negative drag [Archive] - Triangle Cycling

Elmo

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> Let me think what you hear ok?
>
> Regards,
>
> gaby de wilde

Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially blow
you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
going backwards at the speed of sound.

elmo

A Muzi

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> Let me think what you hear ok?

That's not even among the more humorous and entertaining 'perpetual
motion' follies. Get rid of the silly red-line animations and draw in a
few complex mechanical distractions maybe?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Uncle Al

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

"gdewilde@gmail.com" wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)

1) "Barbarella" and the ice sled.
2) Idiot
3) You won't get to top Jane Fonda, either.
4) Idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Bill Sornson

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

Transvestite with a bad attitude!

Werehatrack

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:19:44 -0800 (PST), "gdewilde@gmail.com"
<gdewilde@gmail.com> may have said:

>Hello all,
>
>I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
>by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
>this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
>We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
>Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
>is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
>available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
>I have illustrated the concept here.
>
>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
>Let me think what you hear ok?

I'd swear I saw a contraption like that in an old 16mm film about
loony inventions that people came up with back around World War One.

TANSTAAFL! Particularly in physics.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

NoEinstein

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

On Dec 12, 1:19 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> Let me think what you hear ok?
>
> Regards,
>
> gaby de wilde

Of course, if cars drove on a circular track, one right after the
other, the "breeze" would be like a very large fan. But why use a gas-
guzzling fan to power a fan? Where is the energy advantage there?
But if you happened to live beside a freeway, you could erect a
windmill and "sap" the wind energy to power your computer, etc. Don't
brag about it as "science", just do it and laugh! -- NoEinstein --

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

On Dec 12, 7:19 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> Let me think what you hear ok?
>
> Regards,
>
> gaby de wilde

Here is a patent from Anthony Tantalo disclosing a wind powered fuel
saving apparatus that also enhances the aerodynamic profile of the
vehicle.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=Bp43AAAAEBAJ
Abstract
A fuel saving device for increasing the fuel mileage of a moving
vehicle is disclosed. The number of miles per gallon of fuel is
increased by the present invention through a device mounted on top of
a vehicle, which device includes a housing having a length
substantially equal to the width of the vehicle, an air intake at the
front of the housing and a motor driven rotor having blades which are
further driven by the oncoming wind pressure created by the moving
vehicle. The device also includes means for deflecting the air from
the housing over the remaining portion of the vehicle and positioned
in cooperative relationship with the rotor to not only reduce air
friction but also to create a propulsion of air at the rear of the
housing to drive the vehicle forward. A motor means drives the rotor
independently of the forward speed of the moving vehicle.

here is an image from it.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Bp43AAAAEBAJ&pg=PA61&img=1&zoom=4&hl=en&sig=U-2KlJPltjdDwJdlWwN4wDJMpWY&ci=223,674,628,507&edge=1

Citations

1648505 STREAMLINE POWER VEHICLE
2569983 AIRCRAFT WING FLAP WITH A LEADING EDGE ROLLER
3910623 MEANS AND METHODS FOR REDUCING ONCOMING AIR RESISTANCE AND
ANGLE WIND EFFECTS TO A MOVING VEHICLE
4006931 Device for reducing wind resistance of a vehicle
4353587 Transport vehicle accessory

Referenced by

Patent Number Title Issue date
5791724 Air stabilizer device for bluff road vehicles
5850108 Fluid flow power generation system with foil
6880844 Wind-assisted bicycle

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

"Unfortunately, Takahashi seems to think he can defy the laws of
physics and get something for nothing: the energy generated will come
at the expense of the extra aerodynamic drag caused by his roof-
mounted apparatus. From issue 2161 of New Scientist magazine, 21
November 1998, page 11"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021611.600-windpowered-car.html

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

On Dec 12, 7:45 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 9:19 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
>
> > I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> > by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> > this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> > We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Do you actually believe this?
>

No it was a joke, I obviously mean wind energy. But you can only "use"
drag one time. If you put a propeller in front of a bicycle the
propeller will obviously break part of the drag. This "drag" will then
be "lost" from the face of the cyclist. Just like when you put up a
windscreen or have some one cycle in front of you.

Or do you think the same drag can be fully applied twice? One time to
the propeller and another time onto the rider? 2 times the same force?

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

On Dec 12, 8:28 am, Elmo <E...@mo.com> wrote:
> gdewi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello all,
>
> > I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> > by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> > this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> > We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> > Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> > is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> > available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> > I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> > Let me think what you hear ok?
>
> > Regards,
>
> > gaby de wilde
>
> Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially blow
> you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
> backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
> to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> going backwards at the speed of sound.
>
> elmo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing#The_physics_of_sailing

Vince Morgan

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

"Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
news:475f8d82$1_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> > by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> > this drag is partially shared with the rider.

And that means what?
If the drag is hared with the rider, the rider shares that with the car, so
the drag is on the car anyway.

> > Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> > is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> > available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.

Perhaps you mean that a portion of the drag energy has been converted into
forward propulsion. However, putting a fan into the airstream "increases"
the drag in the first place, so the energy produced may help to alleviate
that "extra" drag you just created.

> Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially blow
> you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate

Errr, what wind? The car isn't moving, so where did this wind come from?

> backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
> to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> going backwards at the speed of sound.

Nope. The fan is in "that" wind, which is coming from the front,
apparently. Do you realize you are suggesting that the wind will blow the
car backwards so fast that it will be going backwards faster than the wind
is blowing? Otherwise the fan keeps going as if the car were moving
forward, does it not?.

Perhaps you could extend this to fans blowing onto sails on boats. Or, a
turbine in the water that generates a current to run the boats electric
motor thus keeping it moving forward to drive the turbine.

I imagine free energy, if it's possible, should take just a tad more
thought.

Vince

CWatters

01-03-1970, 10:00 PM

"Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
news:475f8d82$1_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially blow
> you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
> backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
> to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> going backwards at the speed of sound.
>
> elmo

One of these can sail dead into wind....

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:01 PM

Hello Vince,

On Dec 12, 9:59 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> Perhaps you mean that a portion of the drag energy has been converted into
> forward propulsion.

yes, you do know what I mean.

>However, putting a fan into the airstream "increases" the drag in the first place,

Yes, but you cant keep increasing the drag without increasing the
surface. Like for example inside a car there is no wind.

>so the energy produced may help to alleviate
> that "extra" drag you just created.
>

Exactly.

If we would stack 2 windmills on the front of a bike the second one
will not generate as much drag as the first one. Of course that means
it wont spin as fast as the first one either.

In that same way the rider is not subjected to the full amount of drag
because the propeller has pre-accelerated some of the air.

If there is any drag on the propeller anything behind it is suffering
below maximum drag. It of course makes a world of difference if you
just try to push the air away or if you use it for propulsion.

You get the picture.

I also made a picture to show you can sail close to straight up the
wind. It means there is still much room for improvement. One should
imagine the combination of both in case that isn't obvious still. :-)

The wind will be the propulsion together with the drag but some drag
is also reduced in my design, you can see the vertical rotors push the
wind to the sides. This is creating a vacuum at the front, they also
push the wind inwards at the rear, this creates pressure behind the
rider.

The total is the sum of the parts.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:01 PM

On Dec 12, 9:59 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> Perhaps you could extend this to fans blowing onto sails on boats.

I did try to picture exactly this here.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
gabydewilde - vortex recumbent

> Or, a turbine in the water that generates a current to run the boats electric
> motor thus keeping it moving forward to drive the turbine.
>

Your ideas are not as stupid as you make them sound.

If you want to make electricity and use that to power the turbine
again you will suffer much losses converting to electricity but if you
use an anchor and fill up your hydrogen full cell with the electricity
then you can suffer even more advanced losses for a long time and
power the turbine.

I don't know how but if one can tack up the wind one can also tack up
the current. One can absolutely use the current to power a turbine or
a worm. If only we knew how :-)

But I want a car that doesn't cost any taxes. Those are called
bicycles. If you put motive electronics on it you disqualify the tax-
free ride.

I mean all we are doing is a bit of innocent recumbent
Ærodynamics? :-)

You can have a dynamo and charge your phone, laptop, ipod or what ever
weird gadget.

> I imagine free energy, if it's possible, should take just a tad more
> thought.
>
> Vince

Mah, there are lots of ways already.

Physics does not at all need to be revised (jet) as closed systems
don't exist.

Imagine plugging your house into your bike and powering a few lights
with it. Put a battery in the circuit and you always have enough
current to power some small devices.

An untrained human generates about 200 Watt I read in wikipedia?

With 40mph wind it takes an awfully small windmill to make 200 Watt?

How should we interpret this line here?

"The power available in the wind goes up by a factor of 8 as the
windspeed doubles."
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html

So if we go up wind 3 times the speed of the wind we have roughly 8X8
times as much power available?

*pain from laughter*

I'm sure I'm confusing force and work again here.

Please some one explain it away? lol

Elmo

01-03-1970, 10:01 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello Vince,
>
> On Dec 12, 9:59 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> Perhaps you mean that a portion of the drag energy has been converted into
>> forward propulsion.
>
> yes, you do know what I mean.
>
>> However, putting a fan into the airstream "increases" the drag in the first place,
>
> Yes, but you cant keep increasing the drag without increasing the
> surface. Like for example inside a car there is no wind.
>
>> so the energy produced may help to alleviate
>> that "extra" drag you just created.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
> If we would stack 2 windmills on the front of a bike the second one
> will not generate as much drag as the first one. Of course that means
> it wont spin as fast as the first one either.
>
> In that same way the rider is not subjected to the full amount of drag
> because the propeller has pre-accelerated some of the air.
>
> If there is any drag on the propeller anything behind it is suffering
> below maximum drag. It of course makes a world of difference if you
> just try to push the air away or if you use it for propulsion.
>
> You get the picture.
>
> I also made a picture to show you can sail close to straight up the
> wind. It means there is still much room for improvement. One should
> imagine the combination of both in case that isn't obvious still. :-)
>
> The wind will be the propulsion together with the drag but some drag
> is also reduced in my design, you can see the vertical rotors push the
> wind to the sides. This is creating a vacuum at the front, they also
> push the wind inwards at the rear, this creates pressure behind the
> rider.
>
> The total is the sum of the parts.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag

Land yachts have already been invented I'm afraid.

Elmo

Leo Lichtman

01-03-1970, 10:01 PM

I took the change out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket.
Question: what effect did that have on my net worth?

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:03 PM

On Dec 12, 6:03 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> I took the change out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket.
> Question: what effect did that have on my net worth?

Hello Leo,

Lets say there is a big hole in your left pocket.

Drag presented by the rider is not useful for anything, it's an
annoyance.

The surface area of the rider and the fan placed in series is not the
same thing as when placed parallel. The drag per cm2 has it's
maximum.

It's like a screen blocking the wind. You know how a wind screen
works.

It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck.

The rotors make drag but this drag is not slowing the vehicle down.

The rider is riding in the slipstream of the windmill.

five thousand years ago, the Egyptians made sailboats.

In 1493 Giacomo Caprotti designed a bicycle.

In 1790 Monsieur Sivrac made the first bicycle.

In 50 Hero of Alexandria described A wind wheel operating an organ

In 700 windmills were used in Iran.

Everything has already been done. They are more then worthy
technologies.

If I put the windmill on the bike. You want to pretend it stops
working??

Be specific, what stops working. The bike or the windmill?

They don't just continue to work but they actually compliment another.

Just look at the spammers trying to obfuscate the topic. That should
say enough.

:-)

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:03 PM

On Dec 12, 6:36 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> That's not even among the more humorous and entertaining 'perpetual
> motion' follies. Get rid of the silly red-line animations and draw in a
> few complex mechanical distractions maybe?
>

This good enough for a start?

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=wind+powered+bicycle&btnG=Search&styp=m

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:03 PM

I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
this drag is partially shared with the rider.

We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)

Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.

I have illustrated the concept here.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag

Let me think what you hear ok?

Regards,

gaby de wilde

tadchem

01-03-1970, 10:03 PM

On Dec 12, 2:46 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> Let me think what you hear ok?

If *you* had to power an array of windmills with your own legs
pedaling the bike, you wouldn't think that the energy was "free".

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

R.H. Allen

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 12, 6:03 pm, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>> I took the change out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket.
>> Question: what effect did that have on my net worth?
>
> Hello Leo,
>
> Lets say there is a big hole in your left pocket.
>
> Drag presented by the rider is not useful for anything, it's an
> annoyance.
>
> The surface area of the rider and the fan placed in series is not the
> same thing as when placed parallel. The drag per cm2 has it's
> maximum.
>
> It's like a screen blocking the wind. You know how a wind screen
> works.

A wind screen spares the person behind it the annoyance of having to
face into a stiff wind, but it creates a lot of drag.

> It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck.

Is it, now? Try attaching a garage door to the front of your car and
tell me if it improves your gas mileage the way drafting behind a truck
would. (Hint: It won't, because the drag on the garage door will be
transmitted to your car -- unlike a drafting situation, where the drag
on the truck in front of you is *not* transmitted to your car.)

> The rotors make drag but this drag is not slowing the vehicle down.

It most certainly is, unless the windmill is not attached to the bicycle.

> The rider is riding in the slipstream of the windmill.

But the drag on the windmill acts on the bicycle, and since the rider is
mechanically connected to the bicycle (i.e., sitting on it), it slows
the rider down too. The windmill might make it a little more comfortable
for the rider, the way a windshield would, but it won't help the rider
go any faster.

> five thousand years ago, the Egyptians made sailboats.
>
> In 1493 Giacomo Caprotti designed a bicycle.
>
> In 1790 Monsieur Sivrac made the first bicycle.
>
> In 50 Hero of Alexandria described A wind wheel operating an organ
>
> In 700 windmills were used in Iran.
>
> Everything has already been done.

I don't know about that, but I DO know that you're not the first person
to come up with this idea. It's been done to death (though as a concept
it has its pedagogical uses, namely demonstrating the laws of
thermodynamics).

> If I put the windmill on the bike. You want to pretend it stops
> working??
>
> Be specific, what stops working. The bike or the windmill?
>
> They don't just continue to work but they actually compliment another.

As another person already pointed out, if you put a windmill on the
front of a bicycle it will increase the drag on the bicycle. (For
instance, the air pressure behind the windmill will be less than in
front of it, creating a net force opposing the motion of the bicycle.)
The best you could hope to do is use some of the energy from the fan to
offset the effects of the drag. You will not, however, be able to offset
all of the drag you add, so the net effect will be that the bicyclist
will have to pedal harder to maintain the same speed as without the
windmill.

If you don't believe me, try your idea out in a wind tunnel. I guarantee
the drag coefficient increases enough to negate the energy you extract
from the airstream and then some.

> Just look at the spammers trying to obfuscate the topic. That should
> say enough.

Oh, that's an *old* chestnut -- if enough people say it doesn't work,
why then they're covering something up and it MUST work, right?

A Muzi

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

> "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I took the change out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket.
>> Question: what effect did that have on my net worth?

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Lets say there is a big hole in your left pocket.
> Drag presented by the rider is not useful for anything, it's an
> annoyance.
> The surface area of the rider and the fan placed in series is not the
> same thing as when placed parallel. The drag per cm2 has it's
> maximum.
> It's like a screen blocking the wind. You know how a wind screen
> works.
> It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck.
> The rotors make drag but this drag is not slowing the vehicle down.
> The rider is riding in the slipstream of the windmill.
> five thousand years ago, the Egyptians made sailboats.
> In 1493 Giacomo Caprotti designed a bicycle.
> In 1790 Monsieur Sivrac made the first bicycle.
> In 50 Hero of Alexandria described A wind wheel operating an organ
> In 700 windmills were used in Iran.
> Everything has already been done. They are more then worthy
> technologies.
> If I put the windmill on the bike. You want to pretend it stops
> working??
> Be specific, what stops working. The bike or the windmill?
> They don't just continue to work but they actually compliment another.
> Just look at the spammers trying to obfuscate the topic. That should
> say enough.

I'll put some cash on a bet that anything you add to your bicycle's
frontal area reduces speed for any given constant effort. Magic fans,
ducts, rotors, ouija boards, windscreens and sails included. Name it.
How's $100 sound to you??

Although the Patent Office won't accept applications for perpetual
motion devices, you'd have bragging rights and my $100 if you succeed.

p.s. you intended 'complement'
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Leo Lichtman

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote: clip) It's just like cycling behind someone or
driving behind a truck. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then please do this thought experiment and report the results:

Mount your bicycle behind a truck, so that when you pedal you push the
truck. ;-) I don't know why I am continuing in this argument--every
proposal to achieve perpectual motion can be put away with this simple
statement: "It's against the law."

A Muzi

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

>> "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> I took the change out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket.
>>> Question: what effect did that have on my net worth?

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> Lets say there is a big hole in your left pocket.
>> Drag presented by the rider is not useful for anything, it's an
>> annoyance.
>> The surface area of the rider and the fan placed in series is not the
>> same thing as when placed parallel. The drag per cm2 has it's
>> maximum.
>> It's like a screen blocking the wind. You know how a wind screen
>> works.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> A wind screen spares the person behind it the annoyance of having to
> face into a stiff wind, but it creates a lot of drag.

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> Is it, now? Try attaching a garage door to the front of your car and
> tell me if it improves your gas mileage the way drafting behind a truck
> would. (Hint: It won't, because the drag on the garage door will be
> transmitted to your car -- unlike a drafting situation, where the drag
> on the truck in front of you is *not* transmitted to your car.)

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> The rotors make drag but this drag is not slowing the vehicle down.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> It most certainly is, unless the windmill is not attached to the bicycle.

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> The rider is riding in the slipstream of the windmill.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> But the drag on the windmill acts on the bicycle, and since the rider is
> mechanically connected to the bicycle (i.e., sitting on it), it slows
> the rider down too. The windmill might make it a little more comfortable
> for the rider, the way a windshield would, but it won't help the rider
> go any faster.

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> five thousand years ago, the Egyptians made sailboats.
>> In 1493 Giacomo Caprotti designed a bicycle.
>> In 1790 Monsieur Sivrac made the first bicycle.
>> In 50 Hero of Alexandria described A wind wheel operating an organ
>> In 700 windmills were used in Iran.
>> Everything has already been done.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> I don't know about that, but I DO know that you're not the first person
> to come up with this idea. It's been done to death (though as a concept
> it has its pedagogical uses, namely demonstrating the laws of
> thermodynamics).

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> If I put the windmill on the bike. You want to pretend it stops
>> working??
>> Be specific, what stops working. The bike or the windmill?
>> They don't just continue to work but they actually compliment another.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> As another person already pointed out, if you put a windmill on the
> front of a bicycle it will increase the drag on the bicycle. (For
> instance, the air pressure behind the windmill will be less than in
> front of it, creating a net force opposing the motion of the bicycle.)
> The best you could hope to do is use some of the energy from the fan to
> offset the effects of the drag. You will not, however, be able to offset
> all of the drag you add, so the net effect will be that the bicyclist
> will have to pedal harder to maintain the same speed as without the
> windmill.
> If you don't believe me, try your idea out in a wind tunnel. I guarantee
> the drag coefficient increases enough to negate the energy you extract
> from the airstream and then some.

> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>> Just look at the spammers trying to obfuscate the topic. That should
>> say enough.

R.H. Allen wrote:
> Oh, that's an *old* chestnut -- if enough people say it doesn't work,
> why then they're covering something up and it MUST work, right?

Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
the bike go faster:
http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
(discontinued product AFAIK)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Sherman

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>
> I'll put some cash on a bet that anything you add to your bicycle's
> frontal area reduces speed for any given constant effort. Magic fans,
> ducts, rotors, ouija boards, windscreens and sails included. Name it.
> How's $100 sound to you??...

Not a good bet. For example, the Varna Diablo II [1] has more frontal
area with the fairing on than off. Yet, Sam Whittingham's reported top
speed on an unfaired lowracer similar to the Diablo chassis is in the
low 40 mph range, while he has gone a verified 81 mph on the faired
Diablo without the benefit of wind or gravity assist.

I know from experience this bicycle [2] is much faster with the front
fairing and sock, which I have to believe increases frontal area.

[1] <http://www.varnahandcycles.com/gallery/varna_diablo_01.jpg>.
[2] <http://www.ransbikes.com/Gallery/Archive/images/Sherman1.jpg>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

peter

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
> the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
> (discontinued product AFAIK)

Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
(CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
away from the speed of the bike.

If you now use the energy of its spinning to provide mechanical energy
it would be possible, at least in principle, to make the bike just a
bit faster. In practice I doubt that you could extract enough energy
to make up for the added weight and assorted frictional losses, but
what's proposed is not any kind of perpetual motion or other device
that is prohibited by basic conservation principles. Adding a fairing
to reduce the wind resistance is clearly far easier and more
effective.

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:04 PM

On Dec 13, 12:34 am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> I don't know why I am continuing in this argument-

Hello Leo,

You posting has words in it but there is not one argument Leo
Lichtman.

I'm reading nonsense and you are making me read it.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:05 PM

Hello Tom Davidson,

On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If *you* had to power an array of windmills with your own legs
> pedaling the bike, you wouldn't think that the energy was "free".
>

A windmill with pedals?

wow........

ehhhhhh.... Well Tom Davidson, it takes a lot but I'm speechless!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
"A windmill is a machine that is powered by the energy of the wind."

http://www.answers.com/windmill&r=67
"A machine that runs on the energy generated by a wheel of adjustable
blades or slats rotated by the wind."

but ok I guess you have 6 percent oxygen in the atmosphere I cant
blame you for mind farting in public.

Could you please in stead of picturing me in your intentionally
dismissive unworkable test setup try to think towards the goal of the
invention?

I claim a windmill spins by the power of the wind. DUH!!

I further claim diverting drag to propulsion removes that drag. You
wont get 1:1 but you wont have the full drag remaining behind the
rotors.

You claim you can magically increase the drag without increasing the
surface area.

And you claim to be able to increase the drag by using a rotating
windmill that doesn't generate propulsion.

NOW THAT'S MAGIC MAN!!

You are to increase drag so much in fact that both propulsion from
drag and propulsion from wind stop working at any speed of either wind
or bike.

You explain how the windmill cant possibly do any work and how the
wind replenishing it self back to it's full force right behind the
rotor.

This is such extreme nonsense that I think you know it is nonsense.

But please explain away I beg of you.

How does this magic of yours work?

______
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

A Muzi

01-03-1970, 10:05 PM

> "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I don't know why I am continuing in this argument-

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> You posting has words in it but there is not one argument Leo
> Lichtman.
> I'm reading nonsense and you are making me read it.

Here's what you snipped:
<gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote: (clip)
It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck. (clip)

"Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Then please do this thought experiment and report the results:

Mount your bicycle behind a truck, so that when you pedal you push the
truck. ;-) I don't know why I am continuing in this argument--every
proposal to achieve perpectual motion can be put away with this simple
statement: "It's against the law."

If Leo's responses to your troll were incomprehensible to you, the
problem is not with Leo, nor the rest of us.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Elmo

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Hello Tom Davidson,
>
> On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> If *you* had to power an array of windmills with your own legs
>> pedaling the bike, you wouldn't think that the energy was "free".
>>
>
> A windmill with pedals?
>
> wow........
>
> ehhhhhh.... Well Tom Davidson, it takes a lot but I'm speechless!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
> "A windmill is a machine that is powered by the energy of the wind."
>
> http://www.answers.com/windmill&r=67
> "A machine that runs on the energy generated by a wheel of adjustable
> blades or slats rotated by the wind."
>
> but ok I guess you have 6 percent oxygen in the atmosphere I cant
> blame you for mind farting in public.
>
> Could you please in stead of picturing me in your intentionally
> dismissive unworkable test setup try to think towards the goal of the
> invention?
>
> I claim a windmill spins by the power of the wind. DUH!!
>
> I further claim diverting drag to propulsion removes that drag. You
> wont get 1:1 but you wont have the full drag remaining behind the
> rotors.
>
> You claim you can magically increase the drag without increasing the
> surface area.
>
> And you claim to be able to increase the drag by using a rotating
> windmill that doesn't generate propulsion.
>
> NOW THAT'S MAGIC MAN!!
>
> You are to increase drag so much in fact that both propulsion from
> drag and propulsion from wind stop working at any speed of either wind
> or bike.
>
> You explain how the windmill cant possibly do any work and how the
> wind replenishing it self back to it's full force right behind the
> rotor.
>
> This is such extreme nonsense that I think you know it is nonsense.
>
> But please explain away I beg of you.
>
> How does this magic of yours work?
>
> ______
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
> gabydewilde - negative drag

Here is one on Utube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpdWHFqHm0

Elmo

Tim McNamara

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

In article
<78e9def8-4dd1-4b15-bd77-66044f3926e9@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"gdewilde@gmail.com" <gdewilde@gmail.com> wrote:

> How does this magic of yours work?

That's the question we have been asking you. You haven't answered it in
any sensible way yet. At this point I can only conclude that you are a
troll.

Vince Morgan

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

"Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
news:4760d1d1_2@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hello Tom Davidson,
> >
> > On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> If *you* had to power an array of windmills with your own legs
> >> pedaling the bike, you wouldn't think that the energy was "free".
> Here is one on Utube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpdWHFqHm0
>
> Elmo

Wow! That is amazing. So easy and simple. Makes you wonder how so many
clever and resourcefull persons have missed this energy source previously.
The implications are enormous! The engines in airplanes are completely
redundant, and always have been apparently. If you put a propeller on your
head and jump from an airplane you could end up in orbit before you had a
chance to rip it off! Perhaps you could go for the "Unpowered flight around
the world" record if there is one, using my propeller-head idea. It would
be an absolute head turner (especialy if the bearing suddenly siezed) and
the publicity would virtualy gaurantee further funds for devellopment.
However, being so easily achieved you had better hurry before someone else
does it, and the skies become filled with propeller-heads to the point of
dangerous congestion.
I'll have another look at that video, but first I need to put some timber up
to give the nails a reason to be there.

Vince

CWatters

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

"Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
news:4760d1d1_2@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> Here is one on Utube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpdWHFqHm0
>
> Elmo

This one is bigger...

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/Bicycle%2520Images/152%2520in%2520tow.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%2520Bike01.htm&h=216&w=504&sz=20&hl=en&start=54&um=1&tbnid=eevpE3HUU_-z0M:&tbnh=56&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbicycle%2Bspeed%2Brecords%26start%3D4 0%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rl s%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLJ%26sa%3DN

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:06 PM

On Dec 13, 8:26 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> Wow! That is amazing. So easy and simple. Makes you wonder how so many
> clever and resourcefull persons have missed this energy source previously.

I read quite a bit of old patents. I'm always amazed how resourceful
people use to be. Humans are like way unpredictable. It actually is
quite a sad topic. The majority of patents didn't have an application
in their days. Their inventors did advance our tech but we gave them
**** for reward. And loads of ****. We continue to do so till this
very day.

They evidently had so much **** it's safe to say the current
scientific mindset is the embodiment of this very horse manure. Oh how
hard we laugh at the things we so desperately need? Laughing is very
healthy but ignorant laughter could be fatal up to a global scale.

To force your own ignorance down the throat of others is a whole
different chapter.

Who are you to call the World of war craft and Briney Spears
generation creative and resourceful?

Are you making a joke here?

"...have missed this energy source.."

Oh, if only that was all "they" had missed nothing would be wrong.
It's how they keep on intentionally missing things. You cant really
call it "missing something" because missing something suggest some
kind of looking was done. Specially the more knowledgeable people try
avoid anything involving a gain in energy.

I cant wait for people to claim this isn't so. That would be
hilarious!

If you want more power out of a windmill you need to make it bigger.
If you want more drag out of a bicycle you need to make it bigger.

You can generate more power by using bigger blades on a windmill.
You can increase drag by increasing the frontal surface area of a
bicycle.

If the area making contact with the moving air is increased drag will
increase.
If the area making contact with the moving air is replaced drag will
not increase.

I cant find ways to justify using energy for an aeroelastic face
fluttering effect. What is with this desire to have this facial
fluttering vector?

The kind mixed with rain is specially nice. ROFL!

Yes, I'm afraid it's exactly as funny as you make it out to be.

:-)

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:07 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:07 PM

On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <78e9def8-4dd1-4b15-bd77-66044f392...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How does this magic of yours work?
>
> That's the question we have been asking you. You haven't answered it in
> any sensible way yet. At this point I can only conclude that you are a
> troll.

move down wind ---> less wind

move up wind ---> more wind

Say there is no wind.

First you pedal to make the vehicle move.

drag happens

We use the drag to spin the prop and we use the energy from that prop
to propel the bike again.

That's obviously not going to do anything right?

Nothing useful happens.

Now lets try add 40 km/hr the wind to the mix.

We cycle at 25 km/hr but we have wind as if we are going 65 !!

Just like when standing still there is enough energy to accelerate
into the wind perpetually.

Of course there will be friction and bad engineering so it will only
remove lots of drag.

Seems great.

What shape should the rotor be? That would be the question.

I figure the only important thing is for the blades to have more
surface area in the length of the boat relative to the width.

A spiral or laminated rotor would also work.

Most conventional windmills are designed to work best at low wind
speeds then turn sidewards if the wind becomes to strong or even stop
all together.

A moving prop would desire one that works best in strong winds
obviously.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:07 PM

On Dec 13, 4:34 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 1:19 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello all,
>
> > I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> > by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> > this drag is partially shared with the rider.
>
> > We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
>
> > Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> > is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> > available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
>
> > I have illustrated the concept here.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
>
> > Let me think what you hear ok?
>
> > Regards,
>
> > gaby de wilde
>
> Of course, if cars drove on a circular track, one right after the
> other, the "breeze" would be like a very large fan. But why use a gas-
> guzzling fan to power a fan? Where is the energy advantage there?
> But if you happened to live beside a freeway, you could erect a
> windmill and "sap" the wind energy to power your computer, etc. Don't
> brag about it as "science", just do it and laugh! -- NoEinstein --

Roughly, the energy content of 10 mph wind is1/8 of that of 20 mph
wind

So if you pedal 10 mph up the wind you have the drag available as if
going 20 mph

Then when you go 20 you have the drag as if going 30 mph

The difference between 20 and 30 is enormous compared to that between
zero and 10 mph.

Or am I just confused again?

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

A Muzi

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm happy to announce that the drag generated by a vehicle may be used
> by a windmill as if it was wind. This of course creates extra drag but
> this drag is partially shared with the rider.
> We thus have a free energy situation on our hands here. :-)
> Drag is limited by the size of the vehicle. If any amount of this drag
> is turned into propulsion then that percentage (just) wont be
> available for slowing the vehicle down. It's not-there anymore.
> I have illustrated the concept here.
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
> Let me think what you hear ok?

That was funny once. Your post seems to have achieved the perpetual
motion you're finding elusive in the real word.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Vince Morgan

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
news:13m2vdu4qiscv1c@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
> news:475f8d82$1_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> > Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially
blow
> > you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
> > backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
> > to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> > going backwards at the speed of sound.
> >
> > elmo
>
> One of these can sail dead into wind....
>
> http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg
>
It can? How is that possible?
Vince

Tommy

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Dec 13, 6:46 pm, "CWatters" <colin.watt...@turnersoak.plus.com>
wrote:
> "Elmo" <E...@mo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:475f8d82$1_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> > Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially blow
>
> > you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
> > backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the fan
> > to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> > going backwards at the speed of sound.
>
> > elmo
>
> One of these can sail dead into wind....
>
> http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg

no it cant

carlfogel@comcast.net

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:13:59 -0800 (PST), peter <prathman@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
>> the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
>> (discontinued product AFAIK)
>
>Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
>(CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
>rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
>make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
>drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
>it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
>away from the speed of the bike.

Dear Peter,

You're falling into the same perpetual motion mistake.

Where does the power come from to spin the Cosmic Whirl?

The rider's legs, of course.

Remember the three laws of thermodynamics, easy enough even for laymen
when described in terms of gambling against the devil in hell.

1) You can't win. (You never get more energy than you start with. You
can't get 101 watts out of a 100 watt system.)

2) You can't break even. (You always lose some energy. You can't even
get 100 watts out of that 100 watt system--frictional losses are
losses.)

3) You can't even quit. (Just sitting there, a closed system tends
toward entropy.)

You _can_ improve the aerodynamics to reduce drag, often in a
non-intuitive fashion, but the propeller isn't likely to function that
way--it will likely just create more chaotic turbulence and increase
drag.

The classic example is the trip wire on the face of a sphere, which
seems as if it ought to increase drag, but actually reduces drag by
clothing the sphere with a thin layer of turbulent air that in crude
terms greases the trailing part of the sphere.

The effect is shown in the two famous photos at the bottom of this
page:

http://www.princeton.edu/~asmits/Bicycle_web/blunt.html

The flow is from left to right. The left-hand sphere has no trip wire
and shows a large flare of turbulence, corresponding to drag. The
right-hand sphere has a trip wire (just a wire circle stuck on the
left side of the sphere) that creates a thin boundary layer of
turbulence that "greases" the surface and greatly reduces drag.

The same principle is used on golf balls. No matter which way the ball
flies and spins, the dimples provide the tiny layer of turbulence to
reduce the drag.

A propeller, on the other hand, doesn't provide a thin layer of useful
turbulence. It just kicks up a chaotic storm--which requires more
energy than smooth flow.

The ideal aerodynamic effect is a tapered double-ended knitting needle
that pushes as little air as possible gently and slowly outward and
then lets the same air close again just as gently and slowly, leaving
no eddies or turbulence behind--any turbulence means that power has
been wasted accelerating the mass of the air, not the vehicle.

That's why canoes and kayaks are double-ended--the pointy front end
parts the water gently, and the pointy back end lets the water close
gently, leaving scarcely any wake. Put a propeller on the front or
back, and it would just add to the drag, spinning the water into
useless swirls.

That said, I believe that a Cosmic Whirl would indeed make a bicycle
faster, but Einstein died before he could complete the proof. :-)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

artmichalek

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Dec 13, 2:13 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
> > the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
> > (discontinued product AFAIK)
>
> Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
> (CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
> rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
> make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
> drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
> it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
> away from the speed of the bike.
>
> If you now use the energy of its spinning to provide mechanical energy
> it would be possible, at least in principle, to make the bike just a
> bit faster. In practice I doubt that you could extract enough energy
> to make up for the added weight and assorted frictional losses, but
> what's proposed is not any kind of perpetual motion or other device
> that is prohibited by basic conservation principles. Adding a fairing
> to reduce the wind resistance is clearly far easier and more
> effective.

That only works if you believe that drag is only a function of frontal
area. Even if we approximate the windmill as a flat plate, it's going
to have a drag coefficient approximately ten times higher than the
cyclist drafting behind it. A windmill will generate less drag than a
flat plate, but the more drag it creates the more efficient it is. It
doesn't matter if the windmill is connected to the drivetrain. The
power that's turning the windmill is additional power that you've
already put into the system in order to move the bicycle and generate
air flow. Under the ideal, lossless case you'll break even, but
you'll never get anything out of it. What's being proposed is
prohibited by basic conservation principles. You simply cannot get
more energy out of a system than you put into it.

Leo Lichtman

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

"peter" wrote: (clip) But if it's mounted in front of the
> rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
> make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
> drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
> it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
> away from the speed of the bike.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If it were not for the friction in the bearing, that might be true.
However, if it disrupts the lines of flow, it probably would increase the
drag.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you now use the energy of its spinning to provide mechanical energy
> it would be possible, at least in principle, to make the bike just a
> bit faster.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is completely wrong. Any power that is drawn from the spinning
propeller will increase its drag. It's the law. There is no free lunch.
Do you think a generator can run a headlight without taking power from the
rider?

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Dec 13, 8:20 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> That was funny once. Your post seems to have achieved the perpetual
> motion you're finding elusive in the real word.
> --

ok thanks for the feedback, I will try a bit harder as to say
nothing. :-)

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

peter

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Dec 13, 11:46 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:13:59 -0800 (PST), peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >> Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
> >> the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
> >> (discontinued product AFAIK)
>
> >Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
> >(CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
> >rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
> >make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
> >drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
> >it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
> >away from the speed of the bike.
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You're falling into the same perpetual motion mistake.
>
> Where does the power come from to spin the Cosmic Whirl?
>
> The rider's legs, of course.

Obviously, and again, this is by no means a perpetual motion machine
since no one is claiming that the bicycle will somehow move by itself
- just that in principle a tiny bit of the energy that would normally
go into overcoming wind resistance anyway can instead by harnessed to
give back a bit of useful work. That's not perpetual motion - just a
minor reduction in the efective drag from air resistance.
>
> Remember the three laws of thermodynamics, easy enough even for laymen
> when described in terms of gambling against the devil in hell.
>
> 1) You can't win. (You never get more energy than you start with. You
> can't get 101 watts out of a 100 watt system.)
>
> 2) You can't break even. (You always lose some energy. You can't even
> get 100 watts out of that 100 watt system--frictional losses are
> losses.)
>
> 3) You can't even quit. (Just sitting there, a closed system tends
> toward entropy.)

I've had plenty of thermodynamics courses and the suggested proposal
does nothing to violate the laws of thermo or even the distorted
version you give above.
>
> You _can_ improve the aerodynamics to reduce drag, often in a
> non-intuitive fashion, but the propeller isn't likely to function that
> way--it will likely just create more chaotic turbulence and increase
> drag.

Nothing I wrote above indicated that the propellor was reducing the
drag - note that I specifically indicated that the total drag remains
the same. There's no particular reason why a small windmill located
so that it is directly in front of the rider needs to increase the
total drag force.
Non-relevant golf ball example deleted.

> The ideal aerodynamic effect is a tapered double-ended knitting needle
> that pushes as little air as possible gently and slowly outward and
> then lets the same air close again just as gently and slowly, leaving
> no eddies or turbulence behind--any turbulence means that power has
> been wasted accelerating the mass of the air, not the vehicle.
>
> That's why canoes and kayaks are double-ended--the pointy front end
> parts the water gently, and the pointy back end lets the water close
> gently, leaving scarcely any wake. Put a propeller on the front or
> back, and it would just add to the drag, spinning the water into
> useless swirls.

A more relevant example would be the streamlined shapes used by the
HPV cycles. And, as I stated before, adding such a fairing would be
both easier and more effective than the windmill suggestion. But
we're not talking about adding the windmill to a properly faired and
streamlined bicycle, but instead to one with a decidedly non-
aerodynamic upright cyclist. That cyclist is already leaving lots of
turbulent air swirls in his wake.

peter

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

On Dec 13, 12:11 pm, artmichalek <artmicha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2:13 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> > > Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
> > > the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
> > > (discontinued product AFAIK)
>
> > Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
> > (CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
> > rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
> > make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
> > drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
> > it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
> > away from the speed of the bike.
>
> > If you now use the energy of its spinning to provide mechanical energy
> > it would be possible, at least in principle, to make the bike just a
> > bit faster. In practice I doubt that you could extract enough energy
> > to make up for the added weight and assorted frictional losses, but
> > what's proposed is not any kind of perpetual motion or other device
> > that is prohibited by basic conservation principles. Adding a fairing
> > to reduce the wind resistance is clearly far easier and more
> > effective.
>
> That only works if you believe that drag is only a function of frontal
> area. Even if we approximate the windmill as a flat plate, it's going
> to have a drag coefficient approximately ten times higher than the
> cyclist drafting behind it.

My car has a coefficient of drag of 0.35, and it has a much more
streamlined shape than a regular upright cyclist. Where did your
factor of 10 (implying a Cd of 0.1) come from? Figures I've seen for
normal cyclists have been more around 0.6 or 0.7. As long as the
windmill is right in front of the cyclist and smaller than him then I
don't see why it couldn't be designed so that it doesn't increase the
coefficient of drag - it might even be possible to reduce it a bit.

> A windmill will generate less drag than a
> flat plate, but the more drag it creates the more efficient it is. It
> doesn't matter if the windmill is connected to the drivetrain. The
> power that's turning the windmill is additional power that you've
> already put into the system in order to move the bicycle and generate
> air flow.

It's not additional - it's power that the cyclist is already providing
to overcome air resistance even if he didn't have the little windmill
in front.

> Under the ideal, lossless case you'll break even, but
> you'll never get anything out of it. What's being proposed is
> prohibited by basic conservation principles. You simply cannot get
> more energy out of a system than you put into it.

And no one here has proposed any system which would do that. The
bicyclist is still the source of all the power that is propelling the
bike.
But energy is being wasted to air resistance and turned into heat and
turbulence of the air in the rider's wake. There's no conservation
law that says you can't instead use a portion of that energy in a more
useful way.

As I said before, I don't think the proposal is at all practical. But
objections based on thermodynamic and conservation law principles are
not valid against it because it doesn't violate these.

Leo Lichtman

01-03-1970, 10:08 PM

I sat down and designed a propeller that would increase the speed of a
bicycle with NO INCREASE IN POWER INPUT. I wound up with a propeller that
had no moving parts, and whose blades were shaped like a fairing.

R.H. Allen

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

gdewilde@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I cant wait for people to claim this isn't so. That would be
> hilarious!

There's one way that's guaranteed to shut everybody up: Build it and
prove that you get a net energy gain. Until then, you can hardly blame
us for choosing to believe laws of physics that we have seen
successfully tested time and time again over some guy in a newsgroup who
is all talk and no action.

> If the area making contact with the moving air is increased drag will
> increase.
> If the area making contact with the moving air is replaced drag will
> not increase.

Not necessarily. Yes, drag is proportional to frontal area, but it is
also proportional to drag coefficient. You can change the drag
coefficient without changing the frontal area. In fact, with a
sufficient reduction in drag coefficient you can *increase* frontal area
and still *reduce* drag. However, adding a windmill to the front of an
object is guaranteed to increase the drag coefficient regardless of what
it does (or doesn't do) to frontal area.

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

due due due due due due please allow me...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/13/AR2007121300966.html

carlfogel@comcast.net

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:09:44 -0800 (PST), peter <prathman@comcast.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>Obviously, and again, this is by no means a perpetual motion machine
>since no one is claiming that the bicycle will somehow move by itself
>- just that in principle a tiny bit of the energy that would normally
>go into overcoming wind resistance anyway can instead by harnessed to
>give back a bit of useful work.

[snip]

Dear Peter,

Think about that some more.

Basically, you end up arguing that adding more and more tiny
propellers to the front of a bicycle will somehow make it go faster
and faster because they're "harnessing" something.

More power is required to move the bicycle _and_ spin the propeller
than can be recovered from propeller.

It's about the same as arguing that the store loses a dime on every
widget that they sell, but they make it up through increased volume.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

Kid at the library started a conversation on communicating with "alien
civilizations." Whaddya think about it,? he asked after devolving his
idea.
I said, The "aliens" are so far away, the communicating wave form is
lost over the distance. What is needed is what you see: stars. Blank
out a star's emission or particular wavelength band: blink blink blink
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz blink blink blink zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
blink.... And what hath God wrought?
A D cell flashlight isn't enough.
He was speechless.
?

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

On Dec 13, 6:50 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.canosoarus.com/08LSRbicycle/LSR%20Bike01.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=bicycle+speed+records

On Dec 13, 7:32 am, Elmo <E...@mo.com> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJpdWHFqHm0

On Dec 13, 7:46 pm, "CWatters" <colin.watt...@turnersoak.plus.com>
wrote:
"One of these can sail dead into wind"
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg

On Dec 13, 7:48 pm, "CWatters" <colin.watt...@turnersoak.plus.com>
wrote:
"This one is bigger"
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg

On October 27, 2006 "http://cyclesantamonica.blogspot.com" wrote:
"This is a video clip of the finish of the Nissan One Hour Challenge,
in which Fast Freddie Markham, Olympic cyclist, riding a bicycle of
his own design, achieves world record speed of over 60 miles per
hour."
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress?p=6842

"Forever Electric car ( by wind force generator)"
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress?p=6802

I put the links here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag-suggested-reading

On Dec 13, 11:33 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 12:11 pm, artmichalek <artmicha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 2:13 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > > > Every kid who had a Molor Products "Cosmic Whirl" just _knew_ it made
> > > > the bike go faster:http://www.deltiology.com/00000images/cosmic.gif
> > > > (discontinued product AFAIK)
>
> > > Of course no one here, incl. gaby, ever claimed that the Cosmic Whirl
> > > (CW) would make a bicycle faster. But if it's mounted in front of the
> > > rider in such a way that it doesn't add any frontal area then it won't
> > > make the bike have any more wind resistance either. I.e. there's added
> > > drag on the CW but correspondingly less drag on the rider right behind
> > > it so the sum remains the same. So making the CW spin takes nothing
> > > away from the speed of the bike.
>
> > > If you now use the energy of its spinning to provide mechanical energy
> > > it would be possible, at least in principle, to make the bike just a
> > > bit faster. In practice I doubt that you could extract enough energy
> > > to make up for the added weight and assorted frictional losses, but
> > > what's proposed is not any kind of perpetual motion or other device
> > > that is prohibited by basic conservation principles. Adding a fairing
> > > to reduce the wind resistance is clearly far easier and more
> > > effective.
>
> > That only works if you believe that drag is only a function of frontal
> > area. Even if we approximate the windmill as a flat plate, it's going
> > to have a drag coefficient approximately ten times higher than the
> > cyclist drafting behind it.
>
> My car has a coefficient of drag of 0.35, and it has a much more
> streamlined shape than a regular upright cyclist. Where did your
> factor of 10 (implying a Cd of 0.1) come from? Figures I've seen for
> normal cyclists have been more around 0.6 or 0.7. As long as the
> windmill is right in front of the cyclist and smaller than him then I
> don't see why it couldn't be designed so that it doesn't increase the
> coefficient of drag - it might even be possible to reduce it a bit.
>
> > A windmill will generate less drag than a
> > flat plate, but the more drag it creates the more efficient it is. It
> > doesn't matter if the windmill is connected to the drivetrain. The
> > power that's turning the windmill is additional power that you've
> > already put into the system in order to move the bicycle and generate
> > air flow.
>
> It's not additional - it's power that the cyclist is already providing
> to overcome air resistance even if he didn't have the little windmill
> in front.
>
> > Under the ideal, lossless case you'll break even, but
> > you'll never get anything out of it. What's being proposed is
> > prohibited by basic conservation principles. You simply cannot get
> > more energy out of a system than you put into it.
>
> And no one here has proposed any system which would do that. The
> bicyclist is still the source of all the power that is propelling the
> bike.
> But energy is being wasted to air resistance and turned into heat and
> turbulence of the air in the rider's wake. There's no conservation
> law that says you can't instead use a portion of that energy in a more
> useful way.
>
> As I said before, I don't think the proposal is at all practical. But
> objections based on thermodynamic and conservation law principles are
> not valid against it because it doesn't violate these.

The practical designs will need to evolve but that can only happen if
we know there is useful energy there for the taking.

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/search?q=wind+powered+bicycle&btnG=Search&styp=m

Tom Sherman

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

Peter Rathman wrote:
> ...
> My car has a coefficient of drag of 0.35, and it has a much more
> streamlined shape than a regular upright cyclist. Where did your
> factor of 10 (implying a Cd of 0.1) come from? Figures I've seen for
> normal cyclists have been more around 0.6 or 0.7....

Here is what a bicycle with a coefficient of drag of slightly less than
0.1 looks like:
<http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/Andrea_64.7mph.jpg>. (Yes, she is
pedaling the bicycle in excess of 64 mph without wind or gravitational
assistance.)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

Uncle Al's quote of the day:

Innovation is not the product of logical thought, even though the
final product is tied to a logical structure.

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:09 PM

On Dec 13, 6:57 pm, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Uncle Al's quote of the day:
>
> Innovation is not the product of logical thought, even though the
> final product is tied to a logical structure.

more, excuse multiple posts asa the product of a cluttered mind.
the internet bloomed in time when I began looking to integrate "my
science" into the general scientific body of knowledge. And what did I
find?

NOTHING

almost nothing. not a van roof mounted toliet seat anywhere.

I did find several, a handful of self publicizing fellow travelers who
were following traditonal paths selling you know CD's, herbal and non
herbal remedies, various self help or self destruction manuals-the
usual.

Irene Pepperberg and Alex were a remarkable exception
BUT no applicable science.

another indication of finding something useful and original.

then Google tuned in. Imagining several clots of Googlers in Mt View
software sifting thru cyberspace to the leading edge is not difficult,
right? So when im would get THERE in cyberspace, Google would
sometimes be waiting for me like Selden himself to say hi and welcome
to this platform.

But my idea, which is kinda like your idea, requires a normal energy
source: THE SUN

That's what Newton said from his cold stone farm house: IT'S THE SUN
STUPID.

So my functional explaination of reality, taken to it's logical
conclusion rattle rattle rattle is to degrade the Universe expansion a
bit and place that degrade into a battery.

I assume this leads to eternal life.

read Ann Rand.

CWatters

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4761c9d0$0$26179$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:13m2vdu4qiscv1c@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Elmo" <El@mo.com> wrote in message
> > news:475f8d82$1_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
> > > Of course what would really happen is that the wind would initially
> blow
> > > you backwards slightly, the backwards motion causing the fan to rotate
> > > backwards which would cause you to go backwards faster, causing the
fan
> > > to rotate faster and so on. The effect would snowball until you were
> > > going backwards at the speed of sound.
> > >
> > > elmo
> >
> > One of these can sail dead into wind....
> >
> > http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg
> >
> It can? How is that possible?
> Vince
>

Why is it impossible? What physical laws does it break?

A sailing boat can tack upwind. There is little difference. Think about two
sailing boats on opposite tacks towing the same barge. The sail boats go
back and forth but the barge can be towed directly up wind. Look down on a
windmill from above and you see one blade going left to right and the other
right to left.

I believe there was a you tube clip somewhere on the web once.

More examples and some discussion..
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14182

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

On Dec 14, 1:24 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Basically, you end up arguing that adding more and more tiny
> propellers to the front of a bicycle will somehow make it go faster
> and faster because they're "harnessing" something.
>

Yes, I think you almost understand it now.

> More power is required to move the bicycle _and_ spin the propeller
> than can be recovered from propeller.
>

Yes, exactly right. But you are forgetting something here.

If we can replace say 10% of the drag by say a 50% regenerative
system.

Then the rider suffers 5% less drag.

The remaining 95% of the drag is suffered by the rider and it
decelerates the vehicle.

On Dec 14, 1:10 am, "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "CWatters" <colin.watt...@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in message
> > One of these can sail dead into wind....
>
> >http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg
>
> It can? How is that possible?
> Vince

yes

peter

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

On Dec 13, 4:24 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:09:44 -0800 (PST), peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Obviously, and again, this is by no means a perpetual motion machine
> >since no one is claiming that the bicycle will somehow move by itself
> >- just that in principle a tiny bit of the energy that would normally
> >go into overcoming wind resistance anyway can instead by harnessed to
> >give back a bit of useful work.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Think about that some more.
>
> Basically, you end up arguing that adding more and more tiny
> propellers to the front of a bicycle will somehow make it go faster
> and faster because they're "harnessing" something.

Not at all. I'm arguing that if you start with something that's about
as aerodynamic as a slightly rounded brick (i.e. the typical upright
cyclist), that it isn't all that hard to place something smaller right
in front of it that will 1) at least not make the aerodynamics any
worse, and 2) allow some small, but non-zero amount of energy to be
extracted from the windstream.
>
> More power is required to move the bicycle _and_ spin the propeller
> than can be recovered from propeller.

Sure, that's why the cyclist has to keep pedaling - no one here is
denying that. But in principle he might be able to pedal just a
little less vigorously for a given speed than if he had the same air
resistance and didn't get any energy from the propellor.

For example, the object we put out in front of the cyclist could be in
the shape of an aerodynamic nose cone. Let's say a fairing of that
type cuts his wind resistance by 20%. Now we add some bearings and
little fins to the nose cone so it'll start rotating in the wind. The
fins will obviously add back some air resistance, but by keeping them
small we can make sure that the overall result is still no worse than
the unfaired cyclist. Any energy we can extract from the spinning
cone and use for propulsion is now a net plus if we're only interested
in power needed to overcome air resistance.

Now does this make any practical sense? No. The fairing without fins
is undoubtedly a better way to go and far less complex. And for
overall utility it's probably best to stick with the original unfaired
bike for less weight and greater convenience.
>
> It's about the same as arguing that the store loses a dime on every
> widget that they sell, but they make it up through increased volume.

Analogies are only useful to the extent that the situations are truly
analogous.

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

On Dec 14, 2:49 am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> I sat down and designed a propeller that would increase the speed of a
> bicycle with NO INCREASE IN POWER INPUT. I wound up with a propeller that
> had no moving parts, and whose blades were shaped like a fairing.

Me to.

A slight spiral shape should generate centrifugal force depending on
the speed and drag. Then have a recumbent slide down the vacuum in the
center of a vortex. It's that what Victor Schauberger calls light air.

But to smoothly pedal the air up to speed the bike would become much
to long.

That's why one would use a propeller I think. Or a rotating cone. :-)

I doubt efficiently gearing windmills to the wheels a bit.

It would be better to use the wind to further enhance the air flow.

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag

carlfogel@comcast.net

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:56:16 -0800 (PST), peter <prathman@comcast.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>Now does this make any practical sense? No.

[snip]

Dear Peter,

You're getting closer.

You can extract useful energy by sticking a propeller into an
airstream to use onboard, just as you can extract useful energy
through a generator's roller to run a light.

You cannot, however, extract energy that is useful for propelling the
vehicle forward _faster_ because you lose more than you gain.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Tom Sherman

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

Peter Rathman wrote:
> ...
> Now does this make any practical sense? No. The fairing without fins
> is undoubtedly a better way to go and far less complex. And for
> overall utility it's probably best to stick with the original unfaired
> bike for less weight and greater convenience....

In the case of a long-wheelbase recumbent, the performance increase of a
front fairing is well worth the weight and expense (not to mention the
side benefit of greater comfort in cold and wet conditions).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

unforgiven99@juno.com

01-03-1970, 10:10 PM

On Dec 13, 8:56 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:

> For example, the object we put out in front of the cyclist could be in
> the shape of an aerodynamic nose cone. Let's say a fairing of that
> type cuts his wind resistance by 20%. Now we add some bearings and
> little fins to the nose cone so it'll start rotating in the wind. The
> fins will obviously add back some air resistance, but by keeping them
> small we can make sure that the overall result is still no worse than
> the unfaired cyclist. Any energy we can extract from the spinning
> cone and use for propulsion is now a net plus if we're only interested
> in power needed to overcome air resistance.

No. Starting with your initial nose cone, the cyclist is putting a
certain amount of power into the system. Once you add the fins, you
start transferring additional momentum from the air into spinning the
fairing. Recall that aerodynamic drag is a vector quantity, not a
scalar. Adding rotational drag to a body will not decrease drag in
the axial direction. In order for this additional rotation to
decrease the total power requirement from the cyclist, more power
needs to be extracted from the rotating fairing than is put into it.
This is simply not possible.

datakoll

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 13, 10:02 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:56:16 -0800 (PST), peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Now does this make any practical sense? No.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You're getting closer.
>
> You can extract useful energy by sticking a propeller into an
> airstream to use onboard, just as you can extract useful energy
> through a generator's roller to run a light.
>
> You cannot, however, extract energy that is useful for propelling the
> vehicle forward _faster_ because you lose more than you gain.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

proposing an expanding universe converts energy to dark matter?

the dark matter linking worm holes to seperate but connected
universes?

is that what you're trying to pull on us Fogel?

well, you'll not get away with it.

peter

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 13, 7:02 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:56:16 -0800 (PST), peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Now does this make any practical sense? No.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You're getting closer.
>
> You can extract useful energy by sticking a propeller into an
> airstream to use onboard, just as you can extract useful energy
> through a generator's roller to run a light.
>
> You cannot, however, extract energy that is useful for propelling the
> vehicle forward _faster_ because you lose more than you gain.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

peter

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 13, 7:02 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:56:16 -0800 (PST), peter <prath...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Now does this make any practical sense? No.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> You're getting closer.

No, I'm continuing to say exactly what I did in my original post since
that was correct. Note that in that post I also indicated that the
effect would be too small to be practical and that a passive fairing
makes much more sense if the goal is to reduce the effects of wind
resistance.
>
> You can extract useful energy by sticking a propeller into an
> airstream to use onboard, just as you can extract useful energy
> through a generator's roller to run a light.
>
> You cannot, however, extract energy that is useful for propelling the
> vehicle forward _faster_ because you lose more than you gain.

The obvious difference here, as compared to turning on the generator,
is that no additional drag is created by placing the propeller into a
part of the airstream that would otherwise generate just as much drag
by hitting the cyclist directly. Look at the example I gave in the
previous post where the propeller is a slightly modified fairing shape
and may actually have less air resistance than the cyclist alone. In
that case there's a slight gain even if the energy extracted from the
wind is thrown away - and a slightly larger gain if it's used to aid
the propulsion of the cycle.

But, as I've said all along, I don't think the magnitude of the gain
in practice would be sufficient to justify the added weight,
bulkiness, and complex mechanism. Nevertheless, it is in no way a
perpetual motion machine (of either the first or second kinds) and
there is no physics principle that prohibits obtaining small
mechanical benefits by utilizing part of the wind energy that would
otherwise be wasted upon hitting the cyclist.

unforgiven99@juno.com

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 13, 10:21 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:49 am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I sat down and designed a propeller that would increase the speed of a
> > bicycle with NO INCREASE IN POWER INPUT. I wound up with a propeller that
> > had no moving parts, and whose blades were shaped like a fairing.
>
> Me to.
>
> A slight spiral shape should generate centrifugal force depending on
> the speed and drag. Then have a recumbent slide down the vacuum in the
> center of a vortex. It's that what Victor Schauberger calls light air.
>
> But to smoothly pedal the air up to speed the bike would become much
> to long.
>
> That's why one would use a propeller I think. Or a rotating cone. :-)
>
> I doubt efficiently gearing windmills to the wheels a bit.
>
> It would be better to use the wind to further enhance the air flow.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
> gabydewilde - negative drag

But where is this magical vortex coming from? Generating a vortex
from an axial flow consumes so much energy that the aeronautics
industry has spent decades developing wing tips specifically not to
create them. There are some very good fundamental reasons why
mainstream aerodynamic vehicle design has been focused on transferring
the minimum possible amount of momentum to the air. If your own study
of fluid dynamics had extended past reading crackpot theories on the
internet, it might be more clear to you.

gdewilde@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 14, 5:18 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Peter Rathman wrote:
> > ...
> > My car has a coefficient of drag of 0.35, and it has a much more
> > streamlined shape than a regular upright cyclist. Where did your
> > factor of 10 (implying a Cd of 0.1) come from? Figures I've seen for
> > normal cyclists have been more around 0.6 or 0.7....
>
> Here is what a bicycle with a coefficient of drag of slightly less than
> 0.1 looks like:
> <http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/Andrea_64.7mph.jpg>. (Yes, she is
> pedaling the bicycle in excess of 64 mph without wind or gravitational
> assistance.)
>

The faster it goes the sharper the wind angle so a fixed sail has a
speed with each angle at which it works best, in a fixed position it
could work as a tail fin, stick a horizontal blade at the top (in a T
shape) and it would make the ride some what more stable I think.

http://www.evworld.com/evworld_audio/michael_lewis.mp3
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=922

peter

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

On Dec 13, 8:18 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Peter Rathman wrote:
> > ...
> > My car has a coefficient of drag of 0.35, and it has a much more
> > streamlined shape than a regular upright cyclist. Where did your
> > factor of 10 (implying a Cd of 0.1) come from? Figures I've seen for
> > normal cyclists have been more around 0.6 or 0.7....
>
> Here is what a bicycle with a coefficient of drag of slightly less than
> 0.1 looks like:
> <http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~et181/hpv/Andrea_64.7mph.jpg>.

Agreed, and clearly for that kind of cycle adding any additional
external apparatus would add considerable extra drag since the shape
has already been optimized for minimum Cd. But the proposal in the
original post included illustrations that made it clear it was for a
regular upright cyclist - not even one in the drops or aero-bar
positions.

Tim McNamara

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

"... and it has a fiberglass engine and it runs on water, man!"

Tom Sherman

01-03-1970, 10:11 PM

Tim McNamara wrote:
> "... and it has a fiberglass engine and it runs on water, man!"

What are you talking about?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

unforgiven99@juno.com

01-03-1970, 10:12 PM

On Dec 14, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > "... and it has a fiberglass engine and it runs on water, man!"
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

I believe he's suggesting that our friend Gaby might be developing her
theories with some kind of herbal assistance.

peter

01-03-1970, 10:13 PM

On Dec 14, 5:55 am, unforgive...@juno.com wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:56 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > For example, the object we put out in front of the cyclist could be in
> > the shape of an aerodynamic nose cone. Let's say a fairing of that
> > type cuts his wind resistance by 20%. Now we add some bearings and
> > little fins to the nose cone so it'll start rotating in the wind. The
> > fins will obviously add back some air resistance, but by keeping them
> > small we can make sure that the overall result is still no worse than
> > the unfaired cyclist. Any energy we can extract from the spinning
> > cone and use for propulsion is now a net plus if we're only interested
> > in power needed to overcome air resistance.
>
> No. Starting with your initial nose cone, the cyclist is putting a
> certain amount of power into the system.

But we're *not* starting with an initial nose cone - we're starting
with a regular upright cyclist. We're then adding a reasonably
aerodynamic windmill right in front of him that consists of a nose
cone shape with fins along the side so it spins when in the wind. The
combination of original rider/bike plus the added windmill can be made
to have the same, or even slightly less, air resistance than the rider/
bike had. Therefore adding the windmill didn't add any extra drag.
But it does allow you to extract some small amount of power from the
wind - power that was wasted before in creating extra turbulence as
the wind hit the decidedly non-aerodynamic rider. Not enough to be at
all practical, but enough to show that in principle some energy can be
extracted.

Note that I had already explicitly said before that the windmill is
not as aerodynamic as the plain unfinned nose cone - but that's not
the comparison since we never actually have the unfinned nose cone.
We start with the plain rider/bike and we add the finned nose cone as
the windmill element.

> Once you add the fins, you
> start transferring additional momentum from the air into spinning the
> fairing. Recall that aerodynamic drag is a vector quantity, not a
> scalar. Adding rotational drag to a body will not decrease drag in
> the axial direction. In order for this additional rotation to
> decrease the total power requirement from the cyclist, more power
> needs to be extracted from the rotating fairing than is put into it.
> This is simply not possible.

Androcles

01-03-1970, 10:13 PM

<unforgiven99@juno.com> wrote in message
news:bc73b6a8-49a9-46ba-be64-5185205c15b8@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: On Dec 13, 10:21 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > On Dec 14, 2:49 am, "Leo Lichtman" <l.licht...@worldnet.att.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > > I sat down and designed a propeller that would increase the speed of a
: > > bicycle with NO INCREASE IN POWER INPUT. I wound up with a propeller
that
: > > had no moving parts, and whose blades were shaped like a fairing.
: >
: > Me to.

I sat down and designed a bicycle with no propeller.
I wound up with pedals that increased the speed by
pushing on them.

unforgiven99@juno.com

01-03-1970, 10:14 PM

On Dec 14, 11:01 am, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 5:55 am, unforgive...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 8:56 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > For example, the object we put out in front of the cyclist could be in
> > > the shape of an aerodynamic nose cone. Let's say a fairing of that
> > > type cuts his wind resistance by 20%. Now we add some bearings and
> > > little fins to the nose cone so it'll start rotating in the wind. The
> > > fins will obviously add back some air resistance, but by keeping them
> > > small we can make sure that the overall result is still no worse than
> > > the unfaired cyclist. Any energy we can extract from the spinning
> > > cone and use for propulsion is now a net plus if we're only interested
> > > in power needed to overcome air resistance.
>
> > No. Starting with your initial nose cone, the cyclist is putting a
> > certain amount of power into the system.
>
> But we're *not* starting with an initial nose cone - we're starting
> with a regular upright cyclist. We're then adding a reasonably
> aerodynamic windmill right in front of him that consists of a nose
> cone shape with fins along the side so it spins when in the wind. The
> combination of original rider/bike plus the added windmill can be made
> to have the same, or even sl