negative drag

[CWatters]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You're describing a wheeled vehicle with a windmill or similar on top
> driving a wheel/wheels? Yes, that'll work with no problems, just needs
> appropriate gearing. It'll be able to go straight into the wind - there's
> nothing clever at all.

Seems we aren't the only ones to think so...

Google groups found...

Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics
From: HWilson@.. (Henri Wilson)
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:30:01 GMT
Local: Fri 24 May 2002 08:30

Len, I was once in charge of low speed wind tunnel working on turbulent
diffusion. I made a little invention in the form of a fan mounted on a
wheeled vehicle. The fan was geared very simply to the rubber wheels.

I set it up in the tunnel facing the wind. Everyone said it would be blown
backwards.
Not so. It sailed straight into the wind at an acceleratuing rate - because
as it gained velocity, its relative wind speed increased.

Next I proposed doing the same on water. I geared the fan to a rudimentary
propeller that I made up. Nobody in the lab thought it would work, ie. sail
directly into the wind.
Next windy day, I and a band of eminent colleages took my small craft to
tha local lake.
There I connected it to a fishing line and pointed it directly into the
wind.
What do you think happened?
Amidst the cheers, It took off like a rocket. Straight into the gale.
I had trouble pulling it back.

now the bad news.
I set about patenting my idea only to find that some 'imbecilic moron' had
beaten me to it and was happily sailing around the waters in his windmill
powered yacht.
He claimed maximum speed of only 4 knots. I reckon my 1:50 model went
faster than that.

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 10:36 pm, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're describing a wheeled vehicle with a windmill or similar on top
> driving a wheel/wheels? Yes, that'll work with no problems, just needs
> appropriate gearing. It'll be able to go straight into the wind - there's
> nothing clever at all.
>

Hello clive,

I will tell you the miracle but first the topic.

The topic was negative drag in general. Either though shape of a body,
sails, propellers, turbines and even vortexi.

With my mouth open all the way onto the ground I find discussions on
the net where people almost say a sail boat can only sail directly
down wind and nothing else. As if it's some shapeless blob! ROFL So
there is massive "damage" to be done in this sector. The average
person doesn't even know how a boat looks let alone a sail boat.

The original discussion was about making hydrogen on open sea. Or even
from storm centers.

Instantaneously I thought "nice then you can sail up wind and run a
generator at the same time using a lot of surface of the sail with a
relatively small prop. I thought that was the damn obvious part. LOL!

I found myself making drawings explaining the stupidity level
sailing. With little success. Lots of sail ships sail pretty close to
the wind. It's like an oxymoron to explain it.

It's simple forces? lol? If there are lots of people who claim their
prop boat goes up the wind then I don't need to do any math?

You Mr Watters and peter are the 3 people who grasp how simple the
prop thing is?

Now I found 2 discussions in sailing groups where the whole thing is
denied by the majority.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OMFG!!

One guy shows photos of one and a gif animation of the thing
propelling it self forwards.

The other guy says. Nah that has to be fake. lolzzzz

So it's just the 4 of us now.

***Here is the magic bit:***

If you put a windmill on the front of your vehicle

the amount of wind you capture scales with the drag.

hahahahahahahaha ha aha ha ha h a

No wonder it's so damn horrifying cycling my conventional bike up the
wind. I might be an idiot at times (lol) I know from experience it
don't go very fast at all.

Imagine a long row of pacman pills with pacman moving from left to
right.

pacman is the boat the pills represent the wind.

each pill represents a unit of wind.

now imagine a moving row of pills with pacman moving from left to
right again.

He is now eating considerably more pills/sec as before.

So if we can create negative kinetic energy.

wouldn't we capture more wind moving straight into it?

IE more negativity?

Try repeat the thought experiment with the speed of the pacman
depending on the speed he eats the pills at.

Now try imagine while he goes faster additional rows of pills appear
representing the drag.

I think each part of air/drag "contains" a fixed amount of wind/
pressure (wave).

Where is my mistake?

O_O

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 17, 11:01 pm, "CWatters" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> > You're describing a wheeled vehicle with a windmill or similar on top
> > driving a wheel/wheels? Yes, that'll work with no problems, just needs
> > appropriate gearing. It'll be able to go straight into the wind - there's
> > nothing clever at all.
>
> Seems we aren't the only ones to think so...
>
> Google groups found...
>
> Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics
> From: HWilson@.. (Henri Wilson)
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 08:30:01 GMT
> Local: Fri 24 May 2002 08:30
>
> Len, I was once in charge of low speed wind tunnel working on turbulent
> diffusion. I made a little invention in the form of a fan mounted on a
> wheeled vehicle. The fan was geared very simply to the rubber wheels.
>
> I set it up in the tunnel facing the wind. Everyone said it would be blown
> backwards.
> Not so. It sailed straight into the wind at an acceleratuing rate - because
> as it gained velocity, its relative wind speed increased.
>
> Next I proposed doing the same on water. I geared the fan to a rudimentary
> propeller that I made up. Nobody in the lab thought it would work, ie. sail
> directly into the wind.
> Next windy day, I and a band of eminent colleages took my small craft to
> tha local lake.
> There I connected it to a fishing line and pointed it directly into the
> wind.
> What do you think happened?
> Amidst the cheers, It took off like a rocket. Straight into the gale.
> I had trouble pulling it back.
>
> now the bad news.
> I set about patenting my idea only to find that some 'imbecilic moron' had
> beaten me to it and was happily sailing around the waters in his windmill
> powered yacht.
> He claimed maximum speed of only 4 knots. I reckon my 1:50 model went
> faster than that.

hahAHAhAhahah hahah ha ha h a ha

" Not so. It sailed straight into the wind at an acceleratuing rate -
because
as it gained velocity, its relative wind speed increased. "

I was just seeing that in front of me for some reason. lol

see my post for evidence.

I forgot to reload the page before clicking post.

I had also figured out that placing the propeller sidewards rather
then forwards allows for the blades to stand in the direction of the
axle.

The blades then tack up wind over 1/2 of the rotation and capture much
more wind on their way back towards the back of the boat.

This idea is now public domain because I say so. lol

regards,

gaby de wilde (Mister)

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

CWatters wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> CWatters wrote:
>>> "Dan Bloomquist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> This is real simple. In water you have no traction. The force on the
>>>> mill will have to be greater than the force developed by the prop.
>>> You forget something. The windmill extracts energy from the air by
> slowing
>>> it down. Where does that energy go?
>> I forgot nothing, I wrote, '...force developed by the prop.' But you
>> seem to be a believer. So, you win....
>
> You seem to be a disbeliever. You win. Happy Christmas.

Critical thinking has nothing to do with 'beliefs'. But call it what you
want to.... Merry New Year.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

CWatters wrote:
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Using a boat rather than a land vehical sets the mood with regard to
> sails,
>> but makes the situation more complicated. It must be realized that a
>> proppeller is not as efficient as a wheel in contact with the ground, even
>> with transmision losses. You're not making some of the ground move away
>> from you when you use wheels.
>> So, using the land vehical makes it very simple I beleive. Put a flexible
>> drive onto the back of the turbine and feed the power to a wheel or two.
> If
>> you can get the vehical to move against the wind you realy have achieved
>> something. Ratios would be very important, and if you managed to get it
>> just right, I beleive you will may "almost" achieve equilibrium.
>>
>
> Excellent idea. Lets connect the windmill to the wheels by gears or
> chains... That way IF the windmill rotates it MUST move the whole thing
> forwards into the wind (assume the wheels cannot slip).
>
> So this reduces the question to will or won't the windmill rotate at all?

Why is there a question? The math says you can make it work very simply.

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

CWatters wrote:
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> Ratios would be very important, and if you managed to get it
>> just right, I beleive you will may "almost" achieve equilibrium.
>
> Talking of ratios. A decent glider can achieve a lift/drag ratio of well
> over unity, upto about 60 in fact.

What do oranges have to do with apples?

 

[A Muzi]

-snip-
[email protected] wrote:
=snip-
> The topic was negative drag in general. Either though shape of a body,
> sails, propellers, turbines and even vortexi.
-snip-
> Where is my mistake?

you meant 'vortices'
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Clive George]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3fe2e803-b30e-4f93-aee5-4d67ebc7499b@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Where is my mistake?

Mostly in posting a tedious pile of nonsense, which I've duly snipped.

HTH.

clive

 

[Vince Morgan]

"CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > Ratios would be very important, and if you managed to get it
> > just right, I beleive you will may "almost" achieve equilibrium.
>
> Talking of ratios. A decent glider can achieve a lift/drag ratio of well
> over unity, upto about 60 in fact.
>
>
Actualy, you just hit the nail on the head I think. I hadn't considered
that at all. The last time I looked gliders were getting around 45 to 1.
And even that is certainly very efficient. And, if you see the blades of
the turbine in this light the lift to drag ratio becomes a rotation to drag
ratio, and becomes very interesting indeed. Although a turbine blade will
not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as efficient
it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.

The ratio would be very important, and it is that which would also prevent
the vehical from being able to achieve forward thrust by pushing alone. If
you push it into otherwise still air the increased ratio required would
create too much load on the turbine. Very interesting indeed, and no, it
actualy doesn't break any scientific laws as far as I can see, even if at
first it appears to be an attempt to do so.
Well Colin, I have to admire your persistence in this thread. And I thank
you for it too.
All the best,
Vince

 

[Clive George]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Although a turbine blade will
> not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as
> efficient
> it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.

You don't even need that efficient a windmill - you make up for that with
suitable gearing.

cheers,
clive

 

[Chalo]

Vince Morgan wrote:
>
> CWatters wrote:
> >
> > Talking of ratios. A decent glider can achieve a lift/drag ratio of well
> > over unity, upto about 60 in fact.
>
> Actualy, you just hit the nail on the head I think. I hadn't considered
> that at all. The last time I looked gliders were getting around 45 to 1.
> And even that is certainly very efficient. And, if you see the blades of
> the turbine in this light the lift to drag ratio becomes a rotation to drag
> ratio, and becomes very interesting indeed. Although a turbine blade will
> not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as efficient
> it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.

Lift is force, not energy. My weight on the ground is incredibly
forceful, but it doesn't propel me anywhere unless I lose elevation in
the process.

Chalo

 

[Vince Morgan]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Although a turbine blade will
> > not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as
> > efficient
> > it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.
>
> You don't even need that efficient a windmill - you make up for that with
> suitable gearing.
>
> cheers,
> clive
>
Yes, I agree. However, I don't think efficiency will prove to be a linear
equation. The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the
turbine effieciency is high enough. How high is a matter of conjecture
however, until someone does the math.
Vince

 

[Dan Bloomquist]

Vince Morgan wrote:
> "CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "CWatters" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ratios would be very important, and if you managed to get it
>>> just right, I beleive you will may "almost" achieve equilibrium.
>> Talking of ratios. A decent glider can achieve a lift/drag ratio of well
>> over unity, upto about 60 in fact.
>>
>>
> Actualy, you just hit the nail on the head I think. I hadn't considered
> that at all. The last time I looked gliders were getting around 45 to 1.
> And even that is certainly very efficient. And, if you see the blades of
> the turbine in this light the lift to drag ratio becomes a rotation to drag
> ratio, and becomes very interesting indeed. Although a turbine blade will
> not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as efficient
> it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.

How can you possibly equate glide ratio to turbine efficiency? By
putting two 150 pound folks in the same glider as one 100 pound guy you
dramatically affect the glide ratio. And it had nothing to do with the
lift to drag of the air foils.

Do you think that modern turbines are not built to approach the Betz
limit as best as possible?

> The ratio would be very important, and it is that which would also prevent
> the vehical from being able to achieve forward thrust by pushing alone.

You could do it with a child's pinwheel toy. Efficiency is not a
criteria other than it is greater than zero.

> If
> you push it into otherwise still air the increased ratio required would
> create too much load on the turbine.

???

> Very interesting indeed, and no, it
> actualy doesn't break any scientific laws as far as I can see, even if at
> first it appears to be an attempt to do so.

Who said it would break a law? The strawman?

 

[Clive George]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > Although a turbine blade will
>> > not achieve the efficiency of a glider wing, if it is even half as
>> > efficient
>> > it should still have enough energy to overcome the drag.
>>
>> You don't even need that efficient a windmill - you make up for that with
>> suitable gearing.
>>
> Yes, I agree. However, I don't think efficiency will prove to be a linear
> equation. The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless
> of
> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the
> turbine effieciency is high enough. How high is a matter of conjecture
> however, until someone does the math.

Even 0.00001% would be adequate given suitable gearing. Wouldn't go forwards
very fast though

cheers,
clive

 

[Vince Morgan]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...


> The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the
I need to correct me. If the drag on the turbine is greater than the power
develloped it would go backwards. But, that would be a very inneficient
turbine.
Vince

 

[Clive George]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
>> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the

> I need to correct me. If the drag on the turbine is greater than the
> power
> develloped it would go backwards. But, that would be a very inneficient
> turbine.

Are you confusing force and power? Drag is force, power is power - there's
no "greater than" to be had.

cheers,
clive

 

[Vince Morgan]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >> The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
> >> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the
>
> > I need to correct me. If the drag on the turbine is greater than the
> > power
> > develloped it would go backwards. But, that would be a very inneficient
> > turbine.
>
> Are you confusing force and power? Drag is force, power is power - there's
> no "greater than" to be had.
Point taken.
I prefer to look at drag as negative thrust sometimes. There certainly is
an efficiency threshold Clive where the wheels would begin to go backward,
and then the drag is power. No doubt about it.
Regards,
Vince

 

[Clive George]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> >> The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
>> >> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if the
>>
>> > I need to correct me. If the drag on the turbine is greater than the
>> > power
>> > develloped it would go backwards. But, that would be a very
>> > inneficient
>> > turbine.
>>
>> Are you confusing force and power? Drag is force, power is power -
>> there's
>> no "greater than" to be had.
> Point taken.
> I prefer to look at drag as negative thrust sometimes. There certainly is
> an efficiency threshold Clive where the wheels would begin to go backward,
> and then the drag is power. No doubt about it.

Put lower gearing on, or stick a worm gear in there - is it still the case?

cheers,
clive

 

[Vince Morgan]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> The vehical would not go backwards under any ratio regardless of
> >> >> efficiency, with adequate traction, but will only move forward if
the

Yes, I believed that was true when I wrote it. However, now that I've given
it some closer attention I can see a point at which it could go backwards.
However, I should say that the turbine would need to be very inneficient
indeed for that to occur.
Worm gears tend to be of such low ratio, in one direction, that friction
within the gears is of little importance, but significant if used to step a
ratio up, so I see this more as a property of the worm gear more than
anything else.
Either way, it is of little importance. You would have to make a very
inneficient turbine for it to go backwards.
Initialy I saw that such a device would tend to accelerate against the wind
indefinately. But, that is actualy not the case. The fact that it requires
a ratio range to work also strongly indicates that it's forward motion is
limited by the same arrangement. Without that caveat it would be
impossible.
Regards,
Vince

 

[Vince Morgan]

"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...

> Either way, it is of little importance. You would have to make a very
> inneficient turbine for it to go backwards.

To make it easier to visualize look at a turbines torgue to drag ratio. If
that ratio is almost all drag, by bad design say, the drag will overcome the
torgue and the wheels will begin turning the blades backward.
Vince