Downwind Faster than the Wind - Successful Run by manned cart

halfway said:
Tommyrot: They WILL post a record. If they do not kill the cart or driver. But it will not prove that the energy,friction,wind relative to the ground explanation is valid. In the same way it will not prove my explanation. However, if they were to measure the wind speed at 1 prop diameter in front of the prop then it would disprove the treadmill analogy.
Click to expand...

The only thing I am struggling to understand here is, are you saying that the machine doesn't work, or that it does work (You say "They will post a record"), but you need mathematical proof rather than physical proof?

I think there are different arguments going on at the same time here. Firstly, some, Shaunksb for instance, are convinced the whole thing is a scam, others believe it works.

The second argument is the explanation for how it works. I'm less interested in this, there are lots of things I use every day that I have little understanding of, but I have more important things to spend my time on than trying to learn "everything". :)
 
duncanmack said:
Not really fred drift....

Conversation then turns to the curious phenomenum he observed while flying his (various) gyrocopters. Air speed is measurably higher when flying downwind than when flying upwind. Air speed! Curious, huh?
Click to expand...

That's not really possible. How would the gyrocopter "know" which was downwind and which was upwind? I don't think it has eyes to see which way the earth is moving past, and it's not connected to the ground.
 
Quote

"That's not really possible" ?

It's not a question of possible or not. It was an observed fact.
It's more a question of "why".

I would refer you to the doubters of what the DDFTTW were doing at the start of the threads about it. :)

Anyway, he's off to think about it as the DDFTTW stuff has kindled his interest.

I've had occasion to post this comment on threads on the forum before

"Obeying the laws of physics - as we currently understand them"

Think about it.

BTW I was a sceptic about the DDWFFTW until I stopped and thought about it. When you actually stop and consider it it ain't rocket science. Just that no-one actually thought about it before now (that we know of!).

Interesting. :)
 
duncanmack said:
Quote

"That's not really possible" ?

It's not a question of possible or not. It was an observed fact.
It's more a question of "why".

I would refer you to the doubters of what the DDFTTW were doing at the start of the threads about it. :)

Anyway, he's off to think about it as the DDFTTW stuff has kindled his interest.

I've had occasion to post this comment on threads on the forum before

"Obeying the laws of physics - as we currently understand them"

Think about it.

BTW I was a sceptic about the DDWFFTW until I stopped and thought about it. When you actually stop and consider it it ain't rocket science. Just that no-one actually thought about it before now (that we know of!).

Interesting. :)
Click to expand...

Duncan - I'm a firm believer in DDFTTW. It is, as you say very simple. (how difficult can wheels connected to a prop be!) But as a pilot I cannot see why the gyrocopter would behave in this way. Hope there is an explanation - please let us know if you ever get one. However, this thread is not about gyrocopters and I don't want it to go off topic!
 
Tommyrot said:
The only thing I am struggling to understand here is, are you saying that the machine doesn't work, or that it does work (You say "They will post a record"), but you need mathematical proof rather than physical proof?
Click to expand...

Mr Halfway argues at great length that a propeller is capable of driving something downwind. I'm not sure quite why, since this phenomenon has been regularly observed since Kitty Hawk. He does not seem to consider that the source of power for the propeller has any relevance at all - although to most of the rest of us that's crucial in establishing what can or can't happen. Finally he seems to believe - and I will happily receive correction on this - that propellers stop working at relatively low air speeds.
 
Drifting off Fred, the gyrocopter could, if climbing or descending through wind gradient, finish up with the effects noted. If it is at a steady height, or there is no wind shear factor, I can't see there could be any perceptible difference between up and downwind, as all the airmass is moving at a constant speed.
 
Ubergeekian said:
Mr Halfway argues at great length that a propeller is capable of driving something downwind. I'm not sure quite why, since this phenomenon has been regularly observed since Kitty Hawk. He does not seem to consider that the source of power for the propeller has any relevance at all - although to most of the rest of us that's crucial in establishing what can or can't happen. Finally he seems to believe - and I will happily receive correction on this - that propellers stop working at relatively low air speeds.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that much, I'm still unsure as to whether he believes the machine works or not.

A quick "Google" tells me that the RePower MM92 wind turbine operates in wind speeds as low as 3 metres per second (6.7mph). I'd consider that a "propeller", albeit in reverse, working at low wind speeds....

http://www.repower.de/fileadmin/download/produkte/PP_MM92_uk.pdf
 
Wow! Almost as many entrenched opinions here as on the Seahorse threads...

For those convinced this is "perpetual motion" - consider this:

The wind does not know which way you are travelling.
If you accept that a particular windspeed is capable of propelling a vehicle at a given speed (1 knot or 1000 knots), then the energy available is there regardless of the direction of motion. The details of how to extract that energy are a trivial engineering problem best left to bright young college kids..

I would post some amusing icon,but sadly am not a bright young college kid!!
 
Tommyrot said:
Thanks for that much, I'm still unsure as to whether he believes the machine works or not.
Click to expand...

I was unsure about that at first. He certainly seems to believe so now.

A quick "Google" tells me that the RePower MM92 wind turbine operates in wind speeds as low as 3 metres per second (6.7mph). I'd consider that a "propeller", albeit in reverse, working at low wind speeds....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I was unclear. He seems to believe that propellers stop working as air speeds increase and that this is what would limit the speed of one of these carts.
 
Keen_Ed said:
Oh, absolutely. In the same way that sailing upwind is a high school physics trick.

"Sail against the wind faster than it's blowing you downwind? No. Absolutely not. Can't be done. It's a trick - it's the work of the devil, I tell you!"
Click to expand...


This is going to take longer than I first thought
 
Ubergeekian said:
I'm sorry, I was unclear. He seems to believe that propellers stop working as air speeds increase and that this is what would limit the speed of one of these carts.
Click to expand...

Thanks again, I'm not even going to use google for that one! :D

I'm learning a lot more than I expected here, and none of it is about wind, propellers or perpetual motion, it's mainly about the people involved. ;)
 
Re the Gyrocopter and excuse this post since a couple of Speckled Hens and red wines may have influenced this.......

When the gyrocopter moves downwind, it reduces the energy in the machine/air box that I mentioned earlier (just as the DDWFTTW cart does - there is a big fan on the back of the gyrocopter), whereas it increases the energy in the machine/air box when going upwind. Since everything else is the same, the kinetic energy of the machine must vary. Excess energy downwind is converted to increased kinetic energy, and vice versa for the upwind case. It is a similar energy situation as the cart.

Fascinating because the same is not true for helicopters. Or maybe it is. But it isn't so noticeable. Another wine please.
 
Last edited:
duncanmack said:
BTW I was a sceptic about the DDWFFTW until I stopped and thought about it. When you actually stop and consider it it ain't rocket science. Just that no-one actually thought about it before now (that we know of!).
Click to expand...

As long as by "now" you mean the 1960s.

Bauer.jpg
 
Last edited:
shaunksb said:
Tommyrot - please call me Shaun - no I don't think this is a scam at all but you have to understand the reasons behind the project to understand whats going on.
Click to expand...

I'm often called Tommy because of my username, I wasn't sure you were a real "Shaun".

You seemed to be suggesting that it could be being powered by hidden means.

What reasons do you mean?

Thanks. Ken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top