• 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.
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

Great post. I am tempted to think it might be enough on its own to completely answer all questions regarding the ddwfttw cart. I can't see what else there is to explain. But I admit I don't wear a tinfoil hat...
 
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.

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

Regards,

WindGrins:D

Have I not parsed ynot post correctly again? My understanding was that no part can ever move other that parallel to the wind.
 
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.

Could be easy or impossible, depending on your definition of "causing".

The parachute pulling a spool could qualify if you consider the parachute to be what is "causing" the DDWFTTW travel and not the spool.

Of course I would argue that without the spool, there is no DDWFTTW and thus the spool is as much a "cause" as the chute -- but you are free to make up your own definitions and build to suit.

JB
 
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

I think your criteria is being reverse applied to carts you want to be acceptable rather than those that should be.

I think the most important criteria should be . . .

(1) The part of the cart that causes the cart to travel directly downwind should only travel directly downwind at all times.

(2) No other criteria required. (this isn't true and should be ignored - My mistake)


ETA - Would appreciate your answers to these questions (and anyone elses as well)

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?
 
Last edited:
Alrighty then -- your cart can't have wheels. They are one of the key producers of the effect you are looking for. If you doubt that fact, try it without them.


Good luck with that.

JB
Why can't all parts of a wheel travel only directly downwind?
 
WindGrins has loose standards!

Have I not parsed ynot post correctly again? My understanding was that no part can ever move other that parallel to the wind.


I think your understanding of his post was correct. These are just what it would take to satisfy me for a DDWFTTW vehicle.

I clearly have looser moral standards than Ynot!:)

Regards,

WindGrins:D
 
Wind Grins is "loose"

I think your criteria is being reverse applied to carts you want to be acceptable rather than those that should be.

I think the most important criteria should be . . .

(1) The part of the cart that causes the cart to travel directly downwind should only travel directly downwind at all times.

(2) No other criteria required. (this isn't true and should be ignored - My mistake)


ETA - Would appreciate your answers to these questions (and anyone elses as well)

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 have looser standards than you! We all have to decide what fits our definition!

A small cart with a large prop would be fine with me.

A small cart on a fixed rail ... etc, would violate my 1st. criteria unless you had two mutually opposing land yachts or at least threw in one tack and the entire vehicle came back to the same relative position wrt its internal parts.

Regards,

WindGrins:D
 
I still haven’t gotten any feedback on why I Ratant’s cart went slower than the wind. Here’s a link again to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqW6BFCypoA I assume the answer will be he didn’t have it geared properly? And what about the foam popcorn as a way to measure wind speed??

Unlike JB's video, I Ratant did not lose his temper with the cart, and showed all the results, good or bad.
He used some means of demonstrating the speed of the wind. That is why it failed.
 
:jaw-dropp

For the exact same reason all parts of the propeller can't.

JB

All parts of the wheel travel at the speed of the cart. Wheels have both angular and linear motion. How did you manage to make the BB so slow?
Same with a prop. Medieval TAD ideas again.
 
Last edited:
Wheels are iffy!

:jaw-dropp

For the exact same reason all parts of the propeller can't.

JB

Careful here!

The wheel could be have all its parts going downwind but parts of it wouldn't be going as fast as the wind. If it was rolling on the surface, the tangent point would have a zero instantaneous velocity so that is debatable. This is in the spirit of parts moving parallel to the wind but not at windspeed. If we go back to the original assertion of all parts going at windspeed or greater, a wheel rolling on the surface wouldn't qualify. Then again, one would assume from the discussion we didn't start it at windspeed so until it reaches WS, all main parts aren't at WS. One can quickly see how this devolves into semantics and the trivial!

Regards,

WindGrins:D
 
Last edited:
The propeller is spinng at a right angle to the wind.

The wheel(s) only need to turn inline with the wind.

What is it about DDW (or rotating objects) that you don't understand?

Turn any rotating object and the path of any point on it (other than the axis) can no longer be parallel to any straight line.

The point on the prop is going back and forth. The point on the wheel is going up and down. Neither point is going DDW

JB
 
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