Re: OT Here is an example of pseudo science.

ie Complete bollocks.

>
formatting link
> The Natural Philosopher can tell you why. Heh Heh. >

Perpetual motion - what a great concept! AND it's no use to terrorists!

It's a real shame that this thing will never get off the ground. What I find amusing is the contrast between this artist's rendition and a real zeppelin, in terms of the relative sizes of the buoyancy chamber(s) and the rest of the machine, even ignoring the fact that the zeppelin used H2, and this supposedly uses He.

If Christine O'Donnell learns about this it'll become a campaign plank.

Reply to
Gib Bogle
Loading thread data ...

The Zeppelins were huge for a good reason: to lift a heavy payload of engines and passengers. The laws of physics haven't changed in the last 50 years, this thing seems to be an empty lightweight structure that has no useful purpose as it cannot lift anything.

rusty

Reply to
therustyone

S'rah Palin shirley?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

There are a few of them. The Tea Party movement is a haven for loons.

formatting link
Krugman piece is particularly relevant to the gravity plane:

formatting link

Reply to
Gib Bogle

Reply to
Onetap

bollocks.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related>> Gravity powered aircraft? As useful as a lead Zeppelin.

Heavy, man!

Reply to
Gib Bogle

formatting link

formatting link

I rather liked 'after the War on Terror, the War on Arithmetic'.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

bollocks.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IsaMc9mpLI&feature=related>>>> Gravity powered aircraft? As useful as a lead Zeppelin.

That's just the start of the reasons for infeasibility.

Reply to
Gib Bogle

Actually its ultimately not infeasible, just impractical and inefficient.

From a cursory glance (it deserves no more) all it is conceptually, is a glider and a balloon. Balloon lifts glider, glider glides to where it has to go.

The energy to turn a lighter than air volume of gas into a smaller compressed volume that then acquires sufficient weight to act as a glider, is not mentioned.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The whole system is claimed to be self-sufficient. As I recall the compression is powered by the propellers acting as turbines as the plane glides down. It's perpetual motion.

Reply to
Gib Bogle

Oh? I couldn't be arsed to listen that far.

There was one interesting idea that was mooted, that on analysis I couldn't find a flaw with: A wind powered boat or vehicle that could sail or drive directly into the wind using a turbine facing the wind to drive a water prop or wheels..also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly downwind..less sure about that, though.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

This seems plausible

also said to be capable of going faster than the wind..directly

Faster than the wind, downwind? I don't think so. As the relative velocity goes to zero, so does the extractable power. With a big, high kite you could go faster than the wind at ground (or water) level.

Reply to
Gib Bogle

That was more or less my thought.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You can go as fast as you like in any direction, provided you have one thing moving against another that you can extract energy from.

Typically this is the wind blowing over the water, or the land.

There is no theoretical speed limit; it's just the faster you go the more the efficiency of your aerofoils / hydrofoils / wheels matters.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

appropriate part for you, to make it easier: "A wind powered boat or vehicle that could sail or drive directly into the wind using a turbine facing the wind to drive a water prop or wheels" Do you see the reference to "using a turbine"? OK, now the question is this: "Can a WIND TURBINE-POWERED vessel or vehicle go faster than the wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND?" Think about it. By the way, a sail-driven craft cannot go faster than the wind DIRECTLY DOWNWIND either. Get it? Your slight knowledge of physics should be adequate to grasp this.

Reply to
Gib Bogle

OK, Einstein, when you are travelling at the same speed as the wind, in the direction of the wind, what "thing is moving against another", except for the vessel moving against the water, which creates drag?

Reply to
Gib Bogle

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying something like:

There is an energy input, but I really doubt it could be made large enough to compress all that air, and afaics, the lifting bodies would be far too small. I'd not be surprised if a man-lifter using the idea could be built, but for larger scale use, probably not.

Reply to
Grimly Curmudgeon

Compare and contrast:

and

See it now?

Reply to
Andy Dingley

There is with a normal sailing rig, if you move exactly with the wind, your sails are in fact becalmed so to speak.

it's just the faster you go the

across the wind, yes.

With the wind, I challenge you to find a way to move faster than the wind.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

In message , Grimly Curmudgeon writes

er.. my understanding was that the energy for compressing the gas comes from turbines powered by airflow. Unless there is some way to initially power the pump at altitude, there will be no airflow as the device is at equilibrium WRT the atmosphere.

Before you all jump on me, I didn't watch the whole clip:-)

regards

Reply to
Tim Lamb

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.