Re: OT Here is an example of pseudo science.

[ThinAirDesigns]

@Alan Braggins

No apologies necessary Alan -- Rick's a smart ass.

[ThinAirDesigns]

@dennis@home

That would be daft if only we were claiming that.

The claim is clear -- the wind across the ground is slowed and this energy must go somewhere. We use it to propel the vehicle.

A: I have shown that a mechanism exists (prop) which can slow the air relative to the ground even when at or above windspeed (see skateboarder examples)

B; I have shown through simple force/energy calculations that there is more than enough energy at the wheels to power said prop.

If you can point out specifically where you found the flaw in either of the above, we'll chat about it.

[ThinAirDesigns]

@Andy Burns

Hi Andy,

Actually, the propeller never spins the wheels (it can't -- it's a propeller and thus doesn't produce an output torque).

Initially the wind merely starts blows the vehicle downwind. Once the vehicle is moving the wheels provide the input torque to turn the propeller. The propeller takes wind that was moving at say 10mph across the ground and pushes back on it until it is only moving say

5mph across the ground. The energy removed from the wind when it is slowed is the energy powering the vehicle.

[ThinAirDesigns]

@dennis@home

That's never been claimed by us and we're the only ones I care to defend.

You're a year or two too late. We published build videos way back and near a dozen independent parties have already duplicated results. Look it up.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes. The story is you can, using the prop and the wheels still obtain a differential velocity to tap energy off, even when travelling at windspeed. I still feel uneasy about it though.

[ThinAirDesigns]

@dennis@home

You really should read the force/energy analysis -- there is a paragraph near the end with the calculations showing why your assertion is not true.

Can you show where those calculations are wrong?

[ThinAirDesigns]

@The Natural Philosopher

As any good skeptic should. It's a bit of a mind bender that screws with intuition (as any good brainteaser does).

Stick with it -- there's no magic and no laws are violated. It's a simple but unusually looking application of long established principles.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Dennis cant show any calculations are right or wrong. He is still trying to use his microscope to count angels on the heads of pins.

[Rick Cavallaro]

I understood exactly what you said. And thanks for the advice, but it was the vector diagram I drew several years ago that led me to conceive of the vehicle in question. I later learned that I wasn't the first to have done so.

Never by us.

I did so probably a year ago. You can find a set of 3 detailed build videos on YouTube if you search for "spork33". Several people have built them and duplicated our results. You can do the same.

[Rick Cavallaro]

JB said it just right - no apologies necessary (except perhaps from me). I was just be> Have you seen the cr@p in this video?

I can do better than that - I spent several hours with JB mak>The statement that a cart on a treadmill in still air is the same as a

Really? Any fool? Are you up to that challenge? Let's see you do that without reproducing something closely akin to our cart.

Wrong again. You really have to start quoting us rather than simply telling us (incorrectly) what we claim.

Wrong again. It's really probably better if you ask questions rather than tell us what our device can and can't do - and what you *think* our claims are.

I definitely don't recommend holding your breath. I do recommend you ask some questions and let us explain this. Others here seem to be getting it pretty well. :

[Rick Cavallaro]

You have to go back and read Andy's statement carefully. He got it exactly right. We're too used to seeing people get it wrong.

[Andy Burns]

I don't think I implied it did, certainly didn't intend to

That was was what I'd understood

What is the transfer mechanism for that energy propelling (bad word perhaps) the vehicle?

[ThinAirDesigns]

@Andy Burns

My apologies Andy -- Rick is correct in saying that I misread your statement. Your statement was accurate.

I'll get to the your 'energy transfer' question in a bit when I have time.

[Rick Cavallaro]

Indeed I have. Thanks for asking. Does this somehow relate to our current conversation?

Thanks for your completely unfounded and baseless opinion.

Agreed. Perhaps you aren't aware that we're not splitting hydrogen and oxygen. This cart is wind powered (dumbass).

[ThinAirDesigns]

@harry

I have.

Can you explain how using the energy harvested from slowing down the wind violates said law?

JB

[ThinAirDesigns]

So, what we have currently in this exchange:

A: I have asserted that usable energy can be obtained from slowing down the wind relative to the ground (this isn't exactly a ground breaking assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against "A" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

B: I have illustrated that regardless of it's speed relative to the wind, given an input torque a propeller can be used to slow down the wind relative to the ground (this isn't exactly a ground breaking assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against "B" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

C: I have provide the simple force and energy calculations to show that the power available from slowing the wind relative to the ground is more than enough to power the mechanism (prop) which is slowing the wind down. (this isn't exactly a ground breaking assertion).

So far, no one has even attempted to present any argument against "C" (other than perhaps something to the effect of 'Oh, no you can't')

So if:

"A" is true (there is usable power in slowing the wind) and "B" is true (a prop can be used to slow the wind) and "C" is true (slowing the wind provides enough energy to turn the prop)

where is the violation of natural law?

Rather than some version of "Oh, no you can't", would one of the critics actually step up and document an actual flaw in "A", "B" or "C"

[dennis]

Well you can hire a wind tunnel with a rolling road built in so that you could actually simulate what is really happening, I guess nobody told them that they didn't need to go to that expense and could have just used a rolling road to do the job.

Why would I need to build something different, that is what the cart does, I don't need to build something else that does.

Your claims are that you can travel down wind at a speed faster than the wind and extract energy from the vehicle to power a prop while at the same time taking energy from the wind you are going faster than. You then quote some total garbage like in that video to justify what you claim. I guess we will just have to disagree until you have a proper convincing explanation.

You can fool some of the people all the time, maybe even yourself. You have convinced yourself that a treadmill duplicates an airflow so anything is possible.

Anyway you remind me of Bart Kahn and he was a fraud I met in the early

80's, he had a number of companies convinced enough to invest cash when I had to evaluate his claim. needless to say he didn't get any cash from us. He also used the same argument that you do "you aren't clever enough to work out why it works". Its more like you haven't put a convincing case even if you can convince a small number of others.

[Rick Cavallaro]

You forgot maybe the most important element - the proof by absolute assertion that we're fools and liars.

[ThinAirDesigns]

We claim no such thing.

There is no energy extracted from the vehicle during acceleration nor during steady state operation.

You might want to get our claims straight before attempting to render judgement.

[Rick Cavallaro]

Why do you think I need a wind tunnel. We can move the air or the road. In our treadmill tests we move the road.

You claim our cart is not able to go downwind faster than the wind steady-state. So you clearly don't understand what our cart does.

You're wrong - plain and simple. Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to say what I claim then QUOTE ME.

Translation: we'll just have to agree to disagree until I come up with a way to convince someone that doesn't know the first thing about physics, and is intent on not learning. Fine - we can agree to disagree.

You're an idiot. Sorry - it had to be said.

I'm sorry that you can't or won't follow even the most basic analysis. Not my problem.