Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

[electrodacus]

I told you before, in the wind reference frame the ground has kinetic energy. It's obvious but you thought I were a fool.
In the treadmill model, which is nothing more than blackbird in the wind reference frame, the treadmill is providing the energy (and I'm afraid I want to add: obviously).

Yes and wind turbines too. Some claim they will run for decades and have excess energy to power other things. Crazy right? It must violate the conservation of energy. 

The treadmill model is the equivalent of blackbird after the vehicle is above wind speed.
As soon as you release the vehicle from you hand the treadmill provides no power to vehicle.

Wind turbine is stationary so air particles will hit the blades. If you put the wind turbine on a vehicle and set the vehicle speed so that exactly equals wind speed there will be zero wind energy available to that wind turbine.

[electrodacus]

Equilibrium models cannot properly describe the physical phenomena at hand –– suitable craft going downwind ––, because in the real world, wind speed is not constant, nor does it have a perfectly stable direction.

When you simplify the situation enough so you can apply equilibrium physics, you're essentially discussing how a toy on a rail in a perfect wind tunnel behaves.  I don't think that is useful; it's not what happens in real life.

Consider a wind pattern where you have some base wind speed X, with a roughly sinusoidal component on top (although the exact shape or frequency does not matter, as long as the changes occur in relatively short timeframes, say on the scale of seconds, and they're symmetric, not affecting the average wind speed –– this is more or less quite typical wind behaviour).  For now, let's assume it stays in the same direction.

Instead of a fabric sail, let's imagine you have wanes that act like a one-way valve: when the craft velocity is below wind speed, the wanes catch the wind, and when the craft velocity is above wind speed, the wanes let the wind pass through mostly unhindered.  It won't be perfect, but all we're looking for here is asymmetry.

Even on a fixed straight track in a wind tunnel, that craft will reach a speed that exceeds the average wind speed.  If there were no losses, it would reach the maximum repeated wind speed.  Some, perhaps most of the time, it is exceeding the wind speed, only getting additional power from the gusts, "peaks".
It is quite analogous to the behaviour of charge in a capacitor.

The second thing is the wind direction.  When sailing on sea, you don't get the best efficiency by catching the wind like a parachute: you get best speed by using your sail like the wing of an airplane (very similar flow profile, too).  You can make a pretty good sailboat by making a vertical wing (like the ones on aeroplanes, but vertical) that you can rotate around its vertical axis.  Now, I do not claim to know or understand fluid dynamics (physics sub-field that deals with the flow of liquids and gases) nor sailing, but it should be obvious that wind direction, even small changes from directly downwind, hugely affect the situation.

In particular, even if the craft itself had wheels running in a direct line, it could have a cylindrical arrangement for its "sails", rotating vertically, so that in effect its sails would be jibing even if the craft itself was going straight.

Again, an equilibrium condition examination (where the craft is traveling exactly at wind speed with any such arrangement not rotating) is not useful, because the equilibrium state is a point that only exists in carefully controlled situations, and not in practice.
Plus, pressure differentials in the wind make the fluid dynamics even weirder.

As to the equilibrium scenario discussed ad nauseatum above, I have no opinion, because it is quite uninteresting to me, being overly simplified and unrealistic.

You try to make similar claims as Alex (that university professor in Derks second video).
While all those where valid points it was not able to explain the top speed of the vehicle as it was higher than peak speed during that record test.

Also the much more controlled treadmill vehicle could not be explained that way.

The treadmill vehicle drives against treadmill when released and there is no wind as it is indoor and treadmill speed is fairly constant while the vehicle travels in the opposite direction to treadmill pushed by the earlier created pressure differential.
You can see this as a vehicle with a generator/motor and a capacitor.
While kept with th hand on treadmill the capacitor is charged to some fixed voltage (pressure differential) proportional with the treadmill speed so if you keep the vehicle longer it will not get extra energy stored.


Once you release the capacitor (pressure differential) provides power to motor to accelerate the vehicle forward and cover frictional losses.
The treadmill can not apply a force against the vehicle after you release as if that was the case vehicle will move backwards so in the direction that treadmill is moving as there is nothing to push against (ignoring stored pressure differential).
If your hand was sensitive enough will be able to feel a force in the direction the treadmill moves when you first touch the vehicle to treadmill then that force will at some point be equal with created pressure differential and after that the pressure differential will provide higher force so you will release the vehicle that will be pulled and pushed by that pressure differential created by the propeller.
Of course that pressure differential drops and you can measure how acceleration rate drops fairly fast just not fast enough over the short length of the treadmill to see how it stops accelerating and moves backwards.
But taking a video from the side you will be able to calculate the acceleration rate to say three sections of 30cm and see how acceleration rate decreases as pressure differential drops.
You can add weight to vehicle based on that calculation to show how vehicle stops accelerating before it reaches the end of the treadmill.
That seems the simplest proof but I'm sure people will still deny that energy storage being used up is the reason.

[Naej]

I told you before, in the wind reference frame the ground has kinetic energy. It's obvious but you thought I were a fool.
In the treadmill model, which is nothing more than blackbird in the wind reference frame, the treadmill is providing the energy (and I'm afraid I want to add: obviously).

Yes and wind turbines too. Some claim they will run for decades and have excess energy to power other things. Crazy right? It must violate the conservation of energy. 

The treadmill model is the equivalent of blackbird after the vehicle is above wind speed.
As soon as you release the vehicle from you hand the treadmill provides no power to vehicle.

Wrong.

Wind turbine is stationary so air particles will hit the blades. If you put the wind turbine on a vehicle and set the vehicle speed so that exactly equals wind speed there will be zero wind energy available to that wind turbine.

Yes. Completely and utterly irrelevant. Wind mills provide more power that you put in (0W).

You're trying to disprove what thousands of physicists understand, and what was experimentally proven. Obviously you're just making mistakes. So stop lying to yourself about your understanding of energy and start learning.

[electrodacus]

Yes. Completely and utterly irrelevant. Wind mills provide more power that you put in (0W).

You're trying to disprove what thousands of physicists understand, and what was experimentally proven. Obviously you're just making mistakes. So stop lying to yourself about your understanding of energy and start learning.

If you think treadmill powers the vehicle explain to me how it will do so. It will push against what ?

Why is the fact that a wind turbine traveling at wind speed produces nothing ?  It just shows that there is zero wind power when vehicle speed equals wind speed direct down wind.
If thousands of physicist think that a direct downwind vehicle is powered by wind while above wind speed they should find a different job.

I can consider myself and expert in energy generation and energy storage so I have a very good idea of what energy is.
Your only understanding is based on the results on some incomplete experiments.
The blackbird excuse was that it was running out of road and needed to stop and the treadmill is way to short to see the vehicle slow down fully.
But you can see in any video how the rate of acceleration slows down.

You still did not provided a mathematical proof (nobody did). You showed an equation that was not only wrong but also predicted zero wind power when vehicle speed equals wind speed.
Not to mention that equation was your invention as nobody ever uses that equation for anything.
While the wind power equation I provided is used by basically everybody in a large range of applications.

Want to know how much wind power a sail vehicle has to be able to calculate how fast it accelerates you use that equation.
Want to know how much a wind turbine will produce again the same exact equation.
Want to know the power needed to overcome drag for any vehicle you use the exact same equation.
The range of applications is huge and it includes both versions of blackbird.

All you have is words and you are unable to make any sort of predictions.

[Nominal Animal]

You try to make similar claims as Alex (that university professor in Derks second video).

No, that's just what I know when trying to model physical phenomena.  My own scientific field is molecular dynamics modelling software and their development –– i.e., I'm a toolmaker more than I use those tools to do research ––, and this sort of thing, or oversimplified models and trying to find the correct complexity level where things are still understandable and simulatable, but not so simple that they no longer reflect reality, is a daily encountered problem.

Like I said, I am not interested in the equilibrium case.  To me, it's like investigating automobile fuel consumption by assuming that all roads are straight without intersections and all travel at the posted speed exactly.  In the real life, different types of vehicles' fuel consumption varies very differently due to repeated accelerations and decelerations, which is the reason why fuel mileage is usually reported separately for "city driving" and "long-distance driving": one being constant acceleration and deceleration, the latter with relatively stable speeds.  Those who teach economical driving, always emphasize how big of a beneficial impact keeping to a constant speed makes.

To put it more simply, the case where the vehicle is traveling at exactly the speed of wind is not interesting.

Instead, divide the examination into two:  One, when the vehicle is traveling slower than the speed of wind.  Parametrise the scenario, and especially examine how acceleration changes as the vehicle speed approaches wind speed.  Two, do the same examination, but in the case where the vehicle is already traveling faster than the speed of wind.  Next, using the parameters (coefficients and such) you established, find out if and when the vehicle already traveling faster than the speed of wind can keep a nonnegative acceleration (ie., zero or positive).

The equilibrium case, where the vehicle has exactly the same speed as the wind, has zero acceleration, and has no exploitable energy storage, just doesn't happen in nature: it is an unstable state, and will always fall into one of the above two cases, sooner or later.

If, and only if, it turns out that the vehicle has always nonpositive acceleration when already traveling faster than wind, will that unstable state always fall to the lower speed side, and only then is it impossible for that vehicle to travel directly downwind faster that the wind.  If you can find a mechanism or model and parameters, where the vehicle can keep a nonnegative acceleration while already traveling faster than wind, then that vehicle can keep traveling faster than wind almost indefinitely (barring similar unstable points, possibly an infinite number of them, as the exactly-same-speed-as-wind case).

So, as unintuitive as it might seem, the entire scenario seems to depend on exactly how the vehicle behaves when it is already traveling faster than wind directly downwind.  In my mind, this is well in the realm of fluid dynamics; and indeed if a simple propeller-like arrangement can achieve that, the actual underlying mechanism is almost certainly more interesting than just flywheel-like energy storage.

I wouldn't trust a treadmill (either way!), because the static charge buildup in the belt can cause all kinds of wonky stuff.  Depending on the materials, it can act like a big but not very good Van De Graaff generator, for example.

I'm sure people will still deny that energy storage being used up is the reason.

I'm not making any such claims, for or against.  I am saying you are looking at the issue from the completely wrong angle.

The exact point where the vehicle speed matches wind speed is an unstable point state, which will immediately change.  It is not interesting or useful to examine it, at least not before you have some kind of models that describe the two different situations around that state, depending on the speed.

I'm not saying anyone is cheating, either, but it would be easy to do, even unwittingly.  You might make a very lightweight vehicle, but use heavy natural rubber wheels, which would definitely behave like an energy storage (flywheels, literally).  A model that can describe multiple different such vehicles is the way to go.

Note that since the faster-than-wind-speed case is critical, it is not sufficient to show one model that works that shows it cannot be done; that only proves that that vehicle cannot do it.  Considering sail boats (that can jig faster than wind nearly-downwind), I suspect it is possible, certainly possible enough to do research on, but I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out it would be unfeasible somehow either, say requiring a 1m long but 100m wide vehicle, for example.
Some kind of vertically rotating wane system would be what I'd look into myself, simply based on existing sailing techniques.

[Naej]

Yes. Completely and utterly irrelevant. Wind mills provide more power that you put in (0W).

You're trying to disprove what thousands of physicists understand, and what was experimentally proven. Obviously you're just making mistakes. So stop lying to yourself about your understanding of energy and start learning.

If you think treadmill powers the vehicle explain to me how it will do so. It will push against what ?

Air. Can't you see the propeller?

Why is the fact that a wind turbine traveling at wind speed produces nothing ?  It just shows that there is zero wind power when vehicle speed equals wind speed direct down wind.

No.
See if I burn 1L of gasoline it won't propel anything. It doesn't mean there's no energy in it, it means that the device is inefficient for a conversion to kinetic energy.
And if you replace the turbine by a prop, it works, a proof that 1/2*m*v² continues to work.

If thousands of physicist think that a direct downwind vehicle is powered by wind while above wind speed they should find a different job.

Yeah they don't care about your advice.

I can consider myself and expert in energy generation and energy storage so I have a very good idea of what energy is.
Your only understanding is based on the results on some incomplete experiments.
The blackbird excuse was that it was running out of road and needed to stop and the treadmill is way to short to see the vehicle slow down fully.
But you can see in any video how the rate of acceleration slows down.

Yes the rate of acceleration slows down. Not the speed.

You still did not provided a mathematical proof (nobody did). You showed an equation that was not only wrong but also predicted zero wind power when vehicle speed equals wind speed.
Not to mention that equation was your invention as nobody ever uses that equation for anything.

It is correct, and an approximation as I already explained. Also it is easily derived and you found no problem either with the mass flow or with the kinetic energy part.
I also provided you a mechanical example (since you're confused by hydrodynamics), and you found no problem either.

While the wind power equation I provided is used by basically everybody in a large range of applications.

Want to know how much wind power a sail vehicle has to be able to calculate how fast it accelerates you use that equation.
Want to know how much a wind turbine will produce again the same exact equation.
Want to know the power needed to overcome drag for any vehicle you use the exact same equation.
The range of applications is huge and it includes both versions of blackbird.

All you have is words and you are unable to make any sort of predictions.

As I said what you call your equation is true, however it is in the car reference frame.
And in the car reference frame, ground has kinetic energy, which is obvious but you refuse to admit it.
I can make the following prediction: if you build the blackbird, or the treadmill model (without supercapacitors) you'll be able to go faster than the wind/treadmill.
Also, all physicists who looked at it understand this.
All you have is your wrong conceptions about a very abstract concept called energy, which presumably come from looking at batteries. It's hardly convincing.

[electrodacus]

No, that's just what I know when trying to model physical phenomena.  My own scientific field is molecular dynamics modelling software and their development –– i.e., I'm a toolmaker more than I use those tools to do research ––, and this sort of thing, or oversimplified models and trying to find the correct complexity level where things are still understandable and simulatable, but not so simple that they no longer reflect reality, is a daily encountered problem.

Like I said, I am not interested in the equilibrium case.  To me, it's like investigating automobile fuel consumption by assuming that all roads are straight without intersections and all travel at the posted speed exactly.  In the real life, different types of vehicles' fuel consumption varies very differently due to repeated accelerations and decelerations, which is the reason why fuel mileage is usually reported separately for "city driving" and "long-distance driving": one being constant acceleration and deceleration, the latter with relatively stable speeds.  Those who teach economical driving, always emphasize how big of a beneficial impact keeping to a constant speed makes.

To put it more simply, the case where the vehicle is traveling at exactly the speed of wind is not interesting.

Instead, divide the examination into two:  One, when the vehicle is traveling slower than the speed of wind.  Parametrise the scenario, and especially examine how acceleration changes as the vehicle speed approaches wind speed.  Two, do the same examination, but in the case where the vehicle is already traveling faster than the speed of wind.  Next, using the parameters (coefficients and such) you established, find out if and when the vehicle already traveling faster than the speed of wind can keep a nonnegative acceleration (ie., zero or positive).

The equilibrium case, where the vehicle has exactly the same speed as the wind, has zero acceleration, and has no exploitable energy storage, just doesn't happen in nature: it is an unstable state, and will always fall into one of the above two cases, sooner or later.

If, and only if, it turns out that the vehicle has always nonpositive acceleration when already traveling faster than wind, will that unstable state always fall to the lower speed side, and only then is it impossible for that vehicle to travel directly downwind faster that the wind.  If you can find a mechanism or model and parameters, where the vehicle can keep a nonnegative acceleration while already traveling faster than wind, then that vehicle can keep traveling faster than wind almost indefinitely (barring similar unstable points, possibly an infinite number of them, as the exactly-same-speed-as-wind case).

So, as unintuitive as it might seem, the entire scenario seems to depend on exactly how the vehicle behaves when it is already traveling faster than wind directly downwind.  In my mind, this is well in the realm of fluid dynamics; and indeed if a simple propeller-like arrangement can achieve that, the actual underlying mechanism is almost certainly more interesting than just flywheel-like energy storage.

I wouldn't trust a treadmill (either way!), because the static charge buildup in the belt can cause all kinds of wonky stuff.  Depending on the materials, it can act like a big but not very good Van De Graaff generator, for example.


I'm not making any such claims, for or against.  I am saying you are looking at the issue from the completely wrong angle.

The exact point where the vehicle speed matches wind speed is an unstable point state, which will immediately change.  It is not interesting or useful to examine it, at least not before you have some kind of models that describe the two different situations around that state, depending on the speed.

I'm not saying anyone is cheating, either, but it would be easy to do, even unwittingly.  You might make a very lightweight vehicle, but use heavy natural rubber wheels, which would definitely behave like an energy storage (flywheels, literally).  A model that can describe multiple different such vehicles is the way to go.

Note that since the faster-than-wind-speed case is critical, it is not sufficient to show one model that works that shows it cannot be done; that only proves that that vehicle cannot do it.  Considering sail boats (that can jig faster than wind nearly-downwind), I suspect it is possible, certainly possible enough to do research on, but I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out it would be unfeasible somehow either, say requiring a 1m long but 100m wide vehicle, for example.
Some kind of vertically rotating wane system would be what I'd look into myself, simply based on existing sailing techniques.

The vehicle speed = wind speed is just the ideal case with no friction and can not be demonstrated in real life for any wind powered only vehicle.
To me all is very simple as I work with energy all the time.

Equation for available wind power is independent on the vehicle design other than the equivalent are of the vehicle hit by air particles as that is the only way wind will transfer energy to a vehicle (air particles colliding with vehicle).

P_w = 0.5 * air density * area * (wind speed - vehicle speed)³

The equation is the ideal case so of course friction will not allow any wind powered vehicle to exceed wind speed directly downwind as a few particles will still need to collide with the vehicle body in order to cover the vehicle friction losses thus vehicle speed will be significantly lower that wind speed.

That (wind speed - vehicle speed) is there to show that the wind speed relative to vehicle is what important so for example if vehicle travels perpendicular to wind direction then wind speed relative to vehicle will always be the same no matter the vehicle speed and so vehicle always has access to max amount of wind power as air particles will hit the vehicle from the side.

Of course as soon as you add any sort of energy storage device can be a rechargeable battery or what is actually used in this case pressure differential the vehicle can store energy while below wind speed and use that stored energy to significantly exceed wind speed but only for a limited amount of time until stored energy is used up.

The flywheel effect plays no role in allowing the vehicle to exceed wind speed but it is used to allow spending more time above wind speed as that will cover friction losses when the deceleration phase starts.

Nobody demonstrated faster than wind indefinitely but that is what they claim. The real world is way to messy with the huge variation in wind speed and the much more controlled environment like the treadmill indoors is way to short maybe 1m before the vehicle will fall down.
Still if measurement were made they will see how acceleration rate decreases during that 1m or so it travels on the treadmill showing that it is powered by stored energy.   

[Nominal Animal]

The vehicle speed = wind speed is just the ideal case with no friction and can not be demonstrated in real life for any wind powered only vehicle.
To me all is very simple as I work with energy all the time.

Don't be surprised, then, when the results you get differ from the real world.  A lot of "laws" in physics only apply to equilibrium conditions.  For an example, go compare non-equilibrium thermodynamics to (normal, equilibrium) thermodynamics.

If you used your approach to investigate sailing, you'd conclude that it is impossible to tack upwind, or jig downwind faster than wind speed.

[electrodacus]

Yes the rate of acceleration slows down. Not the speed.

So what happens when the acceleration rate is zero ?  Real vehicle will start to decelerate due to friction losses.

As I said what you call your equation is true, however it is in the car reference frame.
And in the car reference frame, ground has kinetic energy, which is obvious but you refuse to admit it.
I can make the following prediction: if you build the blackbird, or the treadmill model (without supercapacitors) you'll be able to go faster than the wind/treadmill.
Also, all physicists who looked at it understand this.
All you have is your wrong conceptions about a very abstract concept called energy, which presumably come from looking at batteries. It's hardly convincing.

Reference frames do not change the results or conclusions if you are careful when you look from a different reference frame.
If you consider the vehicle stationary and earth moving then yes now the vehicle will have zero kinetic energy and the earth will have the vehicle kinetic energy as they were swapped.

That is not a prediction. You seen that treadmill model moves against treadmill direction but you have no idea why.
I looked at all (at least many) energy storage versions including thermal, chemical, mechanical and electrical.

There are multiple things that you do not understand.

- conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) thus you claim 300% efficiency is not a problem.
- Newton's 3'rd law of motion

This are absolutely essential else I have no chance to convince you that you are wrong. Even if I demonstrate that blackbird slows down below wind speed after stored energy is used up you will find excuses as in your world energy conservation is not real.

[electrodacus]

Don't be surprised, then, when the results you get differ from the real world.  A lot of "laws" in physics only apply to equilibrium conditions.  For an example, go compare non-equilibrium thermodynamics to (normal, equilibrium) thermodynamics.

If you used your approach to investigate sailing, you'd conclude that it is impossible to tack upwind, or jig downwind faster than wind speed.

The results will not differ. Yes the results may be slightly off as you rounded things off or ignored things with small influence but the results are correct within the accuracy with which you made the calculation.
It does not change the fact that equation predicts it is impossible for a vehicle to exceed wind speed directly down wind powered only by wind without energy storage. And this also means when energy storage is use since it is finite the vehicle will slowed down after the stored energy is used up.

In fact I can bet my life (and I love life more than anyone) on this being correct. I never observed that to be incorrect at least for normal speeds not approaching speed of light where equation may need corrections but even then nobody ever proved that conservation of energy is not true.

[SiliconWizard]

The vehicle speed = wind speed is just the ideal case with no friction and can not be demonstrated in real life for any wind powered only vehicle.
To me all is very simple as I work with energy all the time.

Don't be surprised, then, when the results you get differ from the real world.  A lot of "laws" in physics only apply to equilibrium conditions.  For an example, go compare non-equilibrium thermodynamics to (normal, equilibrium) thermodynamics.

If you used your approach to investigate sailing, you'd conclude that it is impossible to tack upwind, or jig downwind faster than wind speed.

What if you cut a double slit right in the middle of the sail, though?

[Nominal Animal]

The vehicle speed = wind speed is just the ideal case with no friction and can not be demonstrated in real life for any wind powered only vehicle.
To me all is very simple as I work with energy all the time.

Don't be surprised, then, when the results you get differ from the real world.  A lot of "laws" in physics only apply to equilibrium conditions.  For an example, go compare non-equilibrium thermodynamics to (normal, equilibrium) thermodynamics.
If you used your approach to investigate sailing, you'd conclude that it is impossible to tack upwind, or jig downwind faster than wind speed.

What if you cut a double slit right in the middle of the sail, though?

Is there a box and a cat involved?  If not, you'd just ruin a nice sail, methinks.

[Naej]

Yes the rate of acceleration slows down. Not the speed.

So what happens when the acceleration rate is zero ?  Real vehicle will start to decelerate due to friction losses.

Yeah one day there won't be wind.

As I said what you call your equation is true, however it is in the car reference frame.
And in the car reference frame, ground has kinetic energy, which is obvious but you refuse to admit it.
I can make the following prediction: if you build the blackbird, or the treadmill model (without supercapacitors) you'll be able to go faster than the wind/treadmill.
Also, all physicists who looked at it understand this.
All you have is your wrong conceptions about a very abstract concept called energy, which presumably come from looking at batteries. It's hardly convincing.

Reference frames do not change the results or conclusions if you are careful when you look from a different reference frame.
If you consider the vehicle stationary and earth moving then yes now the vehicle will have zero kinetic energy and the earth will have the vehicle kinetic energy as they were swapped.

Wrong. The earth will have 1/2*m*v² where v is vehicle speed. As m is much, much larger than the car mass, the earth will have a huuuuuge kinetic energy.
You applied again the conservation of energy, when it absolutely does not apply.

That is not a prediction.

It is.

There are multiple things that you do not understand.

- conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) thus you claim 300% efficiency is not a problem.
- Newton's 3'rd law of motion

No I simply didn't know that what you called "efficiency" can only be called COP. In any case, what matters is that you can reach a COP larger than 1.

This are absolutely essential else I have no chance to convince you that you are wrong. Even if I demonstrate that blackbird slows down below wind speed after stored energy is used up you will find excuses as in your world energy conservation is not real.

In my world, energy conservation is real, however it's based on serious physics so it has nothing to do with what you call "conservation of energy".

Anyway, you yet again showed that you can't even properly handle a different reference frame. Clearly you know exactly nothing in mechanics so just stop talking about mechanics.

[m k]

The vehicle speed = wind speed is just the ideal case with no friction and can not be demonstrated in real life for any wind powered only vehicle.
To me all is very simple as I work with energy all the time.

Don't be surprised, then, when the results you get differ from the real world.  A lot of "laws" in physics only apply to equilibrium conditions.  For an example, go compare non-equilibrium thermodynamics to (normal, equilibrium) thermodynamics.
If you used your approach to investigate sailing, you'd conclude that it is impossible to tack upwind, or jig downwind faster than wind speed.

What if you cut a double slit right in the middle of the sail, though?

Is there a box and a cat involved?  If not, you'd just ruin a nice sail, methinks.

Don't forget that wind blows to all possible directions taking all possible routes.

[TimFox]

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth.
John 3:8.

[electrodacus]

Yeah one day there won't be wind.

I'm talking about minutes at most. The acceleration rate drops fast as there is not that much energy stored in pressure differential.

Wrong. The earth will have 1/2*m*v² where v is vehicle speed. As m is much, much larger than the car mass, the earth will have a huuuuuge kinetic energy.
You applied again the conservation of energy, when it absolutely does not apply.

Conservation of energy always apply.
If there is no air friction so you ignore the air contribution the m in that equation will be the mass of the vehicle assuming the vehicle mass is smaller than earth mass.
So if you have a free rolling vehicle at say 10m/s and vehicle mass in 300kg all the energy you can extract from that (say you want to power a lamp with energy generate at the wheel) will be 0.5 * 300 * 10² = 15000Ws So say it is a 100W lamp and generator at the wheel is 100% efficient the lamp can be powered for 15000Ws / 100W = 150 seconds.
Earth mass has nothing to do with this as earth mass is just so much more massive and likely you used earth to get to that speed anyway so you just take back what you put in.

No I simply didn't know that what you called "efficiency" can only be called COP. In any case, what matters is that you can reach a COP larger than 1.

There is a huge difference between efficiency and COP (they have nothing in common).
If you have one unit of energy say 1kWh you can convert that in to another form of energy but you will not get more than you put in so best case 1kWh
If you move energy from one place to another (pump) like move heat from inside the fridge to outside the fridge then that has nothing to do with energy conversion and thus that is measured as coefficient of performance.

A concrete example.
a) With 1kWh of electrical energy you can heat your house with 100% efficiency by dissipating that electrical energy as heat using a simple heating element.
so you converted one for of energy into another form and efficiency will never be higher than 100%
b) With same 1kWh provided to a heat pump you can heat up your house by pumping heat from outside the house to inside the house.
Say outside is +5C and inside is +20C and say outside volume of air is 10x larger than the volume inside you house (a huge exaggeration) but it is to make a point.
Say you heat the inside of the house from +20C to +25C using that 1kWh to pump heat from outside to inside and say the COP if 3 for heating meaning 3kWh where delivered to the house the 1kWh you used for pumping heat and 2kWh taken from outside.
Now the outside temperature will be only +4.666C
So as you see conservation of energy is valid is just that you moved energy from outside the house to inside (thus the name heat pump).
COP of 3 exist and has nothing to do with 300% efficiency that does not exist.

In my world, energy conservation is real, however it's based on serious physics so it has nothing to do with what you call "conservation of energy".

As shown in the example above your worldview is flawed.

Anyway, you yet again showed that you can't even properly handle a different reference frame. Clearly you know exactly nothing in mechanics so just stop talking about mechanics.

Changing reference will not change the result. Result is the same in all reference frames if you know what changing a reference frame means.
Many people not just you change reference frames without considering the consequences of that and thus come with wrong conclusions. 

[Naej]

Yeah one day there won't be wind.

I'm talking about minutes at most. The acceleration rate drops fast as there is not that much energy stored in pressure differential.

Stop making stuff up.

Wrong. The earth will have 1/2*m*v² where v is vehicle speed. As m is much, much larger than the car mass, the earth will have a huuuuuge kinetic energy.
You applied again the conservation of energy, when it absolutely does not apply.

Conservation of energy always apply.
If there is no air friction so you ignore the air contribution the m in that equation will be the mass of the vehicle assuming the vehicle mass is smaller than earth mass.
So if you have a free rolling vehicle at say 10m/s and vehicle mass in 300kg all the energy you can extract from that (say you want to power a lamp with energy generate at the wheel) will be 0.5 * 300 * 10² = 15000Ws So say it is a 100W lamp and generator at the wheel is 100% efficient the lamp can be powered for 15000Ws / 100W = 150 seconds.
Earth mass has nothing to do with this as earth mass is just so much more massive and likely you used earth to get to that speed anyway so you just take back what you put in.

No in the vehicle reference frame the Earth of mass m has kinetic 1/2*m*v².

Anyway, you yet again showed that you can't even properly handle a different reference frame. Clearly you know exactly nothing in mechanics so just stop talking about mechanics.

Changing reference will not change the result. Result is the same in all reference frames if you know what changing a reference frame means.
Many people not just you change reference frames without considering the consequences of that and thus come with wrong conclusions.

Yes, you just showed it once more that you don't know what happens to energy what you change reference frame.

So as you see conservation of energy is valid is just that you moved energy from outside the house to inside (thus the name heat pump).
COP of 3 exist and has nothing to do with 300% efficiency that does not exist.

I know.
Which is why when you take 100W to the wheels and get from the propeller 300W to the car, you have a COP of 3.
Yet you talked about efficiency, which according to you, is absolutely wrong. And you wrongly assumed that the COP could at most be 1.

[electrodacus]

Yeah one day there won't be wind.

I'm talking about minutes at most. The acceleration rate drops fast as there is not that much energy stored in pressure differential.

Stop making stuff up.

Wrong. The earth will have 1/2*m*v² where v is vehicle speed. As m is much, much larger than the car mass, the earth will have a huuuuuge kinetic energy.
You applied again the conservation of energy, when it absolutely does not apply.

Conservation of energy always apply.
If there is no air friction so you ignore the air contribution the m in that equation will be the mass of the vehicle assuming the vehicle mass is smaller than earth mass.
So if you have a free rolling vehicle at say 10m/s and vehicle mass in 300kg all the energy you can extract from that (say you want to power a lamp with energy generate at the wheel) will be 0.5 * 300 * 10² = 15000Ws So say it is a 100W lamp and generator at the wheel is 100% efficient the lamp can be powered for 15000Ws / 100W = 150 seconds.
Earth mass has nothing to do with this as earth mass is just so much more massive and likely you used earth to get to that speed anyway so you just take back what you put in.

No in the vehicle reference frame the Earth of mass m has kinetic 1/2*m*v².

Anyway, you yet again showed that you can't even properly handle a different reference frame. Clearly you know exactly nothing in mechanics so just stop talking about mechanics.

Changing reference will not change the result. Result is the same in all reference frames if you know what changing a reference frame means.
Many people not just you change reference frames without considering the consequences of that and thus come with wrong conclusions.

Yes, you just showed it once more that you don't know what happens to energy what you change reference frame.

So as you see conservation of energy is valid is just that you moved energy from outside the house to inside (thus the name heat pump).
COP of 3 exist and has nothing to do with 300% efficiency that does not exist.

I know.
Which is why when you take 100W to the wheels and get from the propeller 300W to the car, you have a COP of 3.
Yet you talked about efficiency, which according to you, is absolutely wrong. And you wrongly assumed that the COP could at most be 1.

I have nothing to add. You are beyond hope in my professional opinion.
That is unless you are an adult and still have time to learn how things work in this universe.

[Naej]

I have nothing to add. You are beyond hope in my professional opinion.
That is unless you are an adult and still have time to learn how things work in this universe.

Of course you won't convince me of this weird physics you invented.
A simple change of reference frame and you are already too confused to be able to compute the kinetic energy, clearly you won't teach physics any time soon.
It's time for you to understand that it's not you the only person who managed to reveal the truth about blackbird, but rather that you don't understand energy and should read high school physics textbooks.
The sooner the better.

[electrodacus]

Of course you won't convince me of this weird physics you invented.
A simple change of reference frame and you are already too confused to be able to compute the kinetic energy, clearly you won't teach physics any time soon.
It's time for you to understand that it's not you the only person who managed to reveal the truth about blackbird, but rather that you don't understand energy and should read high school physics textbooks.
The sooner the better.

Everything you responded in the previous post was wrong so there is no place for me to start.
You just live in a fantasy world and get basic physics concepts wrong.
And yes claiming that the 100W input mechanical power taken at the wheel becomes 300W at propeller is pure fantasy with no proof in real world.
And since for some reason you believe Derek's description of how this works you need to come up with this sort of phantasy else the math will not work out.

[Naej]

Everything you responded in the previous post was wrong so there is no place for me to start.
You just live in a fantasy world and get basic physics concepts wrong.
And yes claiming that the 100W input mechanical power taken at the wheel becomes 300W at propeller is pure fantasy with no proof in real world.
And since for some reason you believe Derek's description of how this works you need to come up with this sort of phantasy else the math will not work out.

Funny that you understand a 100W compressor can move 300W heat, but you don't understand that a 100W engine can move 300W in kinetic energy/s.
 

[electrodacus]

Funny that you understand a 100W compressor can move 300W heat, but you don't understand that a 100W engine can move 300W in kinetic energy/s.
 

Air particles can directly transfer kinetic energy to vehicle no "pump needed" but that is the case when vehicle speed is below wind speed.
When vehicle speed is higher than wind speed vehicle will collide with the air particles so the air particle kinetic energy will increase while vehicle kinetic energy will decrease (by a factor of 1:1 in ideal case).

So using the 1.2kg ball analogy when that hits the vehicle it will transfer the kinetic energy to vehicle.
So say ball speed 10m/s and vehicle speed 4m/s both relative to ground.
Say vehicle is 100kg

Vehicle kinetic energy before collision  0.5 * 100 * 4² =800Ws
Ball kinetic energy before collision 0.5 * 1.2 * 10² = 60Ws

Kinetic energy transferred from ball to vehicle
(0.5 * 1.2 * (10-4)² = 21.6Ws

Over a period of 1 second 6 of this balls will collide with the vehicle as relative to vehicle balls move at (10-4)m/s

To check the above against the Wind power equation
P_w = 0.5 * 1.2 * 1 * (10-4)³ = 129.6W
So over one second this will be 129.6Ws and is the same value as (6 * 21.6Ws)
Both way of making the calculation gives the same result.


When vehicle speed equal wind speed there are no collisions so zero wind power thus no acceleration possible (this is a ideal case with no friction).
 

Then when vehicle speed is higher than air speed the vehicle will bump in to air particle or 1.2kg balls spaced 1m apart.
If you go below the ball wait for the ball to be above and hit that with a bat then the energy you put in to the bat to hit the ball can not put in more energy in to accelerating the vehicle than you took at the wheel.

Say why not put that energy you got at the wheel in to the front wheel (a wheel is more efficient than a propeller but maybe you do not agree with that).
You may say but vehicle moves at say 15m/s while air only moves in the same direction at 5m/s
Let say the front wheel is on a different surface a treadmill that moves backwards at 5m/s to simulate the air.
If you take 100W for one second at the back wheels so 100Ws worth of energy you took that from vehicle kinetic energy (you slowed down the vehicle but again not something you agree with).
So 100W at 15m/s means a brake force of 6.66N and if you want to apply 100W to the front wheel that is on a surface moving at 5m/s relative to vehicle you need a force of 20N
You may look at the forces and think that vehicle will accelerate but that will not be correct as the force is applied to a different medium traveling at different speed.

[Naej]

Say why not put that energy you got at the wheel in to the front wheel (a wheel is more efficient than a propeller but maybe you do not agree with that).
You may say but vehicle moves at say 15m/s while air only moves in the same direction at 5m/s
Let say the front wheel is on a different surface a treadmill that moves backwards at 5m/s to simulate the air.
If you take 100W for one second at the back wheels so 100Ws worth of energy you took that from vehicle kinetic energy (you slowed down the vehicle but again not something you agree with).
So 100W at 15m/s means a brake force of 6.66N and if you want to apply 100W to the front wheel that is on a surface moving at 5m/s relative to vehicle you need a force of 20N
You may look at the forces and think that vehicle will accelerate but that will not be correct as the force is applied to a different medium traveling at different speed.

Yes you got it! Brake force of 6.66N, and accelerating force 20N so the vehicle accelerates!
Or do you disagree with Newton's law too?

[electrodacus]

Yes you got it! Brake force of 6.66N, and accelerating force 20N so the vehicle accelerates!
Or do you disagree with Newton's law too?

Not sure you read fully what I wrote.
is 6.66N against the ground with vehicle relative to that drives at 15m/s
and is 20N applied against a surface that moves at just 5m/s relative to vehicle.
So vehicle will not accelerate as there are 100W and same 100W out. Is ideal case so it will maintain the same speed else it will slow down with this conditions.
If it was 6.66N brake against ground and 20N to accelerate against ground then it will accelerate but 20N at 15m/s is 300W and so you need some stored energy to add the missing 200W.

[gnuarm]

I see the lunacy continues.  I get it.  After all, it is a full moon! 

Arrruuuuhhh!