Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to alt.sailing.asa,rec.boats.cruising,uk.rec.sailing
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 15 Oct, 05:33, "John Smith" x@y wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message ... "toad" wrote in message roups.com... On 14 Oct, 16:52, Andy Champ wrote: toad wrote: Care to explain why a windmill which is capable of powering itself forward against it's own drag can only do it with a true wind? How does it know if the wind it is 'feeling' is true or not, it has no concept of true wind which is merely the wind speed and direction at an arbitary stationary point. There will be a level of gearing low enough somewhere, so that the boat can wind itself forward against the winch. Even so, if the true wind is zero you get no excess of power whatever you do. How does the windmill know the wind is not true wind? It has no concept of 'true' wind, it lives exclusively in apparent wind. Assume the windmill direct into wind concept works: You can take your windmill cart, put it on another cart and tow it at 20kts. It sees 20kts and will move forwards along its cart. If you stop the cart and blow 20kts at the windmill cart it will move forwards at exactly the same speed. In other words there is some spare energy left over to drive the cart forwards after the energy required to hold the windmill in equilibrium with the wind is expended. In my example above that spare energy is used to drive the cart forwards but in your example of the windmill on the foredeck that surplus energy can be used to save petrol. Now we both accept that idea is laughable so you have to explain why it's not laughable when the wind blowing is caused by nature. ...but most importantly, why oh why oh why doesn't someone just post the mathmatical proof, the last time this came up I said I'd leave the thread 'till proof turned up and none did. Odd that. http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14182 Reality beats proof. I'm surprised that the fact that this (windmill boat sailing directly upwind) is viable isn't intuitively obvious to more people. Intuitively it does seem obvious. As do all the best perpetual motion machines. It's only when you think about it that the flaws become apparent and you start to look around to look for the figures. ...and there are none. The last time this came up we had a 300 post argument fest and still nobody was able prove it worked. As for reality beats proof. FFS. There was a photo of a perpetual motion machine in the daily mail a few weeks back. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
No Rewrites Required! | ASA | |||
The Physics of Sailing | Cruising | |||
The Physics of Paddling | General | |||
Nordhavn 43 - What you think? | Cruising | |||
Physics Question | General |