hugely increased drag vs. the wheels. I have some far-fetched ideas to solve this problem, and at least make a low-altitude "ground effect" flyer possible, but the engineering required would be super hi tech. I estimate it would take Formula One level engineering, just in a fields they usually don't explore, to make it work, and then just downwind and possibly upwind.
@infringer:
The trick with the Blackbird seems to be that the reduced apparent headwind (thanks to the tailwind blowing, despite being overtaking by the cart) allows the prop to work at peak efficiency, creating lots of torque for the amount of drag it puts on the wheels that drive it.
While a funnel might scoop up lots of air, it also acts like a garage door on your bicycle, when you're tring to pedal upwind. Air would be sped up inside, which if I understand the Blackbird team's explanations correctly, might not help the thrust game. A small prop turning fast is not as efficient as a large one turning slowly, for drag vs thrust. They offered the example of a helicopter, taking off with a small engine, large "prop", low rpm, while a Cessna with the same engine power just mills the air a bit and gets thrust from wings, and only past 80mph or so.
In the DDWFTTW example, it's all about thrust in the desired direction, so that example makes some good sence to me.
Personally, I totally like the idea of prop that are enclosed, placed in series, and what not, to boost thrust efficiency. I just cannot believe that a spinning blade through mostly empty air, can generate optimal thurst vs drag. And, alternative wind turbine being promoted point in the direction that indeed there is more to be had.
-
I must say this is a captivating idea. After reading through this thread there are a couple of thoughts I would like to add.
First of all there is gain somewhere in the system that needs to be pinned down. It needs to be analyzed and defined so it can be optimized.
The most likely candidate I see for gain is the prop. I think there are a couple of forces working on the prop to give it thrust.
The first and most obvious is the ability of the prop to move air and produce thrust. Nothing too mysterious there. The other force working on the prop is pressure.
The prop traveling through the air produces a low pressure on the forward side of the prop surface and a high pressure on the rear surface. This differential in pressure produces thrust in the direction of high pressure towards the low pressure.
On the prop this thrust can manifest in both in the axial and the radial directions. Depending on the shape of the prop, this thrust can propel the vehicle forward or be transferred to the wheels through radial thrust.
One aspect of this vehicle that stands out for me is that it has to get up to a certain speed to become self motivating. This means that somewhere along the line a linear increase in velocity is producing a non linear increase in thrust. Once again this points back to the prop.
My best guess is that the prop is acting like an airfoil. This would increase the radial thrust of the prop as airspeed across the surfaces of the prop increased. This thrust would then be directly transferred to the wheels. This could account for the extra energy. An airplane wing develops lift as a result of a pressure imbalance produced by the difference in air velocity between the top and bottom halves of the wing. While the actual cause of this pressure differential is still argued to this day, my opinion is that it is caused by the Bernoulli effect.
This same principal is what allows the ice boats to go so fast up wind. This thrust is caused by the velocity differential of two streams of air moving over a particularly shaped solid surface. In other words, the iceboat sails have a lot of “liftâ€. A prop has lift too.
My hunch is that this prop lift is what needs to be optimized.
Cheers,
Ted
-
An airplane wing develops lift as a result of a pressure imbalance produced by the difference in air velocity between the top and bottom halves of the wing. While the actual cause of this pressure differential is still argued to this day, my opinion is that it is caused by the Bernoulli effect.
This is a very common misconception regarding aerodynamics. The great majority of lift is always provided by reaction lift.
Judging by the prop speed of the Black Bird vehicle and the portion of the prop which allows for such, the relatively miniscule gains provided by the 'Bernoulli effect' are wholly insufficient to account for the effects we are witnessing.
What we are witnessing covers much more territory than aerodynamics alone and is allegorical to effects which, once fully understood, will be revealed to have long been applicable to both the largest and the smallest of possible scales.
TS
-
How can an airplane go a thousand miles an hour without using any fuel at all.
Answers A. You are nuts it is totally impossible.
B. Draw on zero point energy whatever that is
C. Fill the air craft with lighter than air gas and float into space. Let the earth pass underneath you
at a thousand miles an hour then compress the gas so you fall to Earth a thousand miles away from where
you ascended. Slow your descent with turbines that charge batteries so that when you reach the deck
you dont kill yourself and you have enough juice on board to drive the compressors that triggered the
descent.
-
This is a very common misconception regarding aerodynamics. The great majority of lift is always provided by reaction lift.
Judging by the prop speed of the Black Bird vehicle and the portion of the prop which allows for such, the relatively miniscule gains provided by the 'Bernoulli effect' are wholly insufficient to account for the effects we are witnessing.
What we are witnessing covers much more territory than aerodynamics alone and is allegorical to effects which, once fully understood, will be revealed to have long been applicable to both the largest and the smallest of possible scales.
TS
You dispute my theory, which is fine, yet you offer nothing better. What force do you believe accounts for the extra energy?
-
What I would like to know is if the wind is not blowing at all. Does the vehicle move. Can you take the vehicle in a dead calm accelerate it to whatever speed and then just have it take off. If this is possible then this is unique. Otherwise what difference is there between this machine and an airplane traveling from the west coast to the east coast. Airplane companies always carry less fuel per passenger traveling east to west. The assholes almost got me killed because of this, They fueled the plane to save money burning fuel to move fuel on a trip from the West coast to Chicago. Chicago (the stupidest place in the world to have an international airport due to the proximity to the great lakes) is socked in. The ceiling at ground level. Just enough fuel on board to get to Chicago not to spend an hour in the air waiting for fog to lift. The landing became an emergency issue. When we came out of the fog I could tell if guys walking on the street down below were bald and who wasnt. The pilot knows he is short of the runway and way too low so he guns it. By now everybody is in the kiss your ass goodbye position. Even the stewards are frightened. We hit the runway going way too fast. The pilot full reverse thrust to the engine uses every inch of the runway to stop the plane. We are greeted by a special ground crew assembled to put out fires and extract people from wrecks. The plane is so deep in the runway it cant even turn itself around and we have to wait for a tractor to come out and pull us back down to the taxiway. My wife has dug her nails so deep in my arm I'm bleeding and all the captain has to say is the regular bs about welcome to chicago the temperature outside etc. Cheap assholes. Just another example of money before life.
-
This is a very common misconception regarding aerodynamics. The great majority of lift is always provided by reaction lift.
Not always. In a big jet it is, but in smaller craft Bernoulli lift plays a larger part. But then, we aren't talking about an airplane wing here are we?
Judging by the prop speed of the Black Bird vehicle and the portion of the prop which allows for such, the relatively miniscule gains provided by the 'Bernoulli effect' are wholly insufficient to account for the effects we are witnessing.
Your "reactive lift" in this type of prop results in axial thrust. This is obviously the major axis of thrust for any prop. However, in order to drive the wheels there has to be radial thrust. Unless you believe that all the thrust is coming from the reactive component.
I can't see the exact contour of the prop they are using. Nevertheless, most propellers are designed with an integral an airfoil (this would be to take advantage of the Bernoulli effect). As the rotation speed of this type of propeller increases, the Bernoilli effect would increasingly exert rotational thrust.
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/props/TH18G3.jpg
What we are witnessing covers much more territory than aerodynamics alone and is allegorical to effects which, once fully understood, will be revealed to have long been applicable to both the largest and the smallest of possible scales.
TS
And that would be??
-
Gentlemen,
All theories aside
I love the wind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCuP-XHefTo&feature=related
And I believe "absolutely".
We will fly with no power![in any direction or wind]
Just have to put together the pieces!
Chet
-
You dispute my theory, which is fine, yet you offer nothing better.
http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html
http://mb-soft.com/public2/lift.html
And that would be??
....a question most easily asked when one pops into a thread without studying what has already been said.
Ramset, I believe you just might be right!
TS
-
....a question most easily asked when one pops into a thread without studying what has already been said.
TS
An answer most easily given when a real one is unavailable.
Ted
P. S. I already read through the thread.
-
P. S. I already read through the thread.
Then I must ask, what remains so persuasive to you about the Bernoulli principle as being the chief acting force behind the phenomenon? That is, assuming you understand the force of this principle relative to the other forces involved.
TS
-
What we have here I believe is a machine that gets in between two inertial frames. Einstein said that all physics is the same in all inertial frames. The physics involved between two inertial frames is another story. Imagine taking a big top and placing it on a train car that has cogged wheels and mechanical linkage from the wheels to a transmission that drives the top. . We have all had a top spinning before in the palm of our hand and felt how hard it is to move our hand. The top resists our motion. This is not magic this is basically mass in motion tends to stay in motion. This motion is angular motion and resides in a rotating inertial frame. The subtle thing is right under our noses is that the top wants to stay in the spacetime continoum right where it is. It does not want to move and will resist any force trying to move it. So we get this top spinning. We can push the car down the track to get it spinning or we can spin it up with some motor. As we spin it up if our train tracks run east to west. Suddenly something happens. The train car starts moving down the tracks. As it moves down the tracks the cogged wheels transfer the resistance of the vehicles movement to more angular velocity of the top. This increases the resistance of the top to any movement. The train tracks are bolted down to the Earth which is moving at 1000 miles per hour relative to the inertial frame we are creating on the train car. As we increase the velocity of the top it gains mass. The mass is gained from the angular momentum transfer from Earth. Just like the moon gets angular momentum transfer from the Earth and will one day move beyond the gravitational field of the Earth towards parts unknown. The drag from the moon will no longer be on the Earth and the Earth will stop slowing down. The train car will appear to be going down the tracks powered by some invisible force when all it is doing is staying put while the Earth is moving. The Earth is a big gear driving a little gear. The Earths power or mass in motion is pretty good sized. It is moving relative to the somewhat static cosmic background radiation at 300km per second. How much transfer of angular momentum do we need to realize 10's of thousands of miles per hour travel simply by staying put. A ufo encounter person once asked the ufo pilot what made their vehicle move so fast. The pilot replied the power of the Earth. Duh.
-
I agree that we have two integrated inertial frames. I also think it's why this thing works at all.
If you take either the prop or the cart by themselves, neither one is self motivating. When the power is removed from the prop on an airplane, it slows down and eventually stops. The same thing happens with a cart.
So, what is it about putting the two together which suddenly provides enough extra energy to accelerate the vehicle?
I spend most of my experimental time building pulse motors these days. Nevertheless, I have done a fair amount of work on mechanical mechanisms which exhibit gain characteristics. What I have found as a general rule is that it it quite difficult to take the output energy of a device and feed it right back to the input and expect it to run itself. What usually has to occur is a delay or a "shuttling" of that energy before it is fed back to the front end. There has to be a time delay of some sort in the loop. I have found this holds true for both mechanical and electrical energy.
This vehicle has an excellent delay loop mechanism between the prop, chain drive, wheels, ground and air. Plenty of time for the energy to get transformed and shuttled around.
Nevertheless, I still think there is a manifestation of energy somewhere along the line which is unaccounted for. Since it seems to be velocity related, I have to go with the prop. Whether it's the Bernoulli effect or not I don't know for sure. But, since the Bernoulli effect is velocity dependent I think it is a good candidate for further study.
It would be an interesting experiment to put a one way bearing (clutch bearing) on the wheel axle. This would isolate the wheel torque from the prop torque. In other words, the wheels could drive the prop but the prop couldn't drive the wheels. This would show whether or not prop torque was a contributor to propulsion. If axial thrust was the only force provided by the propeller, then there would be no difference in performance.
If the vehicle didn't work with the bearing in, then at least the source of extra energy would be narrowed down.
Cheers,
Ted
-
Over time, I'm starting to understand the cart better.
To respond to some of the above:
- Without wind, it doesn't move. The prop gearing act like a kind of lever to the wind, without force, there is no distance.
- It goes faster than the wind, because energy is extracted at the wheels (which turn at ground speed), and the prop creates thrust from this by milling through air that moves past the cart slower (due to tailwind). There is more thrust than power extracted from the wheels.
Did I post this already? I have an idea how to get airborne with DDWFTTW, without tethers of any kind. It requires tank tracks with so much "traction" on the air flowing under the vehicle, that they act like wheels. The prop is mounted way up high to get in faster winds, where more thrust is to be had. It starts rolling over water (fully boyant tank tracks), and eventually takes off, but stays close to the surface. It will require some tame water, good winds, and especially witty lightweight engineering, but I believe it can be done.
-
We always measure wind speed with the assumption that we are fixed and the wind moves by us. The wind speed when it is calm is moving at a 1000 mph west to east all the time. As well as 300km/sec towards the constellation Leo. We are down wind of Leo and the two of us are heading towards a supercluster of galaxies beyond what is known as the Great Attractor. The gravity from this dense cluster of matter is pulling the entire Milkyway there. Since gravity is pretty quick way faster than the speed of light we can assume that this cluster of galaxies is still there even though slowass light is taking forever to get here. The young cluster of galaxies we are seeing most probably exist as a super blackhole by now long ago gobbling up the hot matter and cooling it down considerably. Gravity is an accelerating force. It accelerates stuff aound here a 32feet per second unless you take the moon into account which slows this acceleration down. Gravity like movement is a relative thing. The more mass in a given field the more gravity. To counter all this mother nature in all her wisdom produced antigravity. This manifests in like charges being repelled. There is no positive and negative there is just more or less electricity in a substance. The proton is assigned a positive charge. Why because it has less mass density. It is quite large compared to the electron yet it has equal charge effect. This is because it has less mass density. If it had the same mass density as an electron it would have the same charge state as an electron and would repel the electron. A blackhole does not gobble up another blackhole. We see a blackhole gobbling up the less dense matter surrounding the blackhole at the center of each and every star but blackholes are relavent to blackholes. Once they have stripped the hot stuff it leaves the core of the star which is at the same mass density as the big black hole. The two black holes then begin to accelerate away from each other on their way to creating new galaxies somewhere else in time and space. There has to be antigravity or the big bang has to be repeating itself over and over and over again changing just a little bit every time. Imploding and exploding so damn fast that all we see is minute changes dictated by whatever force is controlling the whole creator frequency. Of the two sceanarios I would go with antigravity. At least on the 7th day when the creator takes a snooze.
-
This seems like as good a time as any to interject with a Steven Seagal guitar solo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu0BrJksG10
Of course it wouldn't be complete without capping it off with a crystal nugget of Seagalian gravitational wisdom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxloUBCYuFM
lol
TS
-
This one will blow you away.
Is it possible to build a device in which the forward motion turns a wheel that turns a propeller which provides enough wind propulsion to accelerate the device forward faster than the air around it? You would think not, but some investigators appear to have accomplished just that.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind
Plans included.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind#Parts_List (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Directly_Downwind_Faster_than_the_Wind#Parts_List)
Anyone game to build one quickly and validate?
Sterling
I'm replying to the 'opening' post because that's a good place to start.
It does what it does for the same reason a sail boat can sail cross-wind faster than the wind. The wind reacts to the sail creating an acceleration and thrust normal to the wind and parallel the keel (determining the direction of travel). The prop blades are the sails (angled to the wind). The prop shaft bearing is the keel (determining the direction of travel). The force (in this case - torque) is simply translated into power at the vehicle's drive wheels thereby providing vehicle motion. The track of the vehicle's wheels determines the vehicle direction (a second keel ? ?) The track of the vehicle is of no consequence as long as the plane of the rotor/propeller disc is mostly normal to the wind (OK then, for this, a pivoting rotor mast). When the plane of the rotor/propeller disc AND the track of the vehicle are normal and parallel the wind, respectively, the effects are additive and accentuates the marvel.
-
It does what it does for the same reason a sail boat can sail cross-wind faster than the wind.
If so, then how can it sustain a velocity of over 2 times it's own tailwind, effectively far outpacing the force, which you believe, sustains it? Also, if you study the device, you will note that the tailwind does not deflect the blades as in the sail boat scenario, since they turn against the wind.
the effects are additive and accentuates the marvel.
Yes, it is quite a marvel. One that has snapped more than a few arrogant scientist's mouths shut like bear traps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqXbV0gsjfM
If such a simple device can do that, then what may further be said about the seedy & greedy ivory tower that is modern science?
TS
-
The most important aspect of this device is it feeds the prop with the wheel resistance. Consider this. A dynamometer test on an electric motor. We bolt down the motor to a stationary object. We then energise the motor and measure the torque and rpm. We do not consider the work done by the stationary object which has to resist the counter torque produced by the motor. Instead of bolting down the motor let us add a load to the stator. A prop. As the prop loads up the primary load goes faster. As the primary load goes faster it produces more countertorque which drives the secondary load. The more we load down the stator the more power delivered to the rotor. The faster the craft goes the faster the prop is driven. If we bolt the craft down we have a windmill and waste 1/2 the energy in counterproductive work like slowing the Earth down. The wind is always moving at 14mph or whatever relative to a fixed position on the Earth. The craft draws from this power no matter what position on the Earth it is.
-
They have got it now.
Selfacceleration and driving faster than the wind.
This proves that that system is overunity I would say:
See their 3 new videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TraderTurok
Well done !
Regards, Stefan.
The energy of the wind is accumulated by the mass of the vehicle, that is all, no overunity. It's obvious that it will accelerate faster than wind, because its accumulated energy. Just like a pendulum goes further away than the hand that has elevated it.
Accumulated energy.
-
SSOOOoooo........
At what point does this "accumulation " fall off??
1/2 hour ? one hour?
Seeing as How they could probably do this
FOREVER!!
HHMMmmm.............
NAH............... Whether or not its OU
"Accumulation" is the Wrong answer!!
Chet
-
SSOOOoooo........
At what point does this "accumulation " fall off??
1/2 hour ? one hour?
Seeing as How they could probably do this
FOREVER!!
HHMMmmm.............
NAH............... Whether or not its OU
"Accumulation" is the Wrong answer!!
Chet
What are you talking about? It's a CAR! Every car slows down, lossing kinetic energy.
And it DOESN'T runs for ever.
Just it has peaks of storage, and then releases that energy in a shorter time span.
-
The energy of the wind is accumulated by the mass of the vehicle, that is all, no overunity. It's obvious that it will accelerate faster than wind, because its accumulated energy. Just like a pendulum goes further away than the hand that has elevated it.
Accumulated energy.
Yep, and that's just one of the reasons...
Ramses guy is a kind of a real sailor, yes?
I believe he also knows for the "force vectors - their components", and such stuff?
Why can a sailing ship, a "fast racer,even "OU" racer, that's "FE" racer? " REACH A TYPICAL SPEED OF, eg., 2,2 WIND SPEED? And, is that a novelty? FE? Lol....
That's, actually, the typical speed of a racing "surf", under the conditions of a "reach" sailing conditions.....
I think mr. Ramses is one of the guys who contributed the "Hydroptere" video...?
Jeeeez...
-
Why can a sailing ship, a "fast racer,even "OU" racer, that's "FE" racer? " REACH A TYPICAL SPEED OF, eg., 2,2 WIND SPEED? And, is that a novelty? FE? Lol....
The hard true.
Unbelievable, so many people losing time in this stuff, when there is many other REAL overunity systems totally abandoned.
-
WOW
Some really Fart smellers !!
You two should right a book !
I could use some more toilet tissue!!
Chet
-
WOW
Some really Fart smellers !!
You two should right a book !
I could use some more toilet tissue!!
Chet
Admin, here is something to do.
-
Sir
You insult the boss's intellect,
and then you want him to throw Me out for expressing my Opinion?
I see you have strong opinions!!
There is a fine line between an Opinion and an insult!
And your fellow poster Spinner ,He's not a nice man
Wellcome to the Forum !!
Chet
BTW
If you could get me thrown out for the above comment,
This place would be a ghost town!!
And you would be OUTTA HERE Too!![no double standards in the insult department]
-
If you could get me thrown out for the above comment,
This place would be a ghost town!!
And you would be OUTTA HERE Too!![no double standards in the insult department]
We, human beings are children of rigor. I'm moderating pages much harder, and I can assure you that you can achieve harmony, there is no "ghost town."
I did not insult you - Spinn did, and I agree on one standard; both insults removed, it seems perfect. Enough insults.
Even more: if you read my comments, when I quoted Spinn, I removed the agressive part.
-
NO No Sir,
Its your post 183
The one where you "teach" him /us ?
To remove the wind from from the realm of research ,and dismiss it with one silly word.
To call it a waste of time ?
Is quite ignorant!!
IT's an insult to another mans intelligence [The Boss in this case]
So basically you insulted the chief administrators Intellect
And then asked him to Boot me ,
In the middle of your gang bang!
You sound a tad pompous
Its all perspective.
Chet
-
NO No Sir,
Its your post 183
The one where you "teach" him /us ?
To remove the wind from from the realm of research ,and dismiss it with one silly word.
To call it a waste of time ?
Is quite ignorant!!
IT's an insult to another mans intelligence [The Boss in this case]
So basically you insulted the chief administrators Intellect
And then asked him to Boot me ,
In the middle of your gang bang!
You sound a tad pompous
Its all perspective.
Chet
I don't have 183 posts, you're confused... OH, yes, the reply number 183, OK.
Sorry for my bad "pompous" english, it is difficult to me. And think differently is not insult, it's about technical issues. You called me "fart smeller", that IS an insult.
Is real and necessary this conversation? Please, admin...
-
OOOHHHHHHH.....................
I'm sorry MISS PRINT
SMART FELLER
GEESE
sorry about that!!
All this bandwith for a few silly letters!
HOW EMBARRASSING!!
Chet
-
OOOHHHHHHH.....................
I'm sorry MISS PRINT
SMART FELLER
GEESE
sorry about that!!
All this bandwith for a few silly letters!
HOW EMBARRASSING!!
Chet
HAHAHAHA, very funny!
Anyway, there is no overunity in a windmill mounted on a cart.
-
WOW
Some really Fart smellers !!
You two should right a book !
I could use some more toilet tissue!!
Chet
Hey Ramses, cannot help yourself, can you?
Sure, you can use "some more toilet tissue".... But don't exaggerate... The misuse is already showing in your brilliant contributions...
"The Boss" is watching you... :o
-
OK, that's enough, I unsubscribe from this thread, bye.
-
Spinner
:-*
MY
HIGH
KNEE
EDIT
Emmanux
Please !! This thing with Spinner is an old thing!
He happens to be one of the lucky souls that God shared all his knowledge with!
He knows everything about everything!
I'm JUST JEALOUS!!
Chet
-
Hey, guys, don't be silly... No need to abandon this serious discussion!
I come here just occasionally, and I, frankly, have no intentions to insult anybody... Even if I "slip" occasionally... Sorry, but ramset is so ..._____... ;D
I'll stay out of the "serious" threads in the future... I swear!
Cheers!
-
Some of you (with respect) must be mad! consider firstly a sailboat running directly downwind; and let's say we don't want to be drifting about, so we start the engine, at the exact speed of the wind the sails fall in the water, because there IS NO WIND, therefore no power; similarly, put the little machine on a road, with no wind, does it rush off into the distance, of course not! Stretch your minds a ,little, and then you'd have aeroplanes without fuel, Hmmmmmmm!
FYI, any force, be it mechanical , electrical, or wind can be considered as the resolution of two vectors at right angles, and is the underlying knowledge and manipulation involved in such diverse applications from automotive wheel balancing to SSB radio transmitters.
For a boat to sail fastest, one starts with the wind on the beam (90 degrees or less than, NEVER more), as the boat accelerates, the 'apparent wind' heads the boat and gets stronger by a simple vector addition of the boat's speed, therefore the vector pushing the boat declines as the vector pushing sideways increases dramatically, hence boat is held laterally by the keel and heels over more.
The limit of course is when the angle to apparent wind becomes so small that it equals the losses of sail efficiency and friction. in any case, normal displacement hulls make waves which limit the top speed, which is approximately 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length unless the vessel is light enough to plane.
Land yachts and ice yachts are not limited by such factors and with extremely low friction can obtain quite phenomenal speeds, and close windedness somewhat similar to aircraft wings.
i have not posted here for some time, as I see these groups as a forum to scientifically challenge any 'misguided' information.
Sadly, I mostly see 'camp followers' and total acceptance of outlandish statements, with of course the inevitable utube video, usually high on pictures and music, and devoid of any technical information!
Firstly I challenge the originator to produce 'Proper drawings,' & 'Bill of materials' which includes the pitch and diameter of the propeller, and the number of rotations per foot of wheel travel, so ANY can 'build exactly as shown.'
Next, as a simulation of travelling at wind speed, place on a flat road when no wind; will the propeller turn all on it's own? NO sir, it won't, maybe a concession, push it with a stick at walking speed, will it accelerate away from you NO sir!
Finally, in a real situation where the machine starts off with a following wind and the wind turns the propeller (as it will) to accelerate the machine downwind; and assume for one moment that it does actually exceed the wind speed, the wind now comes from ahead and will REVERSE the propeller direction and stop the machine!
Unless the inventor's plans show automatic pitch reversal at wind speed, then this post has truly exposed a scam! (Or lack of experimental correctness)
Sensible comment welcome,
Mike.
Mike, J. Furness.
-
Mike,
Are you saying that Google [their sponser]
Is running a scam? Hoax?
And all the fellows that sanction these events and validate them,They are in on it too?
http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html
Perhaps I'm missing your point??
Chet
-
Mike, J. Furness
Some of you (with respect) must be mad!
this statement, coming from you, sounds like "the pot calling the kettle black".
your overall post has a lot of holes in it. i won't address them each at this time. it should be enough to just point out you have based everything on the wrong concept.
the wind doesn't drive the blade that turns the wheels that moves the device (car, cart, etc.). it's just the opposite. the wheels drive the blades that create thrust that pushes the device.
if you take the time to go (and read) to this link...
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/all/1
you will find a very detailed article on the subject.
enjoy!!
tom
-
Sensible comment welcome,
Mike.
Mike, J. Furness.
are you serious ?
is it a joke ?
if you want to built it look at this forum
http://www.econologie.com/forums/post183525.html#183525 (http://www.econologie.com/forums/post183525.html#183525)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBm6DU_t9i0&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBm6DU_t9i0&feature=player_embedded)
-
Are people applying for the award "last person to understand DDWFTTW"?
It's not a debate anymore. It's an open question how to best apply what's been proven, for betterment of mankind. Better wind turbines, better fuel efficiency transport.
-
Mike, unfortunately your analysis is incorrect, as experiment has shown. There are plenty of links to explanations and illustrations above, so I won't add more.
But don't feel too badly; at first, due to similar errors on my part, I didn't believe it either.
-
But don't feel too badly; at first, due to similar errors on my part, I didn't believe it either.
that's par for your course... ;)
-
Thank you for the information, which I have studied at length.
I did indeed misunderstand the principle originally; however, having studied carefully, the answer is still NOT POSSIBLE!
To elaborate, sure, a wind generator produces power, and it's not a large step of imagination to see that if this power (velocity) is transfered to a drive motor, then SOME progress directly into wind is indeed possible. As the wind resistance increases as the square of the velocity, it's quite apparent that DIRECTLY into wind can only have a very limited velocity increase.
The walking road and sloping ramps merely confuse as the moving road furnishes the velocity which otherwise would need power to attain.
The desert scene behaved absolutely as predictable UNTIL the wind headed the machine, only then did it begin to move, and obviously could derive some very limited power from the headwind
one has to consider the very low drag and low friction wheels to see just how little energy is available to drive the machine, probably not even 100 watts.
To obtain some forward velocity from say a 30MPH DIRECT headwind is indeed possible, but accellerating to 3oMPH when there is no headwind (same as wind excess downwind) is clearly imposible, sorry (any other than directly into or directly downwind excludxed, for obvious reasons).
I return once agaiin to my original statement, no wind, no propeller turning, hence no movement; push it along a road with a stick, and it will surely stop under the same circumstances of totally self generated wind.
consider a very simple analogy, you propel a vehicle which then takes the power vested by way of it's speed; to make it even simpler for you, drive an alternator from the car's wheels, at the instant you stop external pushing, at 100% efficiency you would retrieve exactly the same energy back as you put in, NEVER more; unfortunately wind and rolling resistance would exceed the input and you would come to a standstill quite quickly!
just don't be confused by a propellor instead of an alternator, principle exactly the same!
Mike.
Mike. J. Furness
-
Mike,
"no wind no propeller turning"?
You did see the part where the telltales go slack [the no wind part],and the machine continues to accelerate ?
Chet
-
The directly downwind, faster than the wind crowd http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/ (http://www.fasterthanthewind.org/) say they have established a world record http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html (http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html), exceeding the wind speed by a factor of 2.8. Although they claim it is not a hoax, I think that's playing with semantics. My thought is that the whole thing is a bit of a swizz - a well stage-managed extravaganza although for what purpose other than some ego building I can't imagine as the machine doesn’t appear to have any practical value.
There are seemingly endless forums on this thing (see http://forum.mythbustersfanclub.com/index.php/topic,12948.0.html (http://forum.mythbustersfanclub.com/index.php/topic,12948.0.html), http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128483 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128483) and http://skepticblog.org/2010/05/27/sailing-directly-downwind%E2%80%A6-faster-than-the-wind/#more-8353 (http://skepticblog.org/2010/05/27/sailing-directly-downwind%E2%80%A6-faster-than-the-wind/#more-8353) if you can spare the time) the main protagonist in all the discussions being someone called "Spork" who presumably is Rick Cavallaro - the person who seems to be the "owner" of the project. Nowhere, that I can find, does he give a clear and concise explanation of how the thing works, even on the record submission http://www.nalsa.org/BlackBirdDDWSR/NALSA%20Submision%20report.pdf (http://www.nalsa.org/BlackBirdDDWSR/NALSA%20Submision%20report.pdf). Plenty of photos, video clips (some very well made and convincing), hand-waving, diversions and distractions but nothing conclusive. I'm put in mind of a stage magician. In an attempt to lend credence or authenticity or whatever to the performance there are the Major Sponsors: Joby Energy and Google, support from some obscure university and, in pride of place, a video shot by Richard Jenkins - holder of the world land speed record (Wow!). All very impressive but absolutely meaningless. And note that the speed wasn't actually measured by The North American Land Sailing Association (NALSA) people, they were merely observers who reckoned that everything looked above board and OK.
That was four months ago. Since then nothing new on the web-site – no revelling in the glory of it all or cashing in on their success, they’ve just turned out the lights and gone home, it seems. Strange.
Now, for how long was this faster-than-the-wind speed sustained? Ten seconds! I'm not convinced. Before a 10mph wind their speed was 27.7mph. In that 10 seconds they would have covered approximately 124 metres. why not go for a longer distance at a lower speed? That would look more impressive to me and would still be a record.
I don't doubt that they did reach the speed they say, but I think it is rather telling that the graphs of the velocity profile etc only show the recordings for that ten seconds; I'd be most interested to see recordings of the same measurements in the minutes before and after.
How I think it works:
As Spork says, the propeller makes no contribution in getting up to wind speed, the wheels always drive the propeller and never vice versa.
While getting up to wind speed, the propeller is 'feathered' i.e. not producing any power. However the wheels still spin it and it acts as a flywheel storing kinetic energy. I would say that the purpose of the gears seen in some of the photos is to get it spinning as fast as possible.
When wind speed is reached, this kinetic energy is tapped allowing a brief period of acceleration to an over-ground velocity greater than the wind speed by either a) disengaging the propeller from the drive chain and giving it some pitch (and consequently some thrust) or b) leaving it feathered but changing the gearing relative to the wheels so that for a short time they are driven.
All of Spork's banter seems to me a collection of truths, half-truths and waffle with a hefty dose of obfuscation.
Cheers,
Bill
-
Thanks, helicalred, for a good post.
I guess this topic will call for new contributions...
It's all about the "conservation of energy", but let it roll... At least for a while.
Cheers!
-
Bill,
There is also the outside chance [albeit slim]
That we really don't know everything about every thing!
Chet
-
Mike. J. Furness
do you have time to learn basic physic ?
( before saying IT IS NOT WORKING !!)
-
There is also the outside chance [albeit slim]
That we really don't know everything about every thing!
Chet,
Never a truer word spoken.
And I think the Faster Than the Wind folk intend to keep it that way!
- Bill
-
Hello there. I am new to this forum, but have followed this for a while. I am not an expert, but I may be able to clear up some misconceptions on how these vehicles work. And they do work as advertised. One concept that helped me is that they run off of the difference in speed between two media. That is they run off of the difference between the speed of the air, and the speed of the ground. That way regardless of your frame of reference there is always a potential source of energy as long as the wind is blowing. Likewise if there is no wind, then the difference between the speed of the air and the speed of the ground is zero. There is not potential source of energy there.
I will be prepared for flame from Mike Furness.
-
hello 'no name', I'm not sure if you have followed this topic from the start, or what argument you seek with me?
Your statement that if there is no RELAIVE wind speed says all!
Of course, if there is substantial wind,(relative to ground) sufficient to generate power from a propellor, then it can be sufficient to provide some motive power forward, this is not in dispute
In case you have 'lost the plot,' the disputed claim is that in 'still air', when you have accellerated the vehicle to a given velocity, sufficient energy exists in the wind such that the vehicle can continue to run, and indeed go faster from it's own generated wind.
Mike.
Mike.J. Furness
-
Mike, I think I have followed this argument far longer than you have, and you seem not to understand how it works. First off it is not over unity or perpetual motion in any way. It runs off of the power of the wind and if the wind is not blowing the cart does not work.
Lets first define wind before I go any further. Wind in this case is the actual movement of the air over the ground, not the apparent wind that an observer on the vehicle feels. Even when the vehicle is moving at the velocity of the wind the actual wind is still moving over the ground and is a potential source of energy.
Now how does the cart work? The wind does not directly turn the propeller, in fact if you lifted the wheels off of the ground the propeller would rotate in the opposite direction that it does when running. At very low speeds it works on bluff body forces, the wind hits the body of the cart and the prop and pushes it in the same manner that a square rigged sail works. As the cart moves forward the wheels turn the propeller which adds thrust to the cart. If you compared it to a sail boat it would be very similar to a boat sailing on a downwind reach. In fact if you unspiral the path that the propeller takes you would see that it is in the form of a downwind reach. No good sailor denies that a boat, especially an ice boat or land yacht, cannot beat the wind by sailing downwind and jibing back and forth. It is very counterintuitive, but it breaks no laws of physics.
-
I have looked at quite a few posts here and even those who believe that it works very often have it wrong. There is nothing any more revolutionary to this concept than that of a boat sailing either into the wind by tacking or by sailing with a velocity made good greater than wind speed directly downwind by jibing. The prop only allows the vehicle to do this in a straight line. In both of those cases sailboats slow the speed of the air that they interact with relative to the ground. The same with the cart. It slows down the speed of the air that it interacts with relative to the ground. That is why it only works when the real wind is blowing over the ground. If the air is not moving over the ground there is no energy to gain by slowing it down.
Mike your idea of modeling the cart at wind speed by using a stationary car on a windless day is flawed because the air is not moving over the ground. A much better way to do it would be to put the cart on a conveyor belt, or even a treadmill. By a simple Galilean Transformation you can see that the cart would react the same on the treadmill on a day where the speed of the wind was the speed of the treadmill. If it moved forward on the treadmill it would move faster than the wind on the road.
-
What about friction or traction.
You are converting the speed of the wind and the torque of the larger propeller into traction on the wheel or propeller.
There is a video of the boat on youtube somewhere and it is patented. It would not make a god boat or a good car - non-starter.
-
What? Forget about the torque. You are converting the speed of the wind into energy going into the cart.
-
What? Forget about the torque. You are converting the speed of the wind into energy going into the cart.
Make that propeller and way you want just don't exceed the diameter of the wheel. You just invented REVERSE.
Of course you need higher wind speed otherwise it would also be impossible . It takes both - I just saying don't ignore traction and torque aspects.
-
I just got this, watching these videos:
At start-up the prop is acting like a sail - its resistance to the tail wind, pushes the cart in the direction of the wind. This reaction occurs entirely thru the thrust-bearing on the prop, the prop-shaft is pushing the cart.
The prop never turns the wheels, it is always vica-versa - the wheels drag on the ground , and turn the prop.
At start-up speeds, the prop does not spin fast enough to have a propeller effect - it is as though it is a stationary sail and the wind is "pushing" it.
However, as it speeds up, and matches wind speed, something changes, maybe even before "hitting neutral" (this may not even be an important moment). The propeller now, driven by the wheels, is literally pulling the cart, by thrust created by the spinning blades. Now the "apparent wind" the blades are experiencing is much faster than the relative wind - the blades, by spinning, are creating their own wind (and most likely a significant low-pessure field on front faces of propeller airfoils that is pulling it all forward), and therefore a significant thrusts. This thrust is transferred by the shaft , thru the thrust-bearing into the body of the car and thereby rubbing the wheels on the desert surface making them turn and they in turn, by the chain, drive the prop. There are 3 elements here, in kind of circle.
It looks to me like the same principle as tacking across the wind - on a windsurfer or good sail boat: one creates a higher "apparent wind" speed by going at this angle. This propeller-car does it by spinning the propeller - that creates the higher the wind-speed that the propeller sees - literally a spinning sail.
Gotta think about it a while to see if it can go cross or upwind and use similar principles. It would be cool to design a wind-generator that could use these too....
-
I can see it now, trying to avoid all those mobile wind sails in motion. what a horror.
-
I just got this, watching these videos:
At start-up the prop is acting like a sail - its resistance to the tail wind, pushes the cart in the direction of the wind. This reaction occurs entirely thru the thrust-bearing on the prop, the prop-shaft is pushing the cart.
The prop never turns the wheels, it is always vica-versa - the wheels drag on the ground , and turn the prop.
At start-up speeds, the prop does not spin fast enough to have a propeller effect - it is as though it is a stationary sail and the wind is "pushing" it.
However, as it speeds up, and matches wind speed, something changes, maybe even before "hitting neutral" (this may not even be an important moment). The propeller now, driven by the wheels, is literally pulling the cart, by thrust created by the spinning blades. Now the "apparent wind" the blades are experiencing is much faster than the relative wind - the blades, by spinning, are creating their own wind (and most likely a significant low-pessure field on front faces of propeller airfoils that is pulling it all forward), and therefore a significant thrusts. This thrust is transferred by the shaft , thru the thrust-bearing into the body of the car and thereby rubbing the wheels on the desert surface making them turn and they in turn, by the chain, drive the prop. There are 3 elements here, in kind of circle.
It looks to me like the same principle as tacking across the wind - on a windsurfer or good sail boat: one creates a higher "apparent wind" speed by going at this angle. This propeller-car does it by spinning the propeller - that creates the higher the wind-speed that the propeller sees - literally a spinning sail.
Gotta think about it a while to see if it can go cross or upwind and use similar principles. It would be cool to design a wind-generator that could use these too....
Nice first post, welcome!
Great isn't it? I suppose when the baldes are just slicing the wind, like a neutral, the cart has similar speed as when it would have had stationary blades. Of course there it more to the cart than just the blades creating air drag towards propulsion. The non-blades part though, is the part that resists it to go beyond wind speed. That's why it's such an aero vehicle, while it in fact travels straight downwind. Stick such a prop on a regular car and it won't do as well. It will still bring a great fuel saving of course, the full prop's worth.
I am thinking more and more about vehicles which have a huge part, or all of their frontal surface, taking up by an air intake. the air is funneled into a much narrower channel, where it's sped and/or compressed up to fit. The opposite would happen on the back. Adjacent to the narrow air duct, and where the turbine engine is placed, there will be room for payload. Effectively the vehicle will eternally resemble a simple cilinder. Open front and rear, like a tube. It's airodynamics properties would be such also. The thrust of the engine will not be used to drag an attached vehicle, as the vehicle is inside the "engine".
Stick this thing on specially designed maglev tracks and crazy speeds can be attained with limited engine power. The compress/decompress effect of the airflow should be more or less neutral. And more on topic, a DDWFTTW vehicle of this shape could be greatly efficient when going directly downwind. Little overhead air friction. With sidewinds, retractable sails would unfold. Thin permanently opened vertical fins could even be hinged and damper-centered, to immediately kick in for tacking with the first gust of side wind.
The maglev type vehicle would be great as an alternative to vacume tube capsules. If vacume is too cumbersom, then just fill up the tunnel with a verhicle, and suck all air right through. Couple this to tracks where boarding stations are at sea level and tracks dive hundreds of meters below it to build up speed, and you have a very efficient system. Acceleration to 500-600kph takes up no energy at all, cruising is efficient as heck, and decelleration is done by gravity again. No brakes necessary, just back-up systems. The maglev tracks could be used for propulsion as well, the prop duct merely reducing effective air drag to zero. I wonder how much energy it would take to channel air through a 3.5m across tube of long length with a 1m bottleneck in it, at say 500kph. Just to keep it at 500kph. Preferably an off-center bottleneck to create some living space aboard.
if an aerodynamicist is interested to work with me on this, write me on hotmail please.