Where the insistence of energy storage being involved here stems from, I can only imagine.
Here's the genesis:
* Because of electro's unwillingness to properly consider frames of reference, he believes that it is impossible for a wind-powered vehicle travel directly downwind FTTW (Faster Than The Wind).
* So, he presumes that energy used for this physically demonstrated FTTW speed has been stored as pressure behind the vehicle while it was travelling slower TTW.
* When presented with simple physical or conceptual models that demonstrate analogous behavior he clings to the "energy storage" model, invoking things like "slip-stick hysteresis". (this does exist in some cases, but is irrelevant here).
So it all goes back to the original propeller/wheel vehicle that violates electro's misunderstood laws of physics.
Never been sailing? You can tack into the wind, effectively using wind power to propel you in the direction the wind is coming from.
Never been sailing? You can tack into the wind, effectively using wind power to propel you in the direction the wind is coming from.
And if you're using a hydrofoil, you can do it faster than the wind is blowing at you. Wrong but true. Google America's Cup. On the subject of friction reduction, is anyone using the downward force of gravity g in their equations? Does this thing still work in microgravity?
And my best example of what happens and it is measured in reality was the one about the power needed to overcome drag (same equation) is the same for a vehicle driving at 30m/s with no wind as it is for the same vehicle driving at 10m/s with a 20m/s head wind.
And by extension a vehicle traveling at 0 m/s with a 30 m/s head wind...
So it all goes back to the original propeller/wheel vehicle that violates electro's misunderstood laws of physics.
This reminds me of the simple thought experiment on conservation of momentum and kinetic energy in elastic collisions.
Elastic collisions is what you have between the air particles and the vehicle and that is how kinetic energy is transferred from the air molecules to the vehicle.
The maximum speed a vehicle can attain depends on the losses.
To simplify, the power (energy transferred or converted per unit time) used matches the power lost, when the vehicle travels at its maximum velocity. However, the losses can be made arbitrarily small. (As an example, if you dimple your car's surface like a golfball, you'll reduce aerodynamic drag significantly, and increase fuel efficiency, as demonstrated famously by MythBusters.) So, it is just a question of how to harvest energy from the wind, using a platform traveling downwind at velocities below and above the windspeed. It is just an engineering problem, really, hiding inside a scenario that seems counterintuitive to most people.
[...]
Direct upwind limit is zero.
Both direct downwind faster than wind and direct upwind is possible using energy storage.
For direct downwind as soon as you are above wind speed there is no longer any wind power available so you can drive above that speed only for as long as the stored energy permits.
For direct upwind wind the same is true is just that due to fast cycles of charge and discharge effect is not visible in most cases without slow motion video.
Hope you see that it is impossible for a vehicle even ideal one with no friction losses to drive upwind at any speed as power out can not be higher than power in.
And with this you have completely lost the plot. Direct upwind is possible, has been demonstrated in the real world, and requires no energy storage, no "charge and discharge cycle". You have not learned a thing from these tedious discussions.
Of course direct upwind is possible using energy storage.
The explanation of how it works is wrong nobody is denying the experiments.
And if you average the upwind movement over thousands or millions of cycles, then at the limit it becomes continuous upwind movement, which can last forever, without stopping.
And if you average the upwind movement over thousands or millions of cycles, then at the limit it becomes continuous upwind movement, which can last forever, without stopping.
It is never a continues upwind movement even if it will look like that the same way as a youtube video looks continues to you even if is just 30 or 60 separate frames.
The point is that power that wind pushes against the vehicle even if you capture all of that at 100% efficiency is not enough to advance against wind direction so you need to wait while you charge a small energy storage device then use that stored energy to advance a tiny amount against the wind direction.
You have not learned a thing from these tedious discussions.
And yet, the net motion is still upwind. How can this possibly be happening, given your "stored energy" theory??? (hint: You are wrong.)
You have not learned a thing from these tedious discussions.
Apparently some of us haven't either....
The only way the vehicle is powered by wind is by air particles colliding and providing their kinetic energy to vehicle.
You guys are arguing with either a troll or an idiot, possibly both.
You guys are arguing with either a troll or an idiot, possibly both.
QuoteThe only way the vehicle is powered by wind is by air particles colliding and providing their kinetic energy to vehicle.
Wrong. You'll never get how it works whilst you persist on thinking this.