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

[electrodacus]

Who talked about "bumping"? Only you.
You just need to disconnect wires with the slower vehicle and connect them to the next one, also slower but in front of you.

What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

What are the wires equivalent on blackbird ?

The blackbird will need to slow down well below wind speed to recharge and be able to exceed wind speed for another few minutes.
There is no other vehicle going below wind speed to collect wind energy so that it can deliver to blackbird.

[electrodacus]

Here is an example of electrical energy transfer through air  https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/lightning:d7
Video was just took a few minutes ago in my backyard.
If I had a fast enough camera I could even say witch was negatively charged the earth or the cloud as the air ionization will have started either from earth or cloud.
You may call this energy transfer through air but it was a plasma wire glowing visibly.

[gnuarm]

Dude!  Reality is only a concept to you, something you are free to wrap around your finger.  You wouldn't know reality if it smacked you in the face.

You know as well as anyone that the sails are in the wind when on the top side and are furled and not in the wind on the bottom side.  The wind, as well as your little balls, get into the sails and push the car along all day long.

LOL  You clearly either have a mental illness, or are just trolling.  I think you are just a troll.  You get off on trying to jerk people... I mean around. 


Who cares.  The sail experiment is very clear and shows how, in very simple terms that pretty much any idiot can understand, that a vehicle can travel faster than the wind.  A person has to be very "special" to not understand the factors involved.  "Special" indeed.

You just fail to understand wind direction relative to vehicle is what is important and that is 5m/s headwind instead of tailwind (5m/s-10m/s)
I guess an "idiot" will think is simple and he understood. As I mentioned before likely I will not be able to help you.

What is relevant is the wind speed relative to the sail that it is impacting.  When the sails are furled, the wind can not interact with them, so they are not part of the equation. 

This is such clear evidence of either trolling, or a mental defect, there is no need to discuss it further.  Either way, you probably need professional help.

[electrodacus]

What is relevant is the wind speed relative to the sail that it is impacting.  When the sails are furled, the wind can not interact with them, so they are not part of the equation. 

This is such clear evidence of either trolling, or a mental defect, there is no need to discuss it further.  Either way, you probably need professional help.

What you have is replaced the axial fan on blackbird with a sort of centrifugal fan.
This fan is fixed to a vehicle traveling at 10m/s relative to ground.

I could say that mental defect is on your part but that will just not help.
If the air particle hits the sail with more energy than the sail hits back the vehicle is powered by wind power. If the sail hits the particle with more energy than air particle hits the sail some stored energy power the vehicle.   If that stored energy is vehicle kinetic energy the vehicle will slow down.

I'm sorry you can not see the difference between air particle hitting the vehicle (sail is part of the vehicle) and vehicle hitting the air particle.
In first case air particle delivers kinetic energy to vehicle while in the second case the vehicle delivers energy to air particle.

[Nominal Animal]

If you have many of them in parallel too, then the velocity of each individual marble is low, but the number of marbles pushed in and out huge.  If you knock one marble in, it takes only a tiny fraction of a second for the outermost marble to ping correspondingly, even though the velocity of any individual marble is very low.  (Consider, in particular, how the length of the marble chain doesn't really affect much how long that takes.)

I don't think that's correct.

It is a horribly crude and not very apt comparison, because marbles (or ball bearings or anything similar) behave very differently than delocalized electrons.
(I was considering an analogy with springs already a bit compressed, but not everyone has played with those. The springs would better represent the interactions between electrons, instead of trying to represent individual electrons.)

I obviously don't have the excellent popularization skills of famous physicists like Feynman; I just decided to try.

The motion in a cat's cradle is propagated via a shockwave, which presumably would be the speed of sound in the material. It just looks instant because the line of marbles is so short.

In conductors, the propagation is via the electromagnetic field interactions, which occur at c.

The reason the current signal is slower is due to those same interactions, causing things like very-shortlived excitation states (femtosecond-attosecond time scales or faster, not even bothered with in simulations).  I think that in the "spring model" those could be modeled with baffles of some suitable material (foam rubber in slight compression?) between springs.  The best analog for a shockwave might be those exitation states, because in a very short pulse they'd progress through the conductor in a similar fashion (at the speed of 2/3c or so).

If you consider a signal in a coaxial cable, those EM fields are mostly in the insulator between the core and the shield.

In a rather real sense, it is important to remember that electrons in conductors like metal atom lattices are not at all localized, but really spread over many lattice points, and they do overlap a bit.  They are also in constant motion, because the atoms they share are in constant motion; the density of that spreading out varies all the time.  Even "balloons" in slight compression might be better analog than marbles, but then one must remember that those "balloons" would be filled with electromagnetic fields, and not air...

To me, it is clear what Feynman is saying here, and it is exactly the reason that I quoted him in the first place.  He is warning us that knowing the name of something and knowing how it is represented and modelled in some mathematical space, is not understanding the reality of it.  Trying to form a visual image of it as something that can flow from place to place will very likely lead one astray.  As has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

Yes; I am in full agreement.  (I have people with significant skills and knowledge in visual arts in my family; me, uh, not so much.  Matisse's was one that bridges art and how I see physics myself, modeling and predicting the universe, but not trying to explain it.)

This is also why I try to make it clear that these (as above) are analogs, that should help one build an intuitive picture of the model we have, but not an exact description that can be used to extrapolate other behaviour and properties from.

How does a wave propagate slower in a stripline than in a microstrip?

Very good (rhetorical) question!  It is also the key to why I consider the entire question (of this thread) unphysical: it is like asking whether it is best to wear a parka or just a swimsuit, without specifying where: Antarctica, or a beach in Hawaii.

It is the geometry of the system that determines where the energy flows.  We measure current as the amount of electrical charge through a surface or into a control volume, but that does not mean that the energy keeping the charge carriers (electrons and ions) moving is charge carrier kinetic energy.  No, it is the electromagnetic field interactions between those charge carriers where the energy is.  We just cannot extract it directly, so we use the flow of the charge carriers, which we can exploit easily.  (Even with antennae, we first convert to charge carrier movement, and then exploit those.  EDIT: Rather like gravity, which we cannot exploit directly, but is easy to indirectly exploit by moving masses up and down.)

(And all that ignores all the weird stuff that happens when the energy starts flowing, a very non-equilibrium state, where we'd really need to apply quantum electrodynamics to understand all that happens.)

Now, if the conductor is a straight line/cylinder/rod, with no other conductors nearby, a direct current will flow in it.  An alternating current will flow mostly near the surface.  Add another hollow cylinder, "ground", around the first one, and now most of the energy is in an EM field between the two, even if you stuff some suitable insulator, dielectric material, between the two.  While we say current flows in even such a coaxial cable, in reality, in any cross section not at the ends of the cable, most of the energy is in the EM field between the two.

The same applies to striplines, which can be considered a 2D wave guide: only the outer hollow cylinder, and a short length of the initial rod to get the EM wave going in the "cavity".  And to microstrips, where instead of having the ground surround the wave guide, you only have it on one side, with the other exposed to air or similar insulator/poor conductor with sufficiently different properties to the waveguide dielectric.

Hell, even on a plain PCB, if you make a very sharp angle, you can leak EM radiation from the bend, if the voltage or current has suitable frequency components!

To be useful, the question should be completely rephrased in terms of observed phenomena, or a very specific circuit or transmission line setup.  The geometry is that important here.  As it is, any argument in any direction can be countered by very slightly modifying the geometry of the system.

[Naej]

Who talked about "bumping"? Only you.
You just need to disconnect wires with the slower vehicle and connect them to the next one, also slower but in front of you.

What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

What are the wires equivalent on blackbird ?

The blackbird will need to slow down well below wind speed to recharge and be able to exceed wind speed for another few minutes.
There is no other vehicle going below wind speed to collect wind energy so that it can deliver to blackbird.

The first example was only designed to make you understand it's possible to transfer kinetic energy from slow to fast objects.
While you insisted that the power was negative, which is true I guess, in a way, but also irrelevant.

Now answer to this. After all, you saw through the lies of everyone about Blackbird, so you should be able to do this simple exercise.
What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

[Naej]

No, it is the electromagnetic field interactions between those charge carriers where the energy is.  We just cannot extract it directly, so we use the flow of the charge carriers, which we can exploit easily.

Or is it in the potential energy of the charge carriers? 

While we say current flows in even such a coaxial cable, in reality, in any cross section not at the ends of the cable, most of the energy is in the EM field between the two.

Are you sure? 
What's the difference between "in reality" and "the energy flows in the copper"?

[Nominal Animal]

No, it is the electromagnetic field interactions between those charge carriers where the energy is.  We just cannot extract it directly, so we use the flow of the charge carriers, which we can exploit easily.

Or is it in the potential energy of the charge carriers?

Potential energy of the charge carriers includes the potential energy in the field interactions, of course.

While we say current flows in even such a coaxial cable, in reality, in any cross section not at the ends of the cable, most of the energy is in the EM field between the two.

Are you sure?

In the coaxial cable I described, yes.  Unless we're talking high enough energies that will destroy the dielectric insulator in between, or if vacuum, cause thermal electrons to be emitted from the surface and thus arcing of some sort, or something like that.

I could be horribly mistaken in my understanding of electrodynamics and matter, too, of course; but I don't think so.

What's the difference between "in reality" and "the energy flows in the copper"?

In that the properties of the dielectric (insulator) and the geometry of the coaxial cable affect the energy transfer capabilities of the coaxial cable more than the core conductor does.

[m k]

It's still path integrals all around or the center of the core can be removed.

[electrodacus]

The first example was only designed to make you understand it's possible to transfer kinetic energy from slow to fast objects.
While you insisted that the power was negative, which is true I guess, in a way, but also irrelevant.

All you have is air molecules Nitrogen and Oxygen mostly traveling in a specific direction at some speed and the vehicle traveling in same direction pushed by the air molecules.
There is no equivalent of the bicycle or electric cable between them.

What people fail to take in to account is the fact that air as any other gas is compressible so you can have more molecules in the same space.
A propeller used as a fan will create a pressure differential around with a higher than atmospheric pressure volume on one side and a lower than atmospheric pressure volume on the opposite side.
To create this pressure differential energy is needed and that is provided by wind as vehicle speed is well below wind speed. As this pressure differential is increased it will get to the point where it will have the majority contribution to vehicle acceleration still vehicle below wind speed and so by the time vehicle gets to wind speed there is still a pressure differential (you can call this artificially created wind) that has limited amount of energy due to limited volumes of air at different pressure.
The "natural" wind is the same and has limited amount of energy to provide but the volumes of air at different pressure are huge in comparison with what propeller managed to create and the "natural" wind is supplied by sun so it is a form of solar power (thus you always have wind somewhere due to unequal heating of earth by the sun).
All that is needed for this not not work is replace air with a non compressible fluid or use solids so that energy can no longer be stored. That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.
Unless as Derek has done you confuse input with output.

[PlainName]

That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.

And yet...

https://youtu.be/yCsgoLc_fzI?t=822

Good lord! That's exactly what it's showing.

[electrodacus]

That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.

And yet...

https://youtu.be/yCsgoLc_fzI?t=822

Good lord! That's exactly what it's showing.

It is not.
Floor is what powers the vehicle and the vehicle travels on the lumber.
As I mentioned confusing input with output.
That is the equivalent of a direct upwind (upfloor) vehicle traveling at about 0.3x the floor speed on the lumber.
Small wheels are the input (generator wheels) and the large wheel is the output (motor wheel).

[PlainName]

a vehicle with wheels only

Yep

(so replace the propeller with a wheel)

Yep

can not demonstrate output speed higher than input

Yep. Input from the force pushing the lumber, vehicle going faster.

Don't care if it's not a FTTW thing or if it wouldn't be practical using air instead of lumber, the fact is it does EXACTLY what you said it couldn't.

Now you're desperately searching for excuses - any excuse - as to why the exact thing you described is not actually the exact thing you described.

But I've given up, don't forget, so I'm not going to argue any more with you. I'm only here to laugh at your continued rail against reality, but this one was just too good to pass up.

[electrodacus]

Yep. Input from the force pushing the lumber, vehicle going faster.

Don't care if it's not a FTTW thing or if it wouldn't be practical using air instead of lumber, the fact is it does EXACTLY what you said it couldn't.

Now you're desperately searching for excuses - any excuse - as to why the exact thing you described is not actually the exact thing you described.

But I've given up, don't forget, so I'm not going to argue any more with you. I'm only here to laugh at your continued rail against reality, but this one was just too good to pass up.

Q: What is the input on that vehicle? 
A: The input is the floor.
Q: Are the small wheels driving the large wheel ?
A: Yes.

If you disagree with the two answers above you do not have the ability to imagine what happens in that setup and probably will need to do the test for yourself.
If you agree and still think that represents a faster than wind direct downwind vehicle instead of a direct upwind slower than wind vehicle then you think there is no such thing as an input and an output and you can use whatever you like.

[cbutlera]

..
All that is needed for this not not work is replace air with a non compressible fluid or use solids so that energy can no longer be stored. That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.
..

That gave me an idea.

How about hydraulic fluid. Is that incompressible enough?

Here is a cutaway diagram of a pipe pig I just thought up.  It is moving in a rectangular pipe with narrow racks down either side.  It has two gear chambers side by side, with their gears on common shafts so that they rotate together.  The pump gear chamber is pretty much a conventional gear type hydraulic pump.  The drive gear chamber is similar, except that it engages with two racks that slide through close fitting slots in the chamber walls.  Both gear chambers are immersed in hydraulic fluid.  The whole device is a close fit in the pipe, so that hydraulic fluid cannot leak past to a significant degree.  The closely meshing involute gears and racks prevent any significant amount of hydraulic fluid from passing through the drive gear chamber.

Whichever direction the  pipe pig moves, it will pump fluid from the front to the rear.  So if there is a steady flow of hydraulic fluid along the pipe, the device will be pushed in the same direction as the the fluid but it will move a little faster, due to the additional fluid being pumped to its rear.

I just throw this in as a contribution, I have no interest in wasting further time responding to any irrational comments on it.  I might respond to a rational comment if I feel so inclined.  I'm sure that ED will claim that either a) It will not move and the pipe will burst, or b) it will move, but the pipe represents the wind, the pig represents the ground and the hydraulic fluid is the vehicle (or some other unjustified permutation).  Whatever the claim is, I don't care.

Here is the Wikipedia page on hydraulic pumps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_pump from which I copied part of my diagram.

Involute gear profile courtesy of Dr. Rainer Hessmer http://www.hessmer.org/blog/2014/01/01/online-involute-spur-gear-builder/

Why am I still here?

[PlainName]

Why am I still here?

Either entertainment or disbelief.

[gnuarm]

What is relevant is the wind speed relative to the sail that it is impacting.  When the sails are furled, the wind can not interact with them, so they are not part of the equation. 

This is such clear evidence of either trolling, or a mental defect, there is no need to discuss it further.  Either way, you probably need professional help.

What you have is replaced the axial fan on blackbird with a sort of centrifugal fan.
This fan is fixed to a vehicle traveling at 10m/s relative to ground.

Not really, but to discuss the actual situation would prove you to be wrong, so you insist on talking about absurdities.

I could say that mental defect is on your part but that will just not help.

No, it would not improve your mental well being at all.

If the air particle hits the sail with more energy than the sail hits back the vehicle is powered by wind power. If the sail hits the particle with more energy than air particle hits the sail some stored energy power the vehicle.   If that stored energy is vehicle kinetic energy the vehicle will slow down.

You ignore Newton's law, for every action, there is a reaction.  There is no x hitting y vs. y hitting x.  But you love to complicate things in ways that make it look like you know what you are talking about.

I'm sorry you can not see the difference between air particle hitting the vehicle (sail is part of the vehicle) and vehicle hitting the air particle.
In first case air particle delivers kinetic energy to vehicle while in the second case the vehicle delivers energy to air particle.

You are the one who insists on talking about the wind interacting with the vehicle, when we can make the vehicle as insignificant as we like, limited only by real materials.  The sails can be made as large as we like so they totally dominate the influence of the wind on the vehicle.  Look at any picture of a sailing ship.  The sails are enormous compared to the vessel.


You can't seem to understand that if the sails are folded up at the rear of the car and moved to the front of the car without interacting with the wind, you don't include them in the power equation. 

But like I've said, I don't think you are this mentally challenged.  You would not be able to construct the elaborate deceptions if you were.  Instead, it is clear that you are just a common, everyday troll. 

[gnuarm]

Why am I still here?

Either entertainment or disbelief.

The right question is, why are any of us here? 

I think we enjoy entertaining the troll.  We hold up little pieces of meat to make him dance, and he does!  Every single time...

[Naej]

The first example was only designed to make you understand it's possible to transfer kinetic energy from slow to fast objects.
While you insisted that the power was negative, which is true I guess, in a way, but also irrelevant.

All you have is air molecules Nitrogen and Oxygen mostly traveling in a specific direction at some speed and the vehicle traveling in same direction pushed by the air molecules.
There is no equivalent of the bicycle or electric cable between them.

What people fail to take in to account is the fact that air as any other gas is compressible so you can have more molecules in the same space.
A propeller used as a fan will create a pressure differential around with a higher than atmospheric pressure volume on one side and a lower than atmospheric pressure volume on the opposite side.
To create this pressure differential energy is needed and that is provided by wind as vehicle speed is well below wind speed. As this pressure differential is increased it will get to the point where it will have the majority contribution to vehicle acceleration still vehicle below wind speed and so by the time vehicle gets to wind speed there is still a pressure differential (you can call this artificially created wind) that has limited amount of energy due to limited volumes of air at different pressure.
The "natural" wind is the same and has limited amount of energy to provide but the volumes of air at different pressure are huge in comparison with what propeller managed to create and the "natural" wind is supplied by sun so it is a form of solar power (thus you always have wind somewhere due to unequal heating of earth by the sun).
All that is needed for this not not work is replace air with a non compressible fluid or use solids so that energy can no longer be stored. That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.
Unless as Derek has done you confuse input with output.

Well I replaced air with solids, and you refuse to tell me if it works or not.
Such a simple mechanics question, and you, who managed to revolutionize aerodynamics and physics in general, cannot answer it.

Also the tip of a wind turbine goes much faster than the wind. While producing electricity, mind you.
I guess the wind turbine too must be confusing input and output, like some sort of bad programmer.

[gnuarm]

..
All that is needed for this not not work is replace air with a non compressible fluid or use solids so that energy can no longer be stored. That is why a vehicle with wheels only (so replace the propeller with a wheel) can not demonstrate output speed higher than input.
..

That gave me an idea.

How about hydraulic fluid. Is that incompressible enough?

Here is a cutaway diagram of a pipe pig I just thought up.  It is moving in a rectangular pipe with narrow racks down either side.  It has two gear chambers side by side, with their gears on common shafts so that they rotate together.  The pump gear chamber is pretty much a conventional gear type hydraulic pump.  The drive gear chamber is similar, except that it engages with two racks that slide through close fitting slots in the chamber walls.  Both gear chambers are immersed in hydraulic fluid.  The whole device is a close fit in the pipe, so that hydraulic fluid cannot leak past to a significant degree.  The closely meshing involute gears and racks prevent any significant amount of hydraulic fluid from passing through the drive gear chamber.

Whichever direction the  pipe pig moves, it will pump fluid from the front to the rear.  So if there is a steady flow of hydraulic fluid along the pipe, the device will be pushed in the same direction as the the fluid but it will move a little faster, due to the additional fluid being pumped to its rear.

I just throw this in as a contribution, I have no interest in wasting further time responding to any irrational comments on it.  I might respond to a rational comment if I feel so inclined.  I'm sure that ED will claim that either a) It will not move and the pipe will burst, or b) it will move, but the pipe represents the wind, the pig represents the ground and the hydraulic fluid is the vehicle (or some other unjustified permutation).  Whatever the claim is, I don't care.

Here is the Wikipedia page on hydraulic pumps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_pump from which I copied part of my diagram.

Involute gear profile courtesy of Dr. Rainer Hessmer http://www.hessmer.org/blog/2014/01/01/online-involute-spur-gear-builder/

Why am I still here?

I like this.  It is not quite as obvious as the sails moving to the rear of the car, but it is iron clad.  Since the fluid is virtually incompressible, the pump will have to move faster than the flow of fluid.

You call it a pig.  Is that your term, or is this a real thing?

[electrodacus]

That gave me an idea.

How about hydraulic fluid. Is that incompressible enough?

Here is a cutaway diagram of a pipe pig I just thought up.  It is moving in a rectangular pipe with narrow racks down either side.  It has two gear chambers side by side, with their gears on common shafts so that they rotate together.  The pump gear chamber is pretty much a conventional gear type hydraulic pump.  The drive gear chamber is similar, except that it engages with two racks that slide through close fitting slots in the chamber walls.  Both gear chambers are immersed in hydraulic fluid.  The whole device is a close fit in the pipe, so that hydraulic fluid cannot leak past to a significant degree.  The closely meshing involute gears and racks prevent any significant amount of hydraulic fluid from passing through the drive gear chamber.

Whichever direction the  pipe pig moves, it will pump fluid from the front to the rear.  So if there is a steady flow of hydraulic fluid along the pipe, the device will be pushed in the same direction as the the fluid but it will move a little faster, due to the additional fluid being pumped to its rear.

I just throw this in as a contribution, I have no interest in wasting further time responding to any irrational comments on it.  I might respond to a rational comment if I feel so inclined.  I'm sure that ED will claim that either a) It will not move and the pipe will burst, or b) it will move, but the pipe represents the wind, the pig represents the ground and the hydraulic fluid is the vehicle (or some other unjustified permutation).  Whatever the claim is, I don't care.


Why am I still here?

Why have you bothered with this more complex design when you have the simple one Derek showed in his video ?
Can you not see how this hydraulic vehicle will work ?
The "vehicle" will move in the opposite direction of the fluid flow. So basically a direct upflow vehicle.
Seems based on your comment you were thinking this contraption will move in the same direction as the fluid flow when that is not the case.

Image from same page you linked. So fluid moves from left to right and vehicle as you have constricted moves in the opposite direction right to left. 

[gnuarm]

That gave me an idea.

How about hydraulic fluid. Is that incompressible enough?

Here is a cutaway diagram of a pipe pig I just thought up.  It is moving in a rectangular pipe with narrow racks down either side.  It has two gear chambers side by side, with their gears on common shafts so that they rotate together.  The pump gear chamber is pretty much a conventional gear type hydraulic pump.  The drive gear chamber is similar, except that it engages with two racks that slide through close fitting slots in the chamber walls.  Both gear chambers are immersed in hydraulic fluid.  The whole device is a close fit in the pipe, so that hydraulic fluid cannot leak past to a significant degree.  The closely meshing involute gears and racks prevent any significant amount of hydraulic fluid from passing through the drive gear chamber.

Whichever direction the  pipe pig moves, it will pump fluid from the front to the rear.  So if there is a steady flow of hydraulic fluid along the pipe, the device will be pushed in the same direction as the the fluid but it will move a little faster, due to the additional fluid being pumped to its rear.

I just throw this in as a contribution, I have no interest in wasting further time responding to any irrational comments on it.  I might respond to a rational comment if I feel so inclined.  I'm sure that ED will claim that either a) It will not move and the pipe will burst, or b) it will move, but the pipe represents the wind, the pig represents the ground and the hydraulic fluid is the vehicle (or some other unjustified permutation).  Whatever the claim is, I don't care.


Why am I still here?

Why have you bothered with this more complex design when you have the simple one Derek showed in his video ?
Can you not see how this hydraulic vehicle will work ?
The "vehicle" will move in the opposite direction of the fluid flow. So basically a direct upflow vehicle.
Seems based on your comment you were thinking this contraption will move in the same direction as the fluid flow when that is not the case.

Image from same page you linked. So fluid moves from left to right and vehicle as you have constricted moves in the opposite direction right to left. 

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe ED really is a stupid as he seems.  He can't even understand that the primary fluid flow must be in the direction of movement of the pump, because that is what makes the pump operate.  Then a small portion of the fluid is pumped backwards which adds to the movement of the pump. 

At some point we have to recognize the extent of the dain bramage ED must have. 

He did say he has a job where he applies technical theory, right?  Something is very, very wrong.

[electrodacus]

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe ED really is a stupid as he seems.  He can't even understand that the primary fluid flow must be in the direction of movement of the pump, because that is what makes the pump operate.  Then a small portion of the fluid is pumped backwards which adds to the movement of the pump. 

At some point we have to recognize the extent of the dain bramage ED must have. 

He did say he has a job where he applies technical theory, right?  Something is very, very wrong.

If fluid flows from left to right the pump will move from right to left.
Look at the drawing cbutlera has made not the one on wikipedia.

[gnuarm]

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe ED really is a stupid as he seems.  He can't even understand that the primary fluid flow must be in the direction of movement of the pump, because that is what makes the pump operate.  Then a small portion of the fluid is pumped backwards which adds to the movement of the pump. 

At some point we have to recognize the extent of the dain bramage ED must have. 

He did say he has a job where he applies technical theory, right?  Something is very, very wrong.

If fluid flows from left to right the pump will move from right to left.
Look at the drawing cbutlera has made not the one on wikipedia.

And as usual, he literally can't understand the principles, so he wants to use a diagram that doesn't even show the movement of the fluid or the pump which is the result of the major movement of the fluid.

He has to be putting us all on.  No one can be that consistently wrong.

Floyd was a guy who worked at a place I did.  I never met him but I heard the stories.  Once, someone was calculating the area of a room, length times width.  He insisted that was wrong, it was length divided by width.  He argument was, "How many quarters in a dollar?  How many quarters in two dollars?  See?" 

His other claim to fame was in front of customers where he said the antennas should be put at the bottom of the hill, rather than at the top because electrons run down hill.  It took a moment, for everyone to eventually laugh... but he was serious. 

He wanted people to call him Tom, but his name was Floyd.  Maybe that's what ED should be called, Floyd.

[electrodacus]

And as usual, he literally can't understand the principles, so he wants to use a diagram that doesn't even show the movement of the fluid or the pump which is the result of the major movement of the fluid.

He has to be putting us all on.  No one can be that consistently wrong.

Floyd was a guy who worked at a place I did.  I never met him but I heard the stories.  Once, someone was calculating the area of a room, length times width.  He insisted that was wrong, it was length divided by width.  He argument was, "How many quarters in a dollar?  How many quarters in two dollars?  See?" 

His other claim to fame was in front of customers where he said the antennas should be put at the bottom of the hill, rather than at the top because electrons run down hill.  It took a moment, for everyone to eventually laugh... but he was serious. 

He wanted people to call him Tom, but his name was Floyd.  Maybe that's what ED should be called, Floyd.

If the fluid flow in the opposite direction of the pump ? Just a simple yes or no will be fine.
If due to dimensions this thing moves in the same direction as the fluid it will not move faster than fluid.