negative drag



On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:19:44 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> 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.
 
Hello Tom Davidson,

On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <[email protected]> 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
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Hello Tom Davidson,
>
> On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <[email protected]> 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
 
> "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I don't know why I am continuing in this argument-

[email protected] 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:
<[email protected]> wrote: (clip)
It's just like cycling behind someone or driving behind a truck. (clip)

"Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Hello Tom Davidson,
> >
> > On Dec 13, 12:55 am, tadchem <[email protected]> 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
 
On Dec 12, 1:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 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 --
 
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
 
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
 
"Elmo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
 
On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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.
 
[email protected] 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
 
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:13:59 -0800 (PST), peter <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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
 
On Dec 13, 2:13 pm, peter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:34 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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.
 
"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?
 
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
 
[email protected] 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: negative drag
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Sherman
T
D
negative drag's sidebar
Replies
0
Views
471
Cycling Equipment
datakoll
D
T
Re: negative drag
Replies
0
Views
970
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Sherman
T
T
Re: negative drag
Replies
0
Views
897
Recumbent bicycles
Tom Sherman
T
G
negative drag
Replies
0
Views
553
Cycling Equipment
[email protected]
G
rbtmcardle
Have you experienced any negative attitudes towards ebikes from other cyclists?
Replies
12
Views
78
Cycling Equipment
Warwick2x
Warwick2x
yamahafx1
Dealing with negative self-talk during workouts
Replies
34
Views
629
Cycling Training
jbrians
jbrians
Veater
How does it make you feel when people say negative things about cyclists?
Replies
45
Views
9K
Bike Cafe
svejorange
S
bikeyyurop
Negative doping
Replies
11
Views
7K
Doping in Cycling
clevalikesCycling
C
thassman
Sustained negative TSB
Replies
4
Views
4K
Power meters
thassman
thassman
Top Bottom Back