wheel cover turbine

Buteo lineatus

On Dec 22, 8:37�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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.

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Dec 22, 10:54*pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 3:55 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 4:48?pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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

gdewilde@gmail.com

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, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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?

Buteo lineatus

On Dec 23, 2:23�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> 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...

gdewilde@gmail.com

On Dec 24, 12:10 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2:23�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Dec 23, 5:23*pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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...ll-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....91dc72297d6d5e1

> 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

gdewilde@gmail.com

On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> 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

bsr3997@my-deja.com

On Dec 23, 11:33*pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> 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

Buteo lineatus

On Dec 23, 8:33�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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.

datakoll

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 poop poop.
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 poop
we know what poop is already.
all you need is poop poop all you need is poop.
a Q and Q difference.
ahem

Buteo lineatus

On Dec 24, 9:30�am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

Yes, he has been hopefully flapping his jib, hasn't he?

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

Don't tell him how that works, he'll get his spanker tangled with a
passing lorry and be drug upwind.

datakoll

On Dec 24, 1:29Â*pm, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:30�am, datakoll <datak...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What we read here is the "loose cannon" effect, lufffing in a great
> > swell.
>
> Yes, he has been hopefully flapping his jib, hasn't he?
>
> > I always thought many sailboats are fastest just off a broad reach for
> > obvious reasons but what do I know?
>
> Don't tell him how that works, he'll get his spanker tangled with a
> passing lorry and be drug upwind.

well, we certainly don't want him upwind.
this afternoon, a thought (one of four)crossed my mind that the
concoction is a premeditated inverse reality designed to get a small
sectioj of cyberspace jumoing about like beads of water on a hot
griddle.

gdewilde@gmail.com

On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 5:23 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> 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...ll-Sailboat.jpg
>

Yes, I should probably ask if you have objection against this kind of
devices? ^_^ There are at least 4 credible sounding and looking people
who claim to have build working prototypes rolling up the wind. There
are also patents describing the effect. But to be really honest I feel
I should accept that normal sailing close to the wind under is closer
towards sailing up the wind as out of it. Then have hundreds of
millions of examples.

Those last few degrees don't seem like a big deal to me. The
amplification of wind is a well known effect.

But keep in mind: any further drag may decrease speed with a negative
value.

Drag = good

> 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."

Yes the other 70% of the drag is lost.

That doesn't mean it suffers it, it blows though the mill.

> With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> to slowly creep up wind.[..]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.
>

"added drag"? I agree drag goes up but added to what? The drag is
negative. So I think we can agree the drag does negative work.

right?

> I see that Ben C gave the same advice in the "Vortex ram" thread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci....91dc72297d6d5e1
>

Yes good post, but a ram is still far away. :-(

> > 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.
>

how sloppy. :-)

The point is that a negative aerodynamic profile creates more
propulsion if there is more drag. Just like a normal aerodynamic
profile takes away propulsion.

So even when it's not very efficient at low speeds it's output goes up
the faster it goes. As that little percentage of negative drag
accumulates just as much as normal drag does.

> > 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.
>

Say we push a windmill on a kart.

It's rotor spins free, most of it's drag disappears slowly.

We use it's coupling and the demanded force to roll the mill goes up
the moment we start to extract kinetic energy from the propellers.

We use this kinetic energy to move the kart again.

Now the energy is getting pumped in a circle but it's not even going
to be 100% efficient.

In an ideal configuration the end result would roll just as fast with
the prop attached to the gearing as it would spinning free. A few
meters, then it stops.

But we don't have an ideal configuration. We have much much losses in
our conversion processes. We do keep it kinetic so the losses don't
grow to insane levels like turning fire from coal into electricity and
using the electricity to charge your electric car in order to drive
around enormous battery collections. But losses there will be.

It's also not a closed system, the wind is blowing exponentially, it
becomes stronger the faster you travel into it.

The closed loop assembly would have the opposing wind force at it's
disposal at all speeds.

The incoming drag is always 1 wind speed faster as it should be.

The faster we travel the bigger it becomes.

At 0 mph the 5 mph wind doesn't do much useful work.

At 100 mph the 5 mph wind does loads of work.

At least thats what it seems like to me.

Sure you have to overcome the drag but we had agreed on a negative
figure.

> >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

I think the 30% relates to the energy available in the square meters?
If no energy is taken then there is no drag either?

The fact that various working models have been made does not leave
room for contradicting assumptions. Moving up the wind does not remove
or decrease the wind. The increase in drag cant possibly have
negative effects on the prop.

I don't have access to those fancy science journals and I doubt I
could understand much of what goes written there. If some one claim to
have build various boats and have pictures of those then thats the
evidence for me.

It's not proof, but normally I need only one of those claims to go 'n
try figure out what the invention was. One clue is enough for me. But
under this topic there is math, pictures and there are patents. A
paper that mathematically disproves heavier than air flying apparatus
wouldn't mean anything to me. I would say the emperor is neked. lol
The boats and toys worked. End of story.

I think a wheel turbine can consume a large percentage of the frontal
area.

Imagine a spiral of flat spokes, like U shaped rotor blades stacked
all the way around the wheel but with the center missing.

Air from the conical inlet tubes is injected into the center (or just
below it).

The inlet tube may be concaved and textured in order to vortex the air
a bit in the direction the wheel is spinning in. Giving the tubes an
in inwards spiral shape will also increase the speed of the flow (make
more drag)

The air is then collected again in the outer ring of the turbine and
directed to the back of the ride.

The length of the vehicle determines how fast we can vortex the air
before injecting it into the turbine.

It can do so without increasing the frontal surface.

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

Y.Porat

On Dec 21, 10:29*pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> Thank you.
>
> :-)
---------------
the main idea is interesting
yet i am not optimistic as you are :

obviously the cover cannot cover the bottom part of the wheel
2
the wind (air streem) will look for the easiest location to escape
out
the first 'hole' it will find
is not in your 'favourit' location
it will be just at the front- bottom location
and it will press rather backwards !!! ??
so the main point is missed ??

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------