• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged DDWFTTW in a “Real” Wind

Status
Not open for further replies.
Semantics. The airplane isn't being powered by a natural wind.

It is not semantics. You are hanging up on the idea that wind is air moving..... but you are considering it as moving relative to the cart, that is not the wind the cart is powered by. The wind that the cart is powered by is the air's motion relative to the ground.

But, as long as you are looking at it from the cart's perspective, let's stay there. From the cart's perspective at wind speed, the wind is now expressed by the ground's motion. So it get's its power from the ground part of the wind to propel itself through the air part of the wind.

Just like the upwind turbine cart goes faster than the ground that powers it up to ground speed by taking it's power from the air to propel itself against the ground.
 
The debate isn’t about whether propellers work or not. It’s about how the cart continuously receives energy from the wind when the cart is moving at or faster than the wind. I think we all understand the mechanics of how the propeller is spun.


Imagine the wind as a stream of tennis balls, all moving at close to the same speed. (This is in some ways a poor model for actual wind, where the velocity distribution of the component particles is much wider, and only net pressure matters on the macro scale. But it does simplify things. I'll point out, later, where the simplification might cause some trouble.)

What you're saying is, you want to see, from the ground reference frame, forward-moving tennis balls (wind) catching up to and hitting some part of the cart, being slowed down and so providing a push to make it go faster or at least maintain speed.

Except for the part about "catching up" which will need to be refined a bit, this can be done.

So, we start by building a cart with a big tennis racket mounted in the back, face-on to the wind. Put this cart into the tennis-ball current, and it will start moving, as tennis balls hit the racket.

But, when it gets close to wind speed, fewer tennis balls per unit time catch up to the racket and hit it, and when they do the relative speed is very small so they no longer give it much of a push. When the total net force is no longer greater than frictional losses, the cart won't go any faster. If you were to push the cart to wind speed, no tennis balls would hit the racket at all, and if you pushed it faster, tennis balls would start hitting the front of the racket and slowing the cart down.

The way to get around this involves two factors: one, the face of the racket has to be placed at an angle; and two, the racket has to be moving laterally relative to the cart; that is, in a plane perpendicular to the cart's trajectory.

We could rig some kind of mechanical forehand-arm to sweep the tennis racket side to side across the back of the cart while holding it at one angle when going left to right and a symmetrical angle when going right to left. But it's easier to just spin the racket around by the handle (on an axis perpendicular to the handle). If that sounds a bit unbalanced, we can start with a two-headed racket, with a head at each end of the handle, and spin it by the middle of the handle. The axis is perpendicular to the handle, and oriented parallel to the cart's trajectory.

That takes care of the motion, now we must consider the angle. One possible angle (call it zero degrees) is for the racket heads to be flat in the plane that they're spinning in. But that gives us no advantage (or any real difference at all) from the single stationary racket.

Another possibility is for the racket heads to be turned 90 degrees from the previous case. That turns the device into essentially a sideways paddle wheel. That would also be ineffective: it would bat any tennis balls that caught up with the cart (or that the cart caught up with) off in all different directions but it would only ever accelerate them in the plane perpendicular to the cart's trajectory, giving no benefit regardless of the apparent wind speed.

So instead, we twist the two heads of the racket so that each is at an angle in between those two cases, say 30 degrees from the first (flat) case. And we set the direction of spin so that the leading edge is toward the front of the cart.

The spinning racket now resembles a propeller; this is not, obviously, a coincidence.

We drive the propeller from the wheels as in the DWFTTW carts, so that the propeller speed is proportional to the cart's ground speed. The gear ratio has to be "correct" relative to the wheel size, the length of the "handles" of the tennis-racket propeller, and the angle of the racket heads. I won't go into details about what makes the ratio correct -- instead, I'll just say that IF the ratio is in fact correct, the following description of what happens will apply.

Starting out at low speed, we have, as before, tennis balls in our tennis ball current ("wind") hitting the back of the rackets. There are a few differences from before: the rackets are at an angle instead of flat on, and are moving laterally. As a result, when a tennis ball hits a racket, it's going to bounce off at an angle instead of straight back. This will give the cart a little less push than before with the flat racket. But, as long as the ball bounces off the racket with a slower forward component to its velocity, some forward momentum will still be transferred to the cart. So the cart can still be pushed to a faster speed by the tennis ball current.

When we start getting near wind speed, things start to look a lot different than before. When the cart is moving near wind speed, a tennis ball will take a lot of time to catch up to the cart. But when it does, it encounters a racket that is moving fairly quickly laterally, at an angle. As a result, instead of just weakly bouncing off as it would off a flat racket fixed to the cart, the ball will still be deflected energetically. As before it won't be driven straight back but as long as the forward component of its motion relative to the ground is reduced after the "shot", some forward momentum has been transferred to the cart by the collision. In the cart's reference frame, if we were riding the cart, we see the ball slowly approaching the racket, then being driven mostly backward (but off at an angle) at a much faster speed. From the ground reference frame, we would see the same collision as the ball zipping along at "wind" speed, hitting the racket, and being slowed way down while being deflected off to one side or another. That's the "wind" pushing on the cart, even though the cart is already close to wind speed.

But, can this still work at faster than wind speed? At first glance, you might think no, because the tennis balls in the current can no longer "catch up" to the tennis rackets. Instead, the cart and the tennis rackets are catching up to and overtaking tennis balls.

But that's actually not a problem. "Catching up" was never really an issue in the first place, it just seemed that way. What matters is the current, not what any given individual tennis ball in it does. Sure, once the cart is past wind speed, a ball behind the cart can never catch up to it and so will have no effect on it. But the tennis balls the cart catches up to still matter. Because they're still moving forward (relative to the ground), they can still bounce off the back sides of the spinning rackets and propel the cart forward.

Imagine you're riding one of those tennis balls. The cart is behind you moving faster than the "wind" speed (faster than you), then the cart starts passing you. If the rackets were flat or not moving, you could only get hit by them from behind, slowing the cart down. But they're at an angle and moving laterally. So what happens, if you're (un?)lucky, is that the leading edge of one of the rackets cuts in front of you while its trailing edge is still behind you. It then sweeps laterally across your path fast enough that, even though you're going slower than the cart, you collide with the racket before you have a chance to fall behind the trailing edge. As before in the just below wind speed case, your tennis ball is accelerated backward, transferring forward momentum to the cart. (From the ground reference frame, your tennis ball is slowed down in the forward direction, and deflected at some angle.)

This only happens, as I said, with the right combinations of racket angle, racket lateral speed, and relative cart speed. If the racket is too "flat" or not moving laterally (spinning) fast enough, then when the leading edge cuts in front of you you might fall behind the trailing edge before the racket can hit you. If the angle is too great, the ricochet when you do hit might not slow your tennis ball's forward velocity.

Does this help explain it? It amounts to the same thing as the vector diagrams but some people have an easier time visualizing discrete interactive bodies than vectored currents and forces.

One area where the simplified model gets in the way is that if you imagine the tennis-ball cart going exactly at tennis-ball speed, it seems it would "use up" the tennis balls that happened to be traveling with it, and be left in a vacuum! This doesn't happen with actual air, because real wind is a net current in which the individual particles are always moving at all different speeds and directions, so the cart at wind speed cannot run out of air molecules.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Yep, and as was pointed out to you the last time we went through this (only a few pages ago), place a telescoping bar between two sailboats on mirror tacks and sit in the middle -- now you are going DDW with no part of the device going slower than the wind.

As I (and others) said -- sailboats leave lie to your belief.

JB
The claim DDWFTTW implies ONLY directly downwind.

If you claim that two sailboats are travelling directly downwind when they are also moving from side to side as well as downwind then I don‘t accept your definition of directly downwind. Don’t know why joining two boats to a common bar is any different than claiming a single sailboat is going directly downwind even though it’s also moving from side to side.

As the propeller is also essentially moving from side to side when moving in a circle it’s also not going directly downwind so I guess I also don‘t accept the claim that the entire cart is going directly downwind and the question of how the cart can travel directly downwind faster than the wind is moot.

Perhaps I might have to see if I can build a cart that uses something other than a propeller to see if actual DDWFTTW can be achieved.
 
The claim DDWFTTW implies ONLY directly downwind.

Nonsense - there is nothing in our claim whatsoever that implies that all parts of the device must be traveling DDW. The claim is only that the *craft* must be traveling DDW. We say (for ourselves) that the pilot and the CG must both be traveling DDW to meet our claim.

You of course can claim whatever you wish.

JB
 
The claim DDWFTTW implies ONLY directly downwind.

If you claim that two sailboats are travelling directly downwind when they are also moving from side to side as well as downwind then I don‘t accept your definition of directly downwind. Don’t know why joining two boats to a common bar is any different than claiming a single sailboat is going directly downwind even though it’s also moving from side to side.

As the propeller is also essentially moving from side to side when moving in a circle it’s also not going directly downwind so I guess I also don‘t accept the claim that the entire cart is going directly downwind and the question of how the cart can travel directly downwind faster than the wind is moot.

Perhaps I might have to see if I can build a cart that uses something other than a propeller to see if actual DDWFTTW can be achieved.

Far out, by that definition no propeller driven airplanes or boats ever go in a straight line. Good thing I fly gliders, they can go straight as long as I am careful about the way I move my arms.
 
As the propeller is also essentially moving from side to side when moving in a circle it’s also not going directly downwind so I guess I also don‘t accept the claim that the entire cart is going directly downwind.

Not only have we NEVER made the above underlined claim, we constantly explain that the propeller is carving a decidedly helical path through the air.

JB
 
What a load of nonsense. Is this some kind of a joke or attempt at sarcasm? An attempt to imitate Humber?


ETA: Sorry, I guess the jokes on me, after reading again I guess its obvious it was posted as a joke,

"it seems to me that there must be some part of the wind that that is essentially moving faster than wind". LOL

Perhaps you've figured out by now that it was NOT posted as a joke.

JB
 
Tough Sale of DDWFTTW

The claim DDWFTTW implies ONLY directly downwind.

If you claim that two sailboats are travelling directly downwind when they are also moving from side to side as well as downwind then I don‘t accept your definition of directly downwind. Don’t know why joining two boats to a common bar is any different than claiming a single sailboat is going directly downwind even though it’s also moving from side to side.

As the propeller is also essentially moving from side to side when moving in a circle it’s also not going directly downwind so I guess I also don‘t accept the claim that the entire cart is going directly downwind and the question of how the cart can travel directly downwind faster than the wind is moot.

Perhaps I might have to see if I can build a cart that uses something other than a propeller to see if actual DDWFTTW can be achieved.

Ynot, That's a pretty tough definition.

I have to agree with the above posters. If the definition you use were the correct one (one in use), your device would have to be a monolithic device with no moving parts. A NB Balloon fits the bill but it will only go DDW As fast as the wind (contrary to Humber's assertions).

Regards,

WindGrins:D
 
Last edited:
If the definition you use were the correct one, your device would have to be a monolithic device with no moving parts.

I believe meeting his definition it could theoretically still have parts moving exactly parallel to the wind but that's all.

It sure as heck can't have any rotating parts at all -- even wheels or rolling bearings of any kind anywhere.

JB
 
Classic jbt parsing...see above

Neither my example or Michael's stated the sail or prop was pointing directly downwind, but at an angle. So an iceboat on a broad reach is actually going upwind, not down? :boxedin:

@ynot: Good point about the magically attached 2 sailboats tacking. I look forward to seeing the answer to that question.

I am still waiting for someone to explain why I Ratant's cart didn't go as fast as the foam in 4 tries. Of course the one run spork and jbt did their baby BB didn't do it either unless you count the last 3 seconds of the run in a very gusty wind where the streamer was briefly going in the right direction.
 
I am still waiting for someone to explain why I Ratant's cart didn't go as fast as the foam in 4 tries.

There are an infinite number of ways to do it wrong.

Of course the one run spork and jbt did their baby BB didn't do it either unless you count the last 3 seconds of the run in a very gusty wind where the streamer was briefly going in the right direction.

A: we weren't attempting to demonstrate DDWFTTW in that video.

B: Had we been attempting to demonstrate DDWFTTW in that video we would have found a bigger parking lot. The device hit the cushions at the far end of the course just as it got wound up.

C: It's extremely difficult (effectively impossible) to demonstrate DDWFTTW in a convincing manner that close to the ground -- simply too much turbulance. This is why we didn't try to do such.

JB
 
Good point RC

Neither my example or Michael's stated the sail or prop was pointing directly downwind, but at an angle. So an iceboat on a broad reach is actually going upwind, not down? :boxedin:

@ynot: Good point about the magically attached 2 sailboats tacking. I look forward to seeing the answer to that question.

I am still waiting for someone to explain why I Ratant's cart didn't go as fast as the foam in 4 tries. Of course the one run spork and jbt did their baby BB didn't do it either unless you count the last 3 seconds of the run in a very gusty wind where the streamer was briefly going in the right direction.

Actually, RC, you have a good point.

When an ice boat hits max speed, it is definitely on the point of sail called "Close hauled". This means it is sailing upwind from its perspective.

It's not obvious why his cart didn't exceed wind speed. could be too small of a prop or wrong pitch or other factors. It is clear that the carts built to the prescribed specs in the build videos do work so one that doesn't, has no real impact on the assertion. There are lots of ways to build vehicles that go DDW(Slower)TTW.

And not "magically attached" One could simply use a string stretched between the two unrolling off of a slightly tensioned reel to make the scenario actually work.

WindGrins :D
 
Last edited:
Ynot, That's a pretty tough definition.

I have to agree with the above posters. If the definition you use were the correct one (one in use), your device would have to be a monolithic device with no moving parts. A NB Balloon fits the bill but it will only go DDW As fast as the wind (contrary to Humber's assertions).

Regards,

WindGrins:D
When the very part of the cart that causes the rest of the cart to travel DDWFTTW isn’t travelling directly downwind itself then I don’t think it’s “tough” at all.

Whether the part of the cart that doesn’t go directly downwind is a major part of the cart or not is merely a consequence of design and scale. If it were a very small cart with a very large propeller would you still say it was a valid DDWFTTW vehicle? Would a very small cart fixed to a rail going directly downwind being towed by a very large tacking land yacht be acceptable to you as a DDWFTTW vehicle?

I think it may be possible to design and build a cart where everything on the cart is actually going directly downwind. Or at the very least the part that is causing the DDWFTTW travel is going directly downwind. I may have a go at building such a cart.
 
I think it may be possible to design and build a cart where everything on the cart is actually going directly downwind. Or at the very least the part that is causing the DDWFTTW travel is going directly downwind. I may have a go at building such a cart.

Good luck with that.
 
Go for it!

When the very part of the cart that causes the rest of the cart to travel DDWFTTW isn’t travelling directly downwind itself then I don’t think it’s “tough” at all.

Whether the part of the cart that doesn’t go directly downwind is a major part of the cart or not is merely a consequence of design and scale. If it were a very small cart with a very large propeller would you still say it was a valid DDWFTTW vehicle? Would a very small cart fixed to a rail going directly downwind being towed by a very large tacking land yacht be acceptable to you as a DDWFTTW vehicle?

I think it may be possible to design and build a cart where everything on the cart is actually going directly downwind. Or at the very least the part that is causing the DDWFTTW travel is going directly downwind. I may have a go at building such a cart.

I think you should go for it!

I have no problem at all with the following:

The vehicle fits the following criteria:

1. The center of mass of the vehicle at some point is "DDWFTTW".
2. All the moving parts have been brought back to their original positions when 1. is satisfied.
3. No parts have been lost or the mass diminished (like a rocket)
4. No energy storage devices are pre-charged or that aren't depleted when 1. is achieved.
5. The only energy source is the Wind (air moving wrt to some other medium)


For me the dual ice boats and the BB type vehicle fit these requirements. In a much earlier post, Spork proposed a simple prop on a threaded rod going DDWFTTW. I'm cool that this satisfies all the requirements also.

I would be interested in seeing other things that do. There may well be more than several.

Regards,

WindGrins:D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom