wheel cover turbine



On Dec 23, 12:37 am, Buteo lineatus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:19�pm, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> > solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> > It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> > stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> > that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road
>
> Using a propellor to drive a land vehicle is a dumb idea.
>

Yes, we all agreed on that for hundreds of years.

> The aerodynamic thrust that comes off a propellor is sensitive to the
> square of the air velocity passing over the blades,

Ok, say you are traveling at 10 mph up against wind of 10 mph.

This would be 20 mph drag.

We get 8 parts of energy out of 1 part drag and 1 part wind.

That leaves us with 6 parts to play with.

lol

> so fixed pitch
> propellors work best over a narrow speed range and variable pitch
> propellors are used for high speed aircraft.
>

But then I just invent a new variable pitch propeller.

Sounds easy.

We are making very simple use of the prop, there is no need to adjust
it the mechanism can just be mechanically configured .

So the blade is attached to the spoke at the front side (direction of
travel) and we use a simple spring to pull the blade to the center
where it cuts no wind.

The angle of the blades will automagically change when there is air
streaming though the tube (either forwards or backwards).

By making the front side of the blade heavier as the back one can
prevent sidewards trust when breaking.

> Imagine varying the angle of your wheel spokes to get more thrust to
> go faster and the idea gets ridiculous. A wheel is a wheel, it
> transmits mechanical power, not aerodynamic thrust.
>

The wheel should of course continue to operate exactly like it does or
it wouldn't be an improvement. :) I know it all sounds very weird but
I'm grateful for your thoughts on the subject. I always forget to
mention that. lol

> Gas turbine engines have many blades, while a propeller might have
> from 2 to 5 blades. Gas turbines produce so little power at lower RPM,
> 80% throtlle is idle speed.

Yes, but we should appreciate how big this problem really is for the
wind power industry. And they do seem to overcome it thought size. So
if they can use slow winds standing still we can use fast wind while
moving fast.

A no nonsense way to power the world?

Or am I wrong to assume that :

2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
 
Buteo lineatus wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:19�pm, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Using a propellor to drive a land vehicle is a dumb idea....

butbutbut, you are forgetting the Cuisinart Effect!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
 
On Dec 22, 7:12 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 11:19 pm, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2007-12-22, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 10:56 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
> > >> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> > >> Tesla turbine.
>
> > >> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> > >> I'm just curious :)
>
> > >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> > >> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
> > > other side of the wheel toward the back.  The spoke area of the wheel
> > > should be compleatly enclosed.
>
> > I cannot rule out the possibility that that kind of thing might have
> > some beneficial effect.
>
> > > Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
>
> > But I'm sure this is going too far. If you make the wheel into a fan,
> > then in effect you're propelling the bike partly by swimming through the
> > air rather than by pushing against the road. This is certainly going to
> > be much less efficient.
>
> Imagine each blade as a sail sailing close to the wind. If the blade
> is not spinning forwards the "wind" from the drag is not coming from
> the direction the blade is traveling in.
>
> Even tho it sounds impossible I was trying to figure out how to fit
> the wheel into the rim under an angle. We have flexible couplings, it
> should be possible to have the rim move under a different angle from
> the rest of the wheel.

My response was meant to play with Carl about his "Nope" response.
The wheel can be made into a good propeller, but that isn't the same
as saying it will improve overall efficency.

> But it would still require blade shaped spokes so it would be easier
> to change the wind direction in the first place.
>
> > You could connect the cranks not to the back wheel at all but to a big
> > propeller on the front or rear. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts
> > that would be much less efficient than if you did just connect it to the
> > wheel.
>
> > It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> > solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> > It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> > stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> > that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road.
>
> Yes, more parts = bad need to use the same parts for everything and
> even eliminate them where we can. This makes the wheel an interesting
> candidate to become a propeller.
>
> Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area if we put the wheel
> inlet at the front it would remove the drag from that surface and put
> a vacuum there.

It is my understanding that an enclosed wheel has less drag than an
open wheel. Look at cars that have broken the land speed record.

Someone in this thread mentioned "dustbin" fairings. They did improve
airflow around motorcycles considerably but were banned in motorcycle
racing due to their instability in side winds. I don't know if they
were ever really tried on bicycles. In years past they may not have
been practical due to their weight. That may have changed with modern
materials. You might want to look up the "Gossimer Condor" (sp) which
was a peddle powered airplane.

Another possiblility might be to have an inlet at the front that
splits and guides the air through smooth passages to release it behind
the bike, reducing the vacume there. Current designs concentrate on
splitting the air but do little to bring it back together behind the
rider.

Bruce

> It all sounds a bit Battle star galactica but that is from 1980
>
> 600 internet years ago.
>
> hehehe
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 
On Dec 22, 4:48�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ok, say you are traveling at 10 mph up against wind of 10 mph.
>
> This would be 20 mph drag.
>
> We get 8 parts of energy out of 1 part drag and 1 part wind.
>
> That leaves us with 6 parts to play with.

Nope. Buy this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Theory-Pilots-Fourth-Charles/dp/0891004327

>
> But then I just invent a new variable pitch propeller.

Telll it to Hamilton Standard.

> Yes, but we should appreciate how big this problem really is for the
> wind power industry. And they do seem to overcome it thought size. So
> if they can use slow winds standing still we can use fast wind while
> moving fast.

Do you honestly believe that the forward speed of the bike is going to
somehow produce free power to increase the bike's, or do you think
that you can use wind power to make the bike move?

> Or am I wrong to assume that :
>
> 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?

If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
is a velocity-squared effect.
 
ahh the Condor. have you visited the Condor at the Space Museum?
Say, DeWilde is the reicannation of Rocket Man?
Can you email a source for Rocket Man info? The fellow on film with
the fireworks strapped to his back. We spoke of this previously.
Pope is CIA.
gene daniels
 
On Dec 22, 4:12�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area

Not necessarily. Depends upon whether the surface area or velocity
squared is the larger variable in the equation. Shape is an important
factor too.

if we put the wheel
> inlet at the front it would remove the drag from that surface and put
> a vacuum there.

No, it would not remove drag, and it wouldn't cause a vacuum at the
front of the bike.

Motorcycle engineers trying to get a few more horsepower out of their
engines by
adding ram air ducting suceeded in getting about 0.3 pounds per square
inch pressure at around 150 mph, so your idea of a ram air propellor/
wheel just won't work.

You're not ready to start designing anything, because you don't know
enough about the physics involved.

Your first drawing showed that you don't understand how bounday layer
air pumping works, and you latest drawing shows you have no idea how
nozzles and
exhaust ducts would be shaped, assuming you had a high pressure source
of air to aim at your turbine blades.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that an enclosed wheel has less drag than an
> open wheel. Look at cars that have broken the land speed record.
>
> Someone in this thread mentioned "dustbin" fairings. They did improve
> airflow around motorcycles considerably but were banned in motorcycle
> racing due to their instability in side winds. I don't know if they
> were ever really tried on bicycles.

The Counterpoint Presto [1] is the only production example that comes to
mind with a wheel fairing: <http://www.ihpva.org/people/ianf/bm92/Presto/>.

> In years past they may not have
> been practical due to their weight. That may have changed with modern
> materials. You might want to look up the "Gossimer Condor" (sp) which
> was a peddle powered airplane.

The very thing for traveling salesmen!

> Another possiblility might be to have an inlet at the front that
> splits and guides the air through smooth passages to release it behind
> the bike, reducing the vacume there. Current designs concentrate on
> splitting the air but do little to bring it back together behind the
> rider.

That is what the tail-fairing is for:
<http://www.harwig.tomaatnet.nl/images/cv200515.JPG>.

[1] Later manufactured as the Pashley PDQ.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!
 
On Dec 23, 3:55 am, Buteo lineatus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:48�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
>
> If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> is a velocity-squared effect.

And if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
energy.

Agreed?

If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.

Do I also get 4 times as much energy?

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
 
On Dec 23, 4:10 am, Buteo lineatus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:12�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area
> Not necessarily. Depends upon whether the surface area or velocity
> squared is the larger variable in the equation. Shape is an important
> factor too.
>

Yes, both make important contributions to the drag.

> You're not ready to start designing anything, because you don't know
> enough about the physics involved.
>
> Your first drawing showed that you don't understand how bounday layer
> air pumping works, and you latest drawing shows you have no idea how
> nozzles and exhaust ducts would be shaped, assuming you had a high pressure source of air to aim at your turbine blades.

yes!

if you are going 180 mph up against wind of 5 mph you are suffering
drag at 185 mph.

The difference between 180 and 185 is dramatically bigger as between 0
and 5.

There is no assumption of high pressure source :)
 
On Dec 22, 8:37�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> There is no assumption of high pressure source :)

Don't you understand the relationships between pressure and velocity
and area and velocity either?

You really need a text book on fluid dynamics before you begin
designing anything, you're unlikely to stumble upon anything that
wasn't tried and discarded over a century ago.
 
On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 3:55 am, Buteo lineatus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 4:48?pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
>
> > If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> > is a velocity-squared effect.

It does, however, take 8 times as much power to maintain 2 times the
speed. The drag (force) is 4 times as high, and the distance covered
per unit of time is 2 times as great. Work is force X distance and
power is work per unit of time.

> And if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> energy.
>
> Agreed?
>
> If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
>
> Do I also get 4 times as much energy?

No. When you double the wind speed you get 4 times the energy because
the formula includes V^2. That is V times V. So if you double your
velocity from 1 to 2 you get 2X2=4 times the energy because of the
change in velocity. When you add a second windmill you have doubled
the surface area which just doubles the force.

> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
 
Hello BSR,

Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.

I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol

I just fail to see my error.

On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > energy.
> >
> > Agreed?

Buteo lineatus said:
"If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
is a velocity-squared effect. "

I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
work. I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
exceed adding things up.

On Dec 23, 5:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
> > Do I also get 4 times as much energy?
>
> No. When you double the wind speed you get 4 times the energy because
> the formula includes V^2. That is V times V. So if you double your
> velocity from 1 to 2 you get 2X2=4 times the energy because of the
> change in velocity. When you add a second windmill you have doubled
> the surface area which just doubles the force.
>

Good,

Please bare with me for a sec here.. you agree that (roughly
speaking):

2 times as much windmills gives 2 times as much wind energy

And

2 times as much wind gives 4 times as much wind energy.

Just like:

2 times as much frontal surface gives 2 times as much wind energy
(drag).

And

2 times as much speed gives 4 times as much wind energy (drag).

In the context of:

2 times as much sail area gives 2 times as much wind energy.

And

2 times as much wind speed gives 4 times as much wind energy.

We note that propeller ships capable of "sailing" directly up the wind
already exist. The combination of sailing and windmilling technologies
thus allow for aerodynamic drag to be a means of propulsion's. If
there is more wind this kind of vessel accelerates UP the wind faster.

You understand? So, to generate more aerodynamic drag would be an
improvement.

If drag can evidently be engineered to be a positive ingredient I ask
you start wondering what happens when we accelerate into the wind
(using an engine).

If there is no wind and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we suffer 4 times
as much drag.

If the wind is 10 mph and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we also suffer 4
times as much drag.

This 4 times includes the wind does it not?

energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
it's parts?

yes?

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine

When most of the bike has a reasonable aerodynamic shape the propeller
can easily suffer more drag as the rest of the bike.

Going down the wind one could use the prop to propel the bike again
but that aside.

It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
by the speed they are moving up the wind at.

Yes or no?
 
On Dec 23, 2:23�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello BSR,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
>
> I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol
>
> I just fail to see my error.
>
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > > energy.
>
> > > Agreed?
>
> Buteo lineatus said:
> "If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> is a velocity-squared effect. "
>
> I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
> to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
> work. �I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
> exceed adding things up.
>
> On Dec 23, 5:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> it's parts?

Do you think you're going to get more energy out of a system than you
put into it?

That's perpetual motion thinking.

> It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> by the speed they are moving up the wind at.

Sailers claim their boats will go three times the speed of the wind...
 
On Dec 24, 12:10 am, Buteo lineatus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:23�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> > it's parts?
>
> Do you think you're going to get more energy out of a system than you
> put into it?
>
> That's perpetual motion thinking.
>

no a perpetual motion device demands a closed system. This system uses
wind or ambient pressure gradients of the bigger kind.

> > It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> > by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
>
> Sailers claim their boats will go three times the speed of the wind...

I have updated my Negative drag page a bit.

Enjoy! :)

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag
 
On Dec 23, 5:23 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello BSR,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
>
> I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol
>
> I just fail to see my error.
>
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > > energy.
>
> > > Agreed?
>
> Buteo lineatus said:
> "If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> is a velocity-squared effect. "

That is correct.

> I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
> to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
> work.  I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
> exceed adding things up.

The 8 times figure is correct. My previous answer of 4 times was
based on 4 times the force at the same rpm for the windmill with
everything else the same. In fact if you adjust the pitch of the
blades and/or the rpm the windmill can make 8 times the power at twice
the wind speed. horsepower=torque*rpm/5252

On this page

http://earthsci.org/mineral/energy/wind/wind.html

you will find formulas that contain V^3 or Velocity cubed. So an
increase from 1 to 2 in wind speed results in 2X2X2=8.

> On Dec 23, 5:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
> > > Do I also get 4 times as much energy?
>
> > No.  When you double the wind speed you get 4 times the energy because
> > the formula includes V^2.  That is V times V.  So if you double your
> > velocity from 1 to 2 you get 2X2=4 times the energy because of the
> > change in velocity.  When you add a second windmill you have doubled
> > the surface area which just doubles the force.
>
> Good,
>
> Please bare with me for a sec here.. you agree that (roughly
> speaking):
>
> 2 times as much windmills gives 2 times as much wind energy
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much wind gives  4 times as much wind energy.

8 times

> Just like:
>
> 2 times as much frontal surface gives 2 times as much wind energy
> (drag).
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much speed gives 4 times as much wind energy (drag).

4 times the force times twice the distance gives 8 times the energy,
same as the windmill.

> In the context of:
>
> 2 times as much sail area gives 2 times as much wind energy.
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much wind speed gives 4 times as much wind energy.
>
> We note that propeller ships capable of "sailing" directly up the wind
> already exist. The combination of sailing and windmilling technologies
> thus allow for aerodynamic drag to be a means of propulsion's.  If
> there is more wind this kind of vessel accelerates UP the wind faster.

Are you saying the ship's propeller is powered by a windmill?
Something like this ;)

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

> You understand? So, to generate more aerodynamic drag would be an
> improvement.

With a land vehicle I'm quite certain you could use a windmill to
power it upwind. There you could use very low gearing to overcome the
force of the wind trying to push the vehicle back. But on water there
is slipage. You need to provide power just to keep from being blown
down wind. Any added drag will likely increase that power requirement
more than the power gained by the added drag. That link I provided
above says, "Windmills are NOT efficient. At the very most, a
windmill can extract only 16/27ths of the kinetic energy from the
wind. This is called the Betz Limit and it can be mathematically
proven through calculus. Most of today's windmills extract about 30
percent of the wind's energy."

With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
to slowly creep up wind. With a boat it doesn't look promising that
you could even break even. And for the land based vehicle, as soon as
you try to go faster by supplying energy from another source, the
added drag will sap off more energy than is gained by the increased
wind speed at the windmill.

I see that Ben C gave the same advice in the "Vortex ram" thread.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/d91dc72297d6d5e1

> If drag can evidently be engineered to be a positive ingredient I ask
> you start wondering what happens when we accelerate into the wind
> (using an engine).
>
> If there is no wind and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we suffer 4 times
> as much drag.
>
> If the wind is 10 mph and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we also suffer 4
> times as much drag.

Not really. Traveling at 10 with a 10 headwind means we start with a
20 mph wind. Traveling at 20 with a 10 headwind means a 30 mph wind.
30 is only 1.5X20 so the drag would force would be 1.5X1.5=2.25 times
as great.

> This 4 times includes the wind does it not?
>
> energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> it's parts?
>
> yes?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. If it is that 30X30 is
greater than 10X10+20X20 then yes.

> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
> When most of the bike has a reasonable aerodynamic shape the propeller
> can easily suffer more drag as the rest of the bike.
>
> Going down the wind one could use the prop to propel the bike again
> but that aside.
>
> It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
>
> Yes or no?

Again I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but given the
30% efficiency above I would say that you are only going to get 1 hp
back from the windmill for every 3 hp that you put into overcoming its
drag. So it looks like a losing proposition to try pushing it any
faster than the wind drive alone can propel it.

Bruce
 
On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> to slowly creep up wind. With a boat it doesn't look promising that
> you could even break even.

no no no no, this assumption is just all wrong. Sail boats sail close
to the wind up to 2 times the speed of the wind. You can sail 12
degrees into the wind with a sail. A sail is just like a fixed
propeller blade. But with a rotor the blade is moving relative to the
axle remember? So if we combine the direction of the boat with the
direction of the rotor we get the angle the blade is moving under
relative to the wind.

Instantly it becomes obvious the blades are sailing under a much
better angle as the sails would.

Sails even stop working entirely under that 12 degrees. But still even
at 12 degrees it is enough to argue they are already moving into the
wind more as moving out of it.

There is no slow creeping up the wind here this goes as fast as it
gets.

Our propeller blades are not sailing under 12 degrees they are sailing
under an ideal angle fixed to the apparent wind. If there is wind in
the back the wheel gets less air as it "needs" and generates a vacuum.
Blowing air backwards makes good sense if you have the wind in your
back.

If there is wind coming from the front however the amazing pressure
will accelerate the wheel.

This is also good :

30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20

The amount of wind you capture depends on how fast you go.

The efficiency of a windmill reflects how much drag it generates.

If it's only 30 % efficient then 70 % will fly though it.

If the body is reasonably aerodynamic it is easy to build a prop that
represents 90% of the drag.

The turbine inlet can use the frontal surface that would otherwise be
pushing the air to it's sides.

Without question to would reduce the percentage of drag produced by
the body.

30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20

so a wind of 5 mph may not be capable of doing useful work.

It's very different from +5 mph wind at 100 mph.

100X100 + 5x5

or

105X105

Beginning to see the difference doctor Livingstone? Yours seems an
highly intellectual case of refusing to understand. But here you have
this simple person explaining something simple to you. And he keeps on
repeating the same question. Made 100 drawings for you.

One more time?

If the wind force grows with the speed you are traveling up the wind
at then the size of the prop will determine at what speed it can
propel the bike entirely.

The faster you go the more wind, there seems to me to be no way to
avoid it?

Where is my error?

I'm going to search some more patents....

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine

http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag
 
On Dec 23, 11:33 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> > to slowly creep up wind.  With a boat it doesn't look promising that
> > you could even break even.
>
> no no no no, this assumption is just all wrong. Sail boats sail close
> to the wind up to 2 times the speed of the wind. You can sail 12
> degrees into the wind with a sail. A sail is just like a fixed
> propeller blade. But with a rotor the blade is moving relative to the
> axle remember? So if we combine the direction of the boat with the
> direction of the rotor we get the angle the blade is moving under
> relative to the wind.

I think you need to take another look at what is making the sail boat
go forward. It is not just the sail but also the keel under the
ship. The sail pushes nearly sideways on the ship, which can not move
in that direction because of the keel. So it moves in the direction
it finds easiest to go. The sail provides that side thrust by being
put at an angle to the wind where the rotor works best facing straight
into it.

> Instantly it becomes obvious the blades are sailing under a much
> better angle as the sails would.
>
> Sails even stop working entirely under that 12 degrees. But still even
> at 12 degrees it is enough to argue they are already moving into the
> wind more as moving out of it.
>
> There is no slow creeping up the wind here this goes as fast as it
> gets.

A sail boat goes fastest when it is about perpendicular to the wind.
When sailing up wind it goes slower and slower as it nears the
direction of the wind. When it gets to 12 degrees, or whatever its
minimum angle is, it stops moving forward.

It's late. I may have more to say later.

Bruce

> Our propeller blades are not sailing under 12 degrees they are sailing
> under an ideal angle fixed to the apparent wind. If there is wind in
> the back the wheel gets less air as it "needs" and generates a vacuum.
> Blowing air backwards makes good sense if you have the wind in your
> back.
>
> If there is wind coming from the front  however the amazing pressure
> will  accelerate the wheel.
>
> This is also good :
>
> 30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20
>
> The amount of wind you capture depends on how fast you go.
>
> The efficiency of a windmill reflects how much drag it generates.
>
> If it's only 30 % efficient then 70 % will fly though it.
>
> If the body is reasonably aerodynamic it is easy to build a prop that
> represents 90% of the drag.
>
> The turbine inlet can use the frontal surface that would otherwise be
> pushing the air to it's sides.
>
> Without question to would reduce the percentage of drag produced by
> the body.
>
> 30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20
>
> so a wind of 5 mph may not be capable of doing useful work.
>
> It's very different from +5 mph wind at 100 mph.
>
> 100X100 + 5x5
>
> or
>
> 105X105
>
> Beginning to see the difference doctor Livingstone? Yours seems an
> highly intellectual case of refusing to understand. But here you have
> this simple person explaining something simple to you. And he keeps on
> repeating the same question. Made 100 drawings for you.
>
> One more time?
>
> If the wind force grows with the speed you are traveling up the wind
> at then the size of the prop will determine at what speed it can
> propel the bike entirely.
>
> The faster you go the more wind, there seems to me to be no way to
> avoid it?
>
> Where is my error?
>
> I'm going to search some more patents....
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
> gabydewilde - negative drag
 
On Dec 23, 8:33�pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Our propeller blades are not sailing under 12 degrees they are sailing
> under an ideal angle fixed to the apparent wind.

Sails, wings, and propellor blades have a shape that is called an
"airfoil".

If you study the NACA airfoil tables you will see that airfoils have a
*coefficient of lift* that varies as to the angle of attack, i.e., the
angle at which the free stream hits the airfoil. At lower angles of
attack, the coeffcient of lift is lower, and less lift is imparted to
an aircraft wing and less torque is imparted to a propellor blade.

The coefficient of lift is at its maximum when the free stream strikes
the airfoil at about 15 or 16 degrees, Above that angle, the boundary
layer detaches and flow becomes too turbulent, the wing stalls, the
marine propellor cavitates, the sail luffs.
 
all you need is luff due due dodo dodo doooooooooo
all you need is luff luff al you need is luff.

invention comes with rational organized thought directed toward a goal
or an overlay of that on a general synaptic search.

What we read here is the "loose cannon" effect, lufffing in a great
swell.

this does that and that does this so we come up with "tire causes
vacuum" and a sailboat is fastest just off the wind.

you know, reminiscent of a child naming objects around him: mom dad
cat dog **** ****.
not that I want to obstruct creativity but construct.

I always thought many sailboats are fastest just off a broad reach for
obvious reasons but what do I know?

for each and every general statement made by the perp, an answer lies
in fathomless cyberspace.
searching and reading would be more creative than naming ****
we know what **** is already.
all you need is **** **** all you need is ****.
a Q and Q difference.
ahem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Taiwanese wheel cover manufacturer
Replies
5
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Protactical
P
"A"
Two-wheel-drive Semi-recumbent tandem.
Replies
31
Views
5K
Recumbent bicycles
sprocketgurus
sprocketgurus
T
Re: Small front wheel question
Replies
0
Views
975
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Sherman
T
P
WTB- 20/406 wheel
Replies
0
Views
747
Recumbent bicycles
patrick
P
A
Tour Easy Chopper fork/26" front wheel/with Disc brake! A smooth fast ride!
Replies
3
Views
623
Recumbent bicycles
[email protected]
A
Top Bottom Back