The wind powered car

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde said:

Hello all,

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

On Jan 28, 10:22 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde wrote:> Hello all,

Quoted message said:

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Quoted message said:

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

Let's call a car a car and be done with it. Gaby calls it a wind-car
in the URL. It needs a catchy name, though. Vapormobile? Or how
about deWildeWindMachine aka a dWWM.

R

RicodJour said:

On Jan 28, 10:22 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde wrote:> Hello all,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Quoted message said:

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

Let's call a car a car and be done with it. Gaby calls it a wind-car
in the URL. It needs a catchy name, though. Vapormobile? Or how
about deWildeWindMachine aka a dWWM.

R

Lets pretend the question was sincere again. *haha*

A 4 wheeled bicycle is a quadracycle but a quadracycle doesn't
necessarily have to be a pedal powered vehicle.

Here are 2

http://jalopnik.com/cars/sema/sema-2007-quadracycle-316963.php
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sema/sema-2007-small-block-chevy-quadracycle-315710.php

As for the Wildewindmachine, I'm flattered but it's not really my
invention. There are lots of propeller ships, toys and lots of patents
on wind powered vehicles, fuel savers, power supplies for aeroplanes
etc.

Wind alone doesn't go very fast just like HPV and like weak electric
motors. But all 3 combined should work much better as the sum of their
parts.

The turbine works at any wind speed.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Gaby de Wilde said:

I would like to <...> develop a <...> low pressure <...> human <...> wind.

Say Gaby-- was it you who invited that Jute guy to the party?

Just curious.

Chalo

gabydewilde said:

Hello all,

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels, an electric motor reasonable aerodynamics and a wind turbine.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

During normal use almost all of the energy used by a vehicle is lost
though the displacement of air. But, if we have a high pressure zone
and a low pressure zone we can extract energy and regenerate some of
those losses back onto the propulsion.

Moving close-to or even up the wind we may use the combination of
human power and electric power to amplify this wind.

The wall like cycling up the wind phenomenon is something every
cyclist should be familiar with. This wind power exceeds the power
needed to move the vehicle forwards. The energy extracted by the
turbine is stored as kinetic energy but is also increasing the
available wind pressure.

The wind car is not intended to be a real car but to be a fun freeware
project that gets us places. I hope for you to help me design a
vehicle roughly costing 200 euro/dollar to build using off the shelve
parts. It is my believe that such miracle savings may be accomplish
though pure resourcefulness. A set of old bike wheels doesn't have to
cost much, Constructing a frame doesn't have to cost much, An
electric motor doesn't have to cost much. (as low as 20$), If you own
battery powered tools you can use those batteries and buy some extra
to save money. The suggested wind motor doesn't involve much more as
an axle, some blades and a chain. The cabin can be made of tent
materials. A cheap 10 watt solar panel can keep the battery topped
off, combined with charging on the wind this may prove more then
sufficient never to need to recharge it or to plug-in some new
batteries.

I invite you all to help design this vehicle by posting your opinion/
thoughts/suggestions good or bad happy or sad. :-)

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Thank you,

Gaby de Wilde

Jag said:

Gaby,
Essentially this is a boat on wheels
- with a rotary sail. The design seems
to indicate that the "boat" to turn
the rotor must sail directly into the
wind. Boats don't sail particularly
well directly into the wind. You'd do
better to try and tack into the wind
rather than ride head-first into it.

Note the following: -
1) You'll get some significant losses with
the road surface that you have to overcome.
2) You have no keel,
so crosswinds might be a significant problem,
you have three wheels on your boat however
which should add to the stabilization, but
a good gust could topple you over.

This is indeed what limits the size of the turbine. It will need to be
low with enough weight below it's axles.

Quoted message said:

3) Your rotor needs to be rigid.
(unless you use a Magenn - style rotor)
http://www.magenn.com

Thats a nice windmill. I was thinking about blades made of fabric. But
straight sheets of plastic would work. An inflatable turbine would
sure have the weight benefits.

What great idea jag.

Quoted message said:

4) Go look at Land yachts for the type
of physics you need to deal with in your design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_sailing

best of luck

I look at it like this,
No matter how aerodynamic a vehicle is it will always be pushing air
aside. This is the end product we make from it's fuel sources. If we
push the air upwards it will go downwards behind the vehicle. There
where the distortion is the biggest the air is moving much faster as
a few meters above or besides it. It can reduce drag more then a
vehicle that discards the compressed streamline.

This is besides the sailing up the wind thing. The blades on the
windmill are moving down the wind not up the wind. So the blades are
sailing down the wind while the wind force is amplified relative to
the speed of the vehicle. :-) That way we wont need a big sail but a
small turbine will do. It can also charge 24 hours vs 1 hour driving.
I'm sure you agree that would work up the wind also ^_^

Add some old wires and an a car battery and you can have a spinning
250 watt motor in your hands for less then 50 bucks. The final
windmill should be just about as expensive then that.(I hope) Yeah,
inflatable sounds doable here. :-)

______
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://docs.google.com/Edit?tab=view&docid=dg39c7kf_245d9mb6rcn
http://quadracycle.blogspot.com/
http://forum.go-here.nl/index.php?c=8
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

Quoted message said:

gabydewilde said:

Hello all,

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels, an electric motor reasonable aerodynamics and a wind turbine.

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

During normal use almost all of the energy used by a vehicle is lost
though the displacement of air. But, if we have a high pressure zone
and a low pressure zone we can extract energy and regenerate some of
those losses back onto the propulsion.

Moving close-to or even up the wind we may use the combination of
human power and electric power to amplify this wind.

The wall like cycling up the wind phenomenon is something every
cyclist should be familiar with. This wind power exceeds the power
needed to move the vehicle forwards. The energy extracted by the
turbine is stored as kinetic energy but is also increasing the
available wind pressure.

The wind car is not intended to be a real car but to be a fun freeware
project that gets us places. I hope for you to help me design a
vehicle roughly costing 200 euro/dollar to build using off the shelve
parts. It is my believe that such miracle savings may be accomplish
though pure resourcefulness. A set of old bike wheels doesn't have to
cost much, Constructing a frame doesn't have to cost much, An
electric motor doesn't have to cost much. (as low as 20$), If you own
battery powered tools you can use those batteries and buy some extra
to save money. The suggested wind motor doesn't involve much more as
an axle, some blades and a chain. The cabin can be made of tent
materials. A cheap 10 watt solar panel can keep the battery topped
off, combined with charging on the wind this may prove more then
sufficient never to need to recharge it or to plug-in some new
batteries.

I invite you all to help design this vehicle by posting your opinion/
thoughts/suggestions good or bad happy or sad. :-)

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Thank you,

Gaby de Wilde

Jag said:

Gaby,
Essentially this is a boat on wheels
- with a rotary sail. The design seems
to indicate that the "boat" to turn
the rotor must sail directly into the
wind. Boats don't sail particularly
well directly into the wind. You'd do
better to try and tack into the wind
rather than ride head-first into it.

Note the following: -
1) You'll get some significant losses with
the road surface that you have to overcome.
2) You have no keel,
so crosswinds might be a significant problem,
you have three wheels on your boat however
which should add to the stabilization, but
a good gust could topple you over.

This is indeed what limits the size of the turbine. It will need to be
low with enough weight below it's axles.

Quoted message said:

3) Your rotor needs to be rigid.
(unless you use a Magenn - style rotor)
http://www.magenn.com

Thats a nice windmill. I was thinking about blades made of fabric. But
straight sheets of plastic would work. An inflatable turbine would
sure have the weight benefits.

What great idea jag.

Quoted message said:

4) Go look at Land yachts for the type
of physics you need to deal with in your design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_sailing

best of luck

I look at it like this,
No matter how aerodynamic a vehicle is it will always be pushing air
aside. This is the end product we make from it's fuel sources. If we
push the air upwards it will go downwards behind the vehicle. There
where the distortion is the biggest the air is moving much faster as
a few meters above or besides it. It can reduce drag more then a
vehicle that discards the compressed streamline.

This is besides the sailing up the wind thing. The blades on the
windmill are moving down the wind not up the wind. So the blades are
sailing down the wind while the wind force is amplified relative to
the speed of the vehicle. :-) That way we wont need a big sail but a
small turbine will do. It can also charge 24 hours vs 1 hour driving.
I'm sure you agree that would work up the wind also ^_^

Add some old wires and an a car battery and you can have a spinning
250 watt motor in your hands for less then 50 bucks. The final
windmill should be just about as expensive then that.(I hope) Yeah,
inflatable sounds doable here. :-)

______
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://docs.google.com/Edit?tab=view&docid=dg39c7kf_245d9mb6rcn
http://quadracycle.blogspot.com/
http://forum.go-here.nl/index.php?c=8
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

How will the losses from the turbine affect the input/output balance
Negative at a guess

gabydewilde said:

The wall like cycling up the wind phenomenon is something every
cyclist should be familiar with.
This wind power exceeds the power
needed to move the vehicle forwards.

Then the vehicle is no longer moving forward, is it?

OK, how much power does it take to move the vehicle? And how much
MORE power does it take when you add the drag of a turbine sticking up
in the windstream? (Note that if the turbine is generating power it is
NOT freewheeling or, conversely, if the turbine is freewheeling it is
NOT generating power)

Type 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

DR

dbr said:

Quoted message said:

On Jan 29, 4:02 am, gabydewilde <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hello all,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels, an electric motor reasonable aerodynamics and a wind turbine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

During normal use almost all of the energy used by a vehicle is lost
though the displacement of air. But, if we have a high pressure zone
and a low pressure zone we can extract energy and regenerate some of
those losses back onto the propulsion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Moving close-to or even up the wind we may use the combination of
human power and electric power to amplify this wind.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The wall like cycling up the wind phenomenon is something every
cyclist should be familiar with. This wind power exceeds the power
needed to move the vehicle forwards. The energy extracted by the
turbine is stored as kinetic energy but is also increasing the
available wind pressure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The wind car is not intended to be a real car but to be a fun freeware
project that gets us places. I hope for you to help me design a
vehicle roughly costing 200 euro/dollar to build using off the shelve
parts. It is my believe that such miracle savings may be accomplish
though pure resourcefulness. A set of old bike wheels doesn't have to
cost much, Constructing a frame doesn't have to cost much, An
electric motor doesn't have to cost much. (as low as 20$), If you own
battery powered tools you can use those batteries and buy some extra
to save money. The suggested wind motor doesn't involve much more as
an axle, some blades and a chain. The cabin can be made of tent
materials. A cheap 10 watt solar panel can keep the battery topped
off, combined with charging on the wind this may prove more then
sufficient never to need to recharge it or to plug-in some new
batteries.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I invite you all to help design this vehicle by posting your opinion/
thoughts/suggestions good or bad happy or sad. :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank you,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gaby de Wilde

Quoted message said:

Jag wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gaby,
Essentially this is a boat on wheels
- with a rotary sail. The design seems
to indicate that the "boat" to turn
the rotor must sail directly into the
wind. Boats don't sail particularly
well directly into the wind. You'd do
better to try and tack into the wind
rather than ride head-first into it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Note the following: -
1) You'll get some significant losses with
the road surface that you have to overcome.
2) You have no keel,
so crosswinds might be a significant problem,
you have three wheels on your boat however
which should add to the stabilization, but
a good gust could topple you over.

Quoted message said:

This is indeed what limits the size of the turbine. It will need to be
low with enough weight below it's axles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Your rotor needs to be rigid.
(unless you use a Magenn - style rotor)
http://www.magenn.com

Quoted message said:

Thats a nice windmill. I was thinking about blades made of fabric. But
straight sheets of plastic would work. An inflatable turbine would
sure have the weight benefits.

Quoted message said:

What great idea jag.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) Go look at Land yachts for the type
of physics you need to deal with in your design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_sailing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

best of luck

Quoted message said:

I look at it like this,
No matter how aerodynamic a vehicle is it will always be pushing air
aside. This is the end product we make from it's fuel sources. If we
push the air upwards it will go downwards behind the vehicle. There
where the distortion is the biggest the air is moving much faster as
a few meters above or besides it. It can reduce drag more then a
vehicle that discards the compressed streamline.

Quoted message said:

This is besides the sailing up the wind thing. The blades on the
windmill are moving down the wind not up the wind. So the blades are
sailing down the wind while the wind force is amplified relative to
the speed of the vehicle. :-) That way we wont need a big sail but a
small turbine will do. It can also charge 24 hours vs 1 hour driving.
I'm sure you agree that would work up the wind also ^_^

Quoted message said:

Add some old wires and an a car battery and you can have a spinning
250 watt motor in your hands for less then 50 bucks. The final
windmill should be just about as expensive then that.(I hope) Yeah,
inflatable sounds doable here. :-)

Quoted message said:

______
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://docs.google.com/Edit?tab=view&docid=dg39c7kf_245d9mb6rcn
http://quadracycle.blogspot.com/
http://forum.go-here.nl/index.php?c=8
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

How will the losses from the turbine affect the input/output balance
Negative at a guess

Assuming there is no wind the turbine it self will of course cause
some drag. Just like the cabin of any vehicle causes drag. In any car
you are investing petrol to push the air aside. Apart from down force
and parachute breaking we don't do do anything productive with this
air pressure. The turbines surface would suffer some extra drag,
subtracting propulsion generated by this drag puts it close to zero.
However, the energy available in that streamline is far greater as the
cabin will always have a volume above zero. :-) It's like comparing a
sled with a wheel. Wheels have a far greater tendency to keep
spinning.

Was that the question?
______
http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://docs.google.com/Edit?tab=view&docid=dg39c7kf_245d9mb6rcn
http://quadracycle.blogspot.com/
http://forum.go-here.nl/index.php?c=8

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress

Topic: http://wind-car.go-here.nl
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.europe/browse_frm/thread/93813cc0da36d4da?scoring=d&
The wind powered car - soc.culture.europe | Google Groups
x-posted at http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4008.msg73936.html#msg73936

DirtRoadie said:

gabydewilde said:

The wall like cycling up the wind phenomenon is something every
cyclist should be familiar with.
This wind power exceeds the power
needed to move the vehicle forwards.

Then the vehicle is no longer moving forward, is it?

Hello DirtRoadie,

Any amount of energy is always sufficient to move a load. The wind
power always exceeds the power needed to move a vehicle forwards.
Force is not work. It's just a matter of leverage. If you can
translate 1 percent of the drag back onto the wheels it suffers 1
percent less drag. Standing still the turbine is already spinning. It
means the energy available is always above zero.

Quoted message said:

OK, how much power does it take to move the vehicle? And how much
MORE power does it take when you add the drag of a turbine sticking up
in the windstream?

I see you are not comfortable with the huge frontal surface area. hehe

The wind pushing against the sail of a sailboat is making it move
forwards. A sailboat sails on watter just like the turbine blade sails
around it's axle. The wind is increasing their speed rather then
decreasing it. More sail area is good. A sail boat goes faster that
way.

Quoted message said:

(Note that if the turbine is generating power it is
NOT freewheeling

or, conversely, if the turbine is freewheeling it is NOT generating power)

I know what you mean but I think you are forgetting about the cabin
and assuming a wind speed of zero. You know that almost all of the
energy used by a vehicle is used to push air aside.

You know that by driving up the wind we only need to invest a little
bit of energy to get a lot of drag in return. This is more then
sufficient to supply the original seed power.

Look at the sailboat, the fast it goes the more the apparent wind
appears from straight ahead. This is what allows sailing faster as the
wind.

But we didn't just have wind at our disposal, we also had human power
and electrics.

So we start with say a wind of 5 mph and we accelerate bionically to
say 5 mph then we have wind of 10 mph which holds 4 times as much
energy.

Let us imagine the wind is made of little sand grains. If we can
engineer their impact into the plus then going faster will also
increase the number of particles striking the rotor.

Thus, the more you pedal the more you increase the wind power. At 60
we still suffer drag as if we are going 65 mph. The difference between
0 and 5 mph wind is much smaller as that between 60 and 65.

Like

normal ecar:

battery -> motor -> motion -> drag

wind car:

battery+wind -> motor+turbine+pedals -> motion -> drag+wind+battery ->
motor+turbine+pedals -> motion -> drag+drag+wind+battery

seems obvious enough to me?

Quoted message said:

Type 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Classification

All energy is accounted for. The device limits losses it doesn't
create perpetual motion. The Rotoverter modification does something
just like that.

It's free energy though shifting the efficiency goalposts a bit. Not a
perpetual motion device.

Even if I knew how to build something like that I wouldn't want it on
this vehicle. The wind car is suppose to be a means of transportation.
It's more then weird enough the way it is already. If it would also be
a perpetual motion device you would have to pay for transportation in
ridicule. I would consider that a serious design flaw. Of course I
knew eventually some one would try to call a windmill a perpetual
motion device. That is exactly the way I like to design things. ha-ha

I guess you are right. The ambient flux of zeropoint energy is just
about the same thing as the ambient wind. A car is made for the road,
and on the road there is wind. Making unrealistic changes to the road
would render any vehicle useless. Even if it was powered by gravity,
cosmic radio, permanent magnets, noble gas, hydrogen soup etc etc

If the road was vertical an SUV would be useless on it. If there isn't
any wind where you live then a sail car is an awful idea.

Perhaps solar is great where you live.

If you have 250 watt worth of electrical assist and you want to drive
an hour per day vs 12 hours of charging then a 20 watt panel can do
the trick already.

http://www.google.com/products?q=20+watt+solar

If half an hour of full throttle is enough for you a 10 watt panel may
prove sufficient.

http://www.google.com/products?q=10+watt+solar

Say you do everything wrong and it ends up generating enough for just
10 min per day if you match that with batteries you can still cycle
perfectly and buy more solar later.

Take this beauty.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Envirotek-V20-VAWT-Generator.htm
"The rotor sweeps an area of 26cm wide by 60cm high (= 0.156 square
meters). Therefore (according to the calculation of wind power) there
is around 8 Watts of wind energy available in a 10mph wind, and around
60 Watts in a 20mph wind. However VAWT type wind turbines are
inherently quite inefficient and so no more then 20-30% of this wind
energy can be exploited and sent to the batteries."

Lets make it a bit bigger.

say 3 X 26 cm = 78
and 2 X 60 cm = 120
then we get 0.156 X 6 = 0.936 square meters

Then 6 X 8 watt = 48 watt
And 6 X 60 watt = 360 watt

Assuming 20% efficiency we would have 10 to 72 watt left to charge the
batteries with. all day long! Just looking at the energy cost it would
take a hundred years to earn back the investment.

But if we use only 1/4 kwh per day it can be made to self charge.

The profit is in the fun of building and driving it.

If you pedal hard enough people will think it really works.

hehehe

____
http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Tom Sherman said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde said:

Hello all,

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

No, it would be a tetracycle. "Cycle" is Greek, so you want the Greek
prefix for "four", not the Latin one.

This is the same reason why "aquaplane" is preferred to "hydroplane". In
that case, "plane" is Latin, so you want the Latin for water, which is
aqua, not the Greek, which is hydor.

A few accepted words do mix Latin and Greek roots, like "television",
and "hydroponic", and many more ignorant neologisms like "quadraphonic"
and "quadrilogy", which are ugly and unnecessary. Tetraphonic would have
been a better word and tetralogy is.

You may say who cares, no-one speaks Latin or Ancient Greek any more,
but if we were to hyperponically epidopt any synbination of roots that
obdromed to us I think you would syncur that the avitable concoluthon
would be a synsiderable loss of diaspicacity.

Ben C said:

Tom Sherman said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde said:

Hello all,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Quoted message said:

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

No, it would be a tetracycle. "Cycle" is Greek, so you want the Greek
prefix for "four", not the Latin one.

This is the same reason why "aquaplane" is preferred to "hydroplane". In
that case, "plane" is Latin, so you want the Latin for water, which is
aqua, not the Greek, which is hydor.

A few accepted words do mix Latin and Greek roots, like "television",
and "hydroponic", and many more ignorant neologisms like "quadraphonic"
and "quadrilogy", which are ugly and unnecessary. Tetraphonic would have
been a better word and tetralogy is.

You may say who cares, no-one speaks Latin or Ancient Greek any more,
but if we were to hyperponically epidopt any synbination of roots that
obdromed to us I think you would syncur that the avitable concoluthon
would be a synsiderable loss of diaspicacity.

Oh dear, Ben, if only your morality and rationality were as impressive
as your classical pirouettes. But the solution is the same, not
poncing around like a Greek nancyboy as you do, but plain thinking and
plain Anglo-Saxon words.

Andre Jute
What is wrong with using a steam shovel?

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andre Jute said:

Ben C said:

Tom Sherman said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde wrote:
> Hello all,

Quoted message said:

> I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
> wheels,...

Quoted message said:

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

No, it would be a tetracycle. "Cycle" is Greek, so you want the Greek
prefix for "four", not the Latin one.

This is the same reason why "aquaplane" is preferred to "hydroplane". In
that case, "plane" is Latin, so you want the Latin for water, which is
aqua, not the Greek, which is hydor.

A few accepted words do mix Latin and Greek roots, like "television",
and "hydroponic", and many more ignorant neologisms like "quadraphonic"
and "quadrilogy", which are ugly and unnecessary. Tetraphonic would have
been a better word and tetralogy is.

You may say who cares, no-one speaks Latin or Ancient Greek any more,
but if we were to hyperponically epidopt any synbination of roots that
obdromed to us I think you would syncur that the avitable concoluthon
would be a synsiderable loss of diaspicacity.

Oh dear, Ben, if only your morality and rationality were as impressive
as your classical pirouettes. But the solution is the same, not
poncing around like a Greek nancyboy as you do, but plain thinking and
plain Anglo-Saxon words.

Andre Jute
What is wrong with using a steam shovel?

The neighbors get shirty about their begonias.

--
Michael Press

Ben C? said:

Tom Sherman said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde said:

Hello all,

I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
wheels,...

Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

No, it would be a tetracycle. "Cycle" is Greek, so you want the Greek
prefix for "four", not the Latin one.

Well, incorrect or not, "quadracycle" is the common usage.

Quoted message said:

This is the same reason why "aquaplane" is preferred to "hydroplane". In
that case, "plane" is Latin, so you want the Latin for water, which is
aqua, not the Greek, which is hydor.

Paging Trevor Jeffrey and Jobst Brandt! 😉

Aquaplane appears to be preferred in British English, while hydroplane
is the preferred word in American English.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

"Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ben C? said:

Tom Sherman said:

gabydewilde aka Gaby de Wilde wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to invite you to help develop a recumbent bicycle with 4
> wheels,...
>
Would that not be a quadracycle and not a bicycle?

No, it would be a tetracycle. "Cycle" is Greek, so you want the Greek
prefix for "four", not the Latin one.

Well, incorrect or not, "quadracycle" is the common usage.

Quoted message said:

This is the same reason why "aquaplane" is preferred to "hydroplane". In
that case, "plane" is Latin, so you want the Latin for water, which is
aqua, not the Greek, which is hydor.

Paging Trevor Jeffrey and Jobst Brandt! 😉

Aquaplane appears to be preferred in British English, while hydroplane is
the preferred word in American English.

I've heard both aquaplane and hydroplane in American English referring to
car tires lifting off the road on a film of water. Hydroplane seems to be
the only term used to refer to big speedboats like Miss Budweiser.
Kerry

Ben C said:

On 2008-01-29, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, it would be a tetracycle.[/snip]

oh bla bla bla bla???

who cares what it's called? I call it a wind car.

Do I have your permission for that?

You CLEARLY want to replace the project with a naming contest.

Feel free to stop littering the discussion with [censored].

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Andre Jute said:

[snip]

Ben C said:

On 2008-01-29, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, it would be a tetracycle.[/snip]

oh bla bla bla bla???

who cares what it's called? I call it a wind car.

Do I have your permission for that?

You CLEARLY want to replace the project with a naming contest.

Feel free to stop littering the discussion with [censored].

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Michael Press said:

[snip]

Ben C said:

On 2008-01-29, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, it would be a tetracycle.[/snip]

oh bla bla bla bla???

who cares what it's called? I call it a wind car.

Do I have your permission for that?

You CLEARLY want to replace the project with a naming contest.

Feel free to stop littering the discussion with [censored].

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

On Jan 30, 1:53 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[snip]

Ben C said:

On 2008-01-29, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, it would be a tetracycle.[/snip]

oh bla bla bla bla???

who cares what it's called? I call it a wind car.

Do I have your permission for that?

You CLEARLY want to replace the project with a naming contest.

Feel free to stop littering the discussion with [censored].

http://wind-car.go-here.nl

Kerry Montgomery said:

[snip]

Ben C said:

On 2008-01-29, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, it would be a tetracycle.[/snip]

oh bla bla bla bla???

who cares what it's called? I call it a wind car.

Do I have your permission for that?

You CLEARLY want to replace the project with a naming contest.

Feel free to stop littering the discussion with [censored].

http://wind-car.go-here.nl