agor95 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 11:54 pm
p.s. Imagine the lift force of the moving blade being used to turn the blade thus increasing the lift. [brain farts]
I also had the same brain fart.
Exactly what my "Drop Wing" sim was about many years ago.
Harness the Lift Force to self-propel the falling wing faster and faster via a pull mechanism.
As long as Lift always exceeded Drag (it did) it could self-accelerate itself in still air by turning the aerofoil thru the still air surrounding it.
If you read the website right to the end it's evident that Dr. Minovitch is very pissed off (and rightly so it would appear) that he isn't given the credit due to him.
Judging from the history it seems that he was very junior and, as is often the case, senior people like to take the credit for the work their juniors do. The scientific world is just as unethical in these matters as business or the military.
One of the difficulties his seniors faced of course was it made them look so damn foolish for not having thought of it themselves.
"When Minovitch presented (his theory) to JPL in the form of 47 page technical paper dated August 23, 1961, it was dismissed by the head of JPL’s Trajectory Group as impossible. How could a young graduate student in mathematics and physics who never studied the problem of space propulsion, space travel or astrodynamics before the summer of 1961 ever invent a completely new theory of space travel that could not only be fundamentally different from the classical theory based on reaction propulsion which all of the professionals took for granted as the only possible theory but far surpass it in terms of what it could achieve?"
At least I won't be accused of being young, :o)
I'm probably the oldest member of this forum.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
Fletcher wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:19 am
Harness the Lift Force to self-propel the falling wing faster and faster via a pull mechanism.
As long as Lift always exceeded Drag (it did) it could self-accelerate itself in still air by turning the aerofoil thru the still air surrounding it. so had the same brain fart.
Exactly what my "Drop Wing" sim was about many years ago.
The blade following a helix rotational path on a horizontal axle. Which the blade's rotational lift would cause. That is like a nut moving along a bolt.
Therefore there is no difference to the blade on the vehicle that is moving forward.
So if the vehicle placed on an indoor running rack in a large football ground building would have still air and a circular like track.
With a small amount of energy input like pedalling until the vehicle and blade get into operation.
Would this be perpetual motion?
Where is the energy coming from?
What happens when this is done in water instead of air?
Regards
Last edited by agor95 on Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:59 am, edited 2 times in total.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
johannesbender wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:21 pm
It is not the primary and only source , as shown and proven the source is the thrust and the wind added together , without wind there can still be thrust as the vehicle traverses on the ground while it still moves , that thrust is enough to contribute to the total push on the vehicle as shown by the treadmill where wind is not the primary factor , when the wind is added to this effect ie the wind from behind pushing the vehicle plus the thrust from the vehicle via traversing its wheels across the surface to spin the blades, you get the "source" in total.
That thrust come from the wind. Without the wind there would be no thrust. :o)
Let's be a bit more specific.
The thrust immediately comes from the ground reaction as you correctly recognise.
But without the wind as a catalyst (analogous to the gravitational "wind" in the case of the Bessler Wheel) there would be no motion of the carriage and hence no grand reaction.
I'll be back with a simpler explanation which is easier to understand and with which members are very welcome to enter the history books with the prof. by failing to recognise. :o)
Last edited by Senax on Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
johannesbender wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:21 pm
It is not the primary and only source , as shown and proven the source is the thrust and the wind added together , without wind there can still be thrust as the vehicle traverses on the ground while it still moves , that thrust is enough to contribute to the total push on the vehicle as shown by the treadmill where wind is not the primary factor , when the wind is added to this effect ie the wind from behind pushing the vehicle plus the thrust from the vehicle via traversing its wheels across the surface to spin the blades, you get the "source" in total.
That thrust come from the wind. Without the wind there would be no thrust. :o)
Let's be a bit more specific.
The thrust immediately comes from the ground reaction as you correctly recognise.
But without the wind as a catalyst (analogous to the gravitational "wind" in the case of the Bessler Wheel) there would be no motion of the carriage and hence no grand reaction.
I'll be back with a simpler explanation which is easier to understand and with which you are very welcome to enter the history books with the prof. by failing to recognise. :o)
You need to put that attitude back where it came from.
Senax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:50 am
...
But without the wind as a catalyst (analogous to the gravitational "wind" in the case of the Bessler Wheel)
...
Gravitation wind - really?
If such a thing existed then the wind would have to blow with different speeds for each mass it interaction.
For example rubber, wood & iron spheres all the same size.
When these drop in gravity they move at the same rate.
For gravity wind to do this the force, speed, has to be different for each object.
I think you need another analogy
P.S. You have a greater chance of getting 100 out of 600 throws of a die coming up six.
That is a million to one shot ;)
Last edited by agor95 on Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Senax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:50 am
...
But without the wind as a catalyst (analogous to the gravitational "wind" in the case of the Bessler Wheel)
...
For example rubber, wood & iron spheres all the same size.
When these drop in gravity they move at the same rate.
They do indeed.
And if you think of the structural scale at which the gravitational wind interacts with
materials you will understand why.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
johannesbender wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:11 pm
Cheers people I'm out of here , have no time anymore for shit head remarks.
Oh dear. I'm sorry if I've upset you Johannes. My comment was aimed at members in general,
the collective you, not you in particular. I have edited my post to make this clear.
Indeed if anyone can understand what I will say in relation to the Brachistochrone
you are likely to be him.
Last edited by Senax on Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous.
Senax wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:50 am
...
But without the wind as a catalyst (analogous to the gravitational "wind" in the case of the Bessler Wheel)
...
Gravitation wind - really?
If such a thing existed then the wind would have to blow with different speeds for each mass it interaction.
For example rubber, wood & iron spheres all the same size.
When these drop in gravity they move at the same rate.
For gravity wind to do this the force, speed, has to be different for each object.
I think you need another analogy
P.S. You have a greater chance of getting 100 out of 600 throws of a die coming up six.
That is a million to one shot ;)
I think this is a crap shoot but,
that's why they call it a·nal·o·gy, sir.
you sure put the a·nal in a·nal·o·gy.
johannesbender wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 12:11 pm
Cheers people I'm out of here , have no time anymore for shit head remarks.
Oh dear. I'm sorry if I've upset you Johannes. My comment was aimed at members in general,
the collective you, not you in particular. I have edited my post to make this clear.
Indeed if anyone can understand what I will say in relation to the Brachistochrone
you are likely to be him.
Its fine I apologize for the snapback , here is the point I was trying to make , people referred to it as "faster than the wind" and that is technically correct ,
however it is a silly way to describe it , because from that description people in general would be led to believe it means to say the vehicle is going faster than the total push it receives from the wind only , however that is not the case ,
to have been more clear people should describe it different because it is not the wind in its totality and only force from behind moving at its wind speed , it is the combined forces of the wind plus the thrust , the thrust is not the same speed and total amount of force and direction as the forward moving wind , so we cannot just describe it as "faster than the wind" , it is a misleading description and that is why so many people misunderstood the situation.
Last edited by johannesbender on Thu Jan 12, 2023 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is faster than the wind. The wind is the only thing powering it, or more specifically, the energy difference between the wind and the ground.
The blades are synced to the wheels with gears in such a way as even though they are turning, they appear stationary to the wind no matter how fast the cart is traveling. It is simple leverage.
