vortex recumbent
|
|
Thread rating:  |
gdewilde@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 01:13 GMT A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind to rotate a cone we can have it suck an aerodynamic body into this "hole" then squeezing it forwards.
I tried to illustrate it a bit below.
Enjoy.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
JeffWills - 15 Dec 2007 05:47 GMT On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also > have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent You have come up with an interesting theory. Theories require verification in the real world. You should build your vehicle and come to the World Human Powered Speed Challenge next year. Here's what last year looked like: http://www.recumbents.com/home.asp
http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2007/speedchallenge-2007.htm
Jeff
gdewilde@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 08:04 GMT > On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jeff Hello Jeff,
Thanks for the links, I'm trying my best to read up on the Ærodynamic accomplishments.
I don't think my design is advanced enough to build it jet I, just wanted to share the thought.
Maybe some one here can put it to use or help advance the concept. Putting everything under "negative drag" didn't seem to do justice to the topics.
I did update the page with some patents, 3d images of my idea and a sketsup model.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
swormley1@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 06:23 GMT On Dec 14, 7:13 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also > have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent <laughing>
gdewilde@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 07:54 GMT On Dec 15, 7:23 am, sworml...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 14, 7:13 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > <laughing> Laughing is very good for you. If I can make a single person laugh with my creation or even my presence I concider it a success.
:-) Ryan Cousineau - 15 Dec 2007 18:34 GMT In article <66208ddd-ecb3-4c57-b04a-80e11eb37a13@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> On Dec 15, 7:23 am, sworml...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 14, 7:13 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > :-) Gaby, you may consider yourself a great success.
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
gdewilde@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 21:56 GMT > "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Laughing is very good for you. If I can make a single person laugh > > with my creation or even my presence I concider it a success. > > Gaby, you may consider yourself a great success. here, I write all this specially for you :-) http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6845
Ryan Cousineau - 16 Dec 2007 03:12 GMT In article <5224c6f0-79d2-44f6-9420-4c062f6406f6@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Laughing is very good for you. If I can make a single person laugh [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > here, I write all this specially for you :-) > <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-ooVnzrU3eqXHKSdB2TQ.j3cMn.tCeQ--?cq=1&p=6845> Okay, it's stopped being funny now.
But seriously, your theory is easily proven using very straightforward tests. The people here who suggested that, if you were as confident of your theory as you seem, you should build it and take it to Battle Mountain next year, were being cynical but entirely sincere.
Here's the deal: Most of the people here would like for you to succeed. Aside from any other considerations, a free energy device would be a massive benefit to society, and I'd like to have a bike that never needed pedalling.
However, we're really skeptical, because your theory is, as far as any of us can tell, nonsense. It violates a fair number of currently understood principles in physics, and it hits a few of the standard crazy-invention test benchmarks:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what- is-crackpot-science/
(I found that post looking for commentary referring to the Jeremy Bernstein essay, as I have his book).
But returning to my previous point, it's easily tested: you just need to build your device. No discussion of theory is necessary with us: I assure you that almost everyone here will be most impressed if you build and demonstrate this device.
We admit, we'll be probing for certain ways in which such tests are commonly gamed, but in this case, there's even an absolutely perfect testing bed, one which has essentially no connection with any of us skeptics, and yet which we would consider completely neutral and unlikely to be fooled.
I speak, of course, of the Battle Mountain speed trials put on by the IHPVA. The rules are simple: if your vehicle is safe and human-powered (no stored energy allowed, and record runs only count if done in low wind), you can do a run.
If you win (heck, if you even come close to a top time), we'll be VERY impressed. No joke. It will be like last year, when Jonathan Page, a cyclocross racer previously assumed to be a bit of a wannabe, went and won Silver at the Worlds. I shut up right then and there about his lack of talent, because that's hard to debate.
So please, work hard, think hard, and go build your bike. We can't wait to hear about the test results.
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
carlfogel@comcast.net - 16 Dec 2007 04:31 GMT [snip]
>http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/p-z-myers-sued-for-libel-what-is-crac kpot-science/ Dear Ryan,
That somewhat convoluted page led to this nice clear one:
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
Which in turn led me to look for "Voodoo Science" by Park, but my library spends most of its money on forgettable movies and children's coloring books, so I went to:
www.bookfinder.com
And scarfed up the cheapest used copy of "Voodoo Science" by Park for less than five bucks, including shipping.
Thanks for the hint about what should be a nice stocking-stuffer.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau - 16 Dec 2007 09:15 GMT > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And scarfed up the cheapest used copy of "Voodoo Science" by Park for > less than five bucks, including shipping. If I have an objection to Park's essay, it's that it focuses on the typological characteristics of crank-work, rather than the essential characteristics that make them crank-work. In that way, I think Bernstein's essay did better.
http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=DeqIYCSxFceX47xlWpS4EkQo vCU_0980153148_1:1:122
The entire book is some lovely science writing.
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
carlfogel@comcast.net - 16 Dec 2007 18:22 GMT >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >The entire book is some lovely science writing. Dear Ryan,
Sorry, but www.bookfinder.com searches expire after an hour. That's why I never include them.
Which of the prolific Jeremy Bernstein's books did you have in mind?
In any case, Park and Bernstein are both starting from Langmuir's comments:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~ken/Langmuir/langB.htm#Characteristic%20Symptoms
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Ryan Cousineau - 16 Dec 2007 19:38 GMT > >> [snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Sorry, but www.bookfinder.com searches expire after an hour. That's > why I never include them. D'oh!
> Which of the prolific Jeremy Bernstein's books did you have in mind? "Cranks, Quarks, and the Cosmos."
<http://www.amazon.com/Cranks-Quarks-Cosmos-Jeremy-Bernstein/dp/046501449 6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197831759&sr=8-2>
I believe it's a collection of his New Yorker columns.
> In any case, Park and Bernstein are both starting from Langmuir's > comments: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Carl Fogel Hm. I may be mis-remembering Bernstein's arguments, and since my copy is now blocked into a shelf behind the Christmas tree*, I am unwilling to properly confirm the facts. But I remember his essay putting considerable weight on the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annus mirabilis" papers, namely the coherence of their relationship to previous science, and their specific, testable predictions.
I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill. It also seems that Park's essay and Bernstein's were aimed at different types of crankery. Bernstein, as I remember it, wanted to define the basics of "good science", while Park's essay seemed more to act as a quick checklist for outright crackpottery. (If you need a distinction, I would say that N-rays, being properly reported in the normal way, were purely "bad science," while Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion fiasco may have crossed the line into crackpottery owing to the way they announced the results.
Einstein's first papers, by contrast, were wild, from a complete outsider, but submitted in the usual way, and most importantly, they made sense on the face and offered several ways to test the theories.
Now I'd have to think of a counterexample of an important scientific result that did not pass through the usual channels.
*I suppose it's a damning indictment of my bibliophilia that the Christmas tree is permitted to block access to about half of the household books.
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
gdewilde@gmail.com - 17 Dec 2007 07:27 GMT "the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annusmirabilismirabilis" papers"
.ca> wrote:
> HoCousineau're really skeptical, talk for yourself
> because your theory is, as far as any of us can tell, nonsense. If you claim to be able to tell something. Then why are you not telling?
Why are you telling me about things you could be telling me?
> It violates a fair number of currently > understood principles in physics, You name the specific principal you are talking about here.
Until you actually name the thing you are talking nonsense.
>and it hits a few of the standard > crazy-invention test benchmarks: You hit the dumb sh.t, with shallow mind and dull personality benchmark right here.
You have not addressed the original topic at all. All you did was pull nonsense from your a.s and discuss the book of some f.cking moron government puppet.
And you think I should be building things for you? Just to make a point you say?
PFFFF Hilarious!
No little boy, all I PFFFFd to show you I have shown to you.
Your response was donkey crap. Just another jackass fly on the wall.
You only had crap to talk.
I know I'm a little harsh for such gentle person like yourself. But you chose sides with fascist science. To heroically slandering people as crackpots is one kind of fascism. But to call it science is quite a different kind. So you should drown in your own sh.t just like the rest. You don't get any special treatment.
Could you be bothered to address the topic you are posting in? Then I don't have to read your mindless drivel. And that would prevent me from having to tell you what dumb sh.t you are.
Thank you Mister Crackpot.
nice :-)
____ http://blog.360.yahoo.com/factuurexpress
Ryan Cousineau - 17 Dec 2007 08:30 GMT In article <4fc8ab08-b133-47fe-bd0b-18e509ac726b@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annusmirabilismirabilis" > papers" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You name the specific principal you are talking about here. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
> Until you actually name the thing you are talking nonsense. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > nice :-) Oh, I so shouldn't encourage you, but I'd just like to to be known that "Mister Crackpot" is a form of address I will gladly answer to in rec.bicycles.tech, and "on the side of fascist science" is, well, it's just great!
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
Ryan Cousineau - 17 Dec 2007 08:36 GMT In article <4fc8ab08-b133-47fe-bd0b-18e509ac726b@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "the specific "good science" of Einstein's "annusmirabilismirabilis" > papers" [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > nice :-) Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, but I really think you should get this t-shirt:
http://www.offworlddesigns.com/ps-291-8-fools-i-will-destroy-you.aspx
You might relate to the comic series it comes from, too:
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20021104
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
gdewilde@gmail.com - 17 Dec 2007 18:58 GMT > Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, No I think you still have some time to create a decent response. This wasn't it tho.
I'm refuting your crackpot claim by insulting you. Insults are good science. You said so yourself.
You didn't like it to be called a fascistic scientist?
Why not Ryan you little Nazi?
But your condescending behaviour really qualifies as such.
definition of crackpot: A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy, eccentric, lunatic. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a- ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/ foolish.
I think you got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confused with the Nazi law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.
Here lets refresh that bookworm memory of yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_Diseased_Off spring#Operation_of_the_law (1) Any person suffering from a hereditary disease may be rendered incapable of procreation by means of a surgical operation (sterilization), if the experience of medical science shows that it is highly probable that his descendants would suffer from some serious physical or mental hereditary defect. (2) For the purposes of this law, any person will be considered as hereditarily diseased who is suffering from any one of the following diseases:-
(1) Congenital Mental Deficiency, (2) Schizophrenia, (3) Manic-Depressive Insanity, (4) Hereditary Epilepsy, (5) Hereditary Chorea (Huntington's), (6) Hereditary Blindness, (7) Hereditary Deafness, (8) Any severe hereditary deformity.
(3) Any person suffering from severe alcoholism may be also rendered incapable of procreation.
Lets give you the hard facts:
The moment you revert back to your pre-teen skool bully personality you have closed the door on your source of information. You can either laugh at people and call them crackpots OR you can ask them for information.
You will never get both.
By picking the first you silence the source of information. By behaving in such a way you have eliminated factors that could have led you to the actual data. Your scientific method now evidently eliminates it's own data before review.
Your type of scientists always do that. It's more the rule as the exception. Must accept public slander if you want to share something.
GOOD SCIENCE!!!!
I'm just expanding the elimination drill to include your nonsense.
I'm not going to die because you are such ignorant bitch.
People are dieing SO no mercy for your lies.
Vehicles can be powered by wind.
Get used to it.
Oxygen deficiency cause most illness, disease. Without vital earth element, human life, health would end.
Oxygen deficiency medical symptoms include: stomach acid, bacterial, viral, parasitic infection, bronchial, chronic hostility, circulation problems. Also depression, dizziness, fatigue, irrational behavior, irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and infections, memory loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor digestion, tumors, deposit buildups.
Ninety percent of our energy is created by oxygen. Our eliminative processes consume larger amounts of oxygen to rid human bodies of waste and toxins.
Scientists were stunned to discover that atmospheric oxygen level in ancient times measured twice as high as that of today: We are being more and more deprived of precious oxygen in the modern environment, and it is causing serious health problems as numerous studies and research on Oxygen Deficiency have proved.
Medical symptoms of oxygen deficiency include: acid stomach, bacterial, viral and parasitic infections, bronchial problems, chronic hostility, circulation problems, depression, dizziness, fatigue, irrational behavior, irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and infections, memory loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor digestion, tumors and deposit buildups.
These medical symptoms often begin with the vague feeling of uneasiness. They progress over time, to full-blown illness and disease. As stated in The Townsend Letter for Doctors: Cells undergoing partial oxygen starvation send out tiny panic signals which are collectively felt as the continuous vague sensation of uneasiness, dread or disaster. This low level generalized warning tends to get turned out as mere background noise by the individual experiencing it. Or, it is attributed to other sources of uneasiness.
Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of our bodies cells by an anaerobic (oxygen- deficient) cell respiration. Dr. Otto Warburg. Two-time Nobel Laureate Winner of the Nobel Prize For Cancer Research. etc etc etc http://www.appliedozone.com/oxygen_deficiency_disease.html
Some guy mentioned he measured it for school in 1960. 30% it was.
So how is Ryan going to power his car when he doesn't have any oxygen FOR HIS CAR!! Is this where the concentration camps come into the picture?
Or will you just roll over and die with a sad face?
All this group can do is make stupid remarks?
You are like a farm with donkeys?
It's not scientific enough for you?
"The biggest mass extinction in Earth history some 251 million years ago was preceded by elevated extinction rates before the main event and was followed by a delayed recovery that lasted for millions of years. New research by two University of Washington scientists suggests that a sharp decline in atmospheric oxygen levels was likely a major reason for both the elevated extinction rates and the very slow recovery." http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=9592
But you don't have to worry.
Those in power didn't get there though nihilism and ignorance.
They are very realistic about global oxygen depletion.
The filthy rich will assassinate all of us in time. They might have to move into their subterranean bunkers while designer diseases do all the hard work. But they have room for millions of executives, there are even subterranean shopping centers and office complexes.
Why do you think the world is changing into a totalitarian control state?
It's about time the donkey farm woke up.
There might be more to life as entertainment between slavery.
This is a fun article on how Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Now isn't that good entertainment?
You feel uber already?
:-) A Muzi - 17 Dec 2007 20:22 GMT >> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, -snip-
> Nazi -snip-
OK, move along, nothing to see here.
 Signature Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971
gdewilde@gmail.com - 17 Dec 2007 20:23 GMT On Dec 17, 7:58 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 9:36 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > > :-) Ryan Cousineau - 18 Dec 2007 01:52 GMT In article <e71e52ee-3281-4aa7-ad3b-dd16155335d3@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
I was having a pretty grumpy day until I sat down on my couch to eat some chicken soup and absorb some Usenet.
I'd just like to thank you for the following, which put a smile on my face and reminded me how much fun adding a little surrealism to life could be.
Your insanity is charming and has brought some much-desired cheer to my day
[it is at this point a smarter, kinder RjC would leave off...]
And I want you to know that when we get the New World Order fully operational, I'll put in a good word for you so that you get left on the "DO NOT STERILIZE" list, and I'll do my best to see that you get light duties in the oxygen mines.
Share & Enjoy,
> > Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, > [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > > :-)
 Signature Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
gdewilde@gmail.com - 18 Dec 2007 19:21 GMT > I was having a pretty grumpy day until I sat down on my couch to eat > some chicken soup and absorb some Usenet. Tell me,
What kind of life did your chicken have before you ate it? Was it a healthy happy chicken? You have any rational arguments for you and me to treat those chickens this way? Should a chicken not be something that makes you happy when you see one? Why would we put them in torture chambers? Because it costs less coupons like this? Treating them in some normal way would require faces of George Washington printed on trees?
Those Asian sweatshop workers are not allowed to say anything bad about their company. Iike having a 36 hour shift then 2 hours off then 8 hour shift then 8 hours "freedom" and starting from the beginning again. They are not allowed to say all this bad things about the company to our western production control squads. It makes perfect sense to them.
We are the high class slaves of our fascist dictators. Every kind of "something for nothing" has been replaced with slavery. Suggesting elsewise makes the person a crackpot.
It's crackpot this, crackpot that... truthy?, conspiracytheorist?, extreamist, moving on to terrorists.... Al kaydah! jajajajaja
I want to talk about my vortex recumbent idea here. With your offending sh.t waxed onto the topic this becomes increasingly less likely to happen.
As-if that little tuf tuf of yours could push my train of thought to the scrapyard.
Let me put a swastika sticker on it for you.
ROFL!
We need bicycles to outperform cars in (real world) traffic.
Cars become increasingly less interesting by the second already.
Adding a windmill to a bicycle allows us to move the windmill up the wind.
An awfully interesting situation arises that I've rather poorly jet elaborately accomplished to document here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag gabydewilde - negative drag
Creating a vortex and surfing the apparent wind in it's concave from both sides should make the wind propelled bicycle drop down the wind like a stone.
If the vortex can be engineered to be beneficial the windmill propelled bike can make it's own wind.
Rather then try to pull the whole object forwards by it's tires we create a vacuum at the front and pressure at the backside.
The thought is worth being entertained.
I'm not likely to be it's ideal entertainer.
But to use the body of the vehicle to create pressure at the front and vacuum at the rear (as in conventional methods) is obviously going to backfire at the source of the energy.
You keep having to overcome the very energy you just put into the system.
Accelerating into the wind increases the pressure and so does the potential energy to be extracted. Sure just the drag converted into propulsion is incapable of overcoming it's own drag.
Each unit of air we pump though the prop contains one unit of wind.
A body on a recumbent dramatically decreases the drag. The wheels have good grip on the ground. The thing stands like a house.
Imagine cycling up the wind on a normal bike.
At 25 mhp the wind is enormous.
FEEL how much stronger the wind becomes when you accelerate into it.
Like a wize Chinese translator ones said " dont think FEEL. " ( 李小龍 ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1c05bh6URc
Now think how much wind there is when you move down the wind with the speed of the wind.
You are going 30 up the wind but you are getting drag as if it was 40.
you are going 40 up the wind but the drag is as if it was 50.
So if you have very bad gearing you will have to go really fast to make it accelerate perpetually. (lol)
I do think a maximum speed is kind of desirable.
A bicycle should mainly use human power, but this power is used to displace air so we cant escape from building some kind of land sailing apparatus.
Thus therefore and so~on we need wheels at the other end of the contraption.
Can the byproduct of our rotary apparatus be used to enhance the aerodynamic profile?
Perhaps it can even create additional propulsion?
You are here to create an exact and accurate description on how to build the device so that others skilled in the art to which it appertains may be enabled to construct and deploy the same.
Eventually even the chicken and the nihilists will benefit. :-)
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent gabydewilde - vortex recumbent
datakoll - 19 Dec 2007 04:25 GMT sailboat's move with hi pressure on one side and low on the other. If drag is added to the low pressure, the low pressure gains pressure and the boat slows. there's no way to get that back. there is a water pumping system generally similar to what you're working over.
gdewilde@gmail.com - 19 Dec 2007 05:45 GMT > drag is added to the low pressure. Learn the lesson you noob.
That what you call the low pressure area is behind the rotor.
Drag is coming from the front.
Your suggestions are those of an imbecile.
Are you always this slow?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent gabydewilde - vortex recumbent
gdewilde@gmail.com - 19 Dec 2007 05:47 GMT We need bicycles to outperform cars in (real world) traffic.
Cars become increasingly less interesting by the second already.
Adding a windmill to a bicycle allows us to move the windmill up the wind.
An awfully interesting situation arises that I've rather poorly jet elaborately accomplished to document here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag gabydewilde - negative drag
Creating a vortex and surfing the apparent wind in it's concave from both sides should make the wind propelled bicycle drop down the wind like a stone.
If the vortex can be engineered to be beneficial the windmill propelled bike can make it's own wind.
Rather then try to pull the whole object forwards by it's tires we create a vacuum at the front and pressure at the backside.
The thought is worth being entertained.
I'm not likely to be it's ideal entertainer.
But to use the body of the vehicle to create pressure at the front and vacuum at the rear (as in conventional methods) is obviously going to backfire at the source of the energy.
You keep having to overcome the very energy you just put into the system.
Accelerating into the wind increases the pressure and so does the potential energy to be extracted. Sure just the drag converted into propulsion is incapable of overcoming it's own drag.
Each unit of air we pump though the prop contains one unit of wind.
A body on a recumbent dramatically decreases the drag. The wheels have good grip on the ground. The thing stands like a house.
Imagine cycling up the wind on a normal bike.
At 25 mhp the wind is enormous.
FEEL how much stronger the wind becomes when you accelerate into it.
Like a wize Chinese translator ones said " dont think FEEL. " ( 李小龍 ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1c05bh6URc
Now think how much wind there is when you move down the wind with the speed of the wind.
You are going 30 up the wind but you are getting drag as if it was 40.
you are going 40 up the wind but the drag is as if it was 50.
So if you have very bad gearing you will have to go really fast to make it accelerate perpetually. (lol)
I do think a maximum speed is kind of desirable.
A bicycle should mainly use human power, but this power is used to displace air so we cant escape from building some kind of land sailing apparatus.
Thus therefore and so~on we need wheels at the other end of the contraption.
Can the byproduct of our rotary apparatus be used to enhance the aerodynamic profile?
Perhaps it can even create additional propulsion?
You are here to create an exact and accurate description on how to build the device so that others skilled in the art to which it appertains may be enabled to construct and deploy the same.
Eventually even the nihilists will benefit. :-)
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent gabydewilde - vortex recumbent
datakoll - 19 Dec 2007 14:37 GMT GNAW! DRAG DOESN'T COMMIT TO THE AREA EXPOSED TO FORWARD MOTION. drag happens anywhere, ask Toyota and Langley, the drag experts.
negative pressure areas on an airplane wing are physically free of drag? like you can distribute bumps over an eddy and not caws drag?
The negative pressure area on a saulboat does not ove forward?
NANO TECH? let's say nano waterwheels ARE the surface of an LSR bicycle body. how much power, let the generating equipment run at zero kelvin, what level power does the body generate, how much more does the body weigh, and how does this balance the 1/50 horsepower generated?
AS FOR WHO I AM? I am a very well known amateur scientist, tops in my field, and one of the characters (amung others) in Atlas Shrugged as a consequence of synchronicity, commenting on your material from mutual interests in energy generation.
AND YOU ARE NOT!
that being said: happy trails!
Michael Press - 20 Dec 2007 01:51 GMT In article <5e7d8ae2-cc64-4b2c-aba3-e0a104e654c8@o42g2000hsc.googl egroups.com>,
> > I was having a pretty grumpy day until I sat down on my couch to eat > > some chicken soup and absorb some Usenet. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > ROFL! I am absolutely convinced that you are not a crackpot.
 Signature Michael Press
Michael Press - 19 Dec 2007 22:39 GMT In article <rcousine-437702.11383816122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvo x.net]>,
> Einstein's first papers, by contrast, were wild, from a complete > outsider, but submitted in the usual way, and most importantly, they > made sense on the face and offered several ways to test the theories. You can download an English translation of Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. <http://dbserv.ihep.su/~elan/src/einstein05b/eng.pdf> On the Electrodyamics of Moving Bodies.
As you say it is pure mainstream physics. Well worth reading. Some of it is only accessible with a year of classical electrodynamics.
 Signature Michael Press
Jay Beattie - 20 Dec 2007 02:08 GMT > In article > <rcousine-437702.11383816122007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvo [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well worth reading. Some of it is only > accessible with a year of classical electrodynamics. I have a classic Electrolux. Would that help? -- Jay Beattie.
Tom Sherman - 20 Dec 2007 08:29 GMT > I have a classic Electrolux. Would that help? I hear those really suck!
 Signature Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
Chalo - 15 Dec 2007 12:47 GMT Gaby De Wilde wrote:
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent From the middle diagram, it is clearly seen that here we have a vehicle propelled entirely by the force of Gaby blowing smoke up your a.s.
Chalo
gdewilde@gmail.com - 15 Dec 2007 17:59 GMT A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind to rotate a cone we can have it suck an aerodynamic body into this "hole" then squeezing it forwards.
I tried to illustrate it a bit below.
Enjoy.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent
datakoll - 17 Dec 2007 19:34 GMT > Gaby De Wilde wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chalo perpetually
gdewilde@gmail.com - 17 Dec 2007 19:51 GMT On Dec 17, 9:36 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> Oh, and I remembered it too late for my last response, No I think you still have some time to create a decent response. This wasn't it tho.
I'm refuting your crackpot claim by insulting you. Insults are good science. You said so yourself.
You didn't like it to be called a fascistic scientist?
Why not Ryan you little Nazi?
But your condescending behaviour really qualifies as such.
definition of crackpot: A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy: crazy, eccentric, lunatic. Informal crank, loon, loony. Slang cuckoo, ding-a- ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo. See wise/ foolish.
I think you got the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confused with the Nazi law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.
Here lets refresh that bookworm memory of yours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_D... (1) Any person suffering from a hereditary disease may be rendered incapable of procreation by means of a surgical operation (sterilization), if the experience of medical science shows that it is highly probable that his descendants would suffer from some serious physical or mental hereditary defect. (2) For the purposes of this law, any person will be considered as hereditarily diseased who is suffering from any one of the following diseases:-
(1) Congenital Mental Deficiency, (2) Schizophrenia, (3) Manic-Depressive Insanity, (4) Hereditary Epilepsy, (5) Hereditary Chorea (Huntington's), (6) Hereditary Blindness, (7) Hereditary Deafness, (8) Any severe hereditary deformity.
(3) Any person suffering from severe alcoholism may be also rendered incapable of procreation.
Lets give you the hard facts:
The moment you revert back to your pre-teen skool bully personality you have closed the door on your source of information. You can either laugh at people and call them crackpots OR you can ask them for information.
You will never get both.
By picking the first you silence the source of information. By behaving in such a way you have eliminated factors that could have led you to the actual data. Your scientific method now evidently eliminates it's own data before review.
Your type of scientists always do that. It's more the rule as the exception. Must accept public slander if you want to share something.
GOOD SCIENCE!!!!
I'm just expanding the elimination drill to include your nonsense.
I'm not going to die because you are such ignorant bitch.
People are dieing SO no mercy for your lies.
Vehicles can be powered by wind.
Get used to it.
Oxygen deficiency cause most illness, disease. Without vital earth element, human life, health would end.
Oxygen deficiency medical symptoms include: stomach acid, bacterial, viral, parasitic infection, bronchial, chronic hostility, circulation problems. Also depression, dizziness, fatigue, irrational behavior, irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and infections, memory loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor digestion, tumors, deposit buildups.
Ninety percent of our energy is created by oxygen. Our eliminative processes consume larger amounts of oxygen to rid human bodies of waste and toxins.
Scientists were stunned to discover that atmospheric oxygen level in ancient times measured twice as high as that of today: We are being more and more deprived of precious oxygen in the modern environment, and it is causing serious health problems as numerous studies and research on Oxygen Deficiency have proved.
Medical symptoms of oxygen deficiency include: acid stomach, bacterial, viral and parasitic infections, bronchial problems, chronic hostility, circulation problems, depression, dizziness, fatigue, irrational behavior, irritation, lowered immunity to colds, flu and infections, memory loss, muscle aches, overall bodily weakness, poor digestion, tumors and deposit buildups.
These medical symptoms often begin with the vague feeling of uneasiness. They progress over time, to full-blown illness and disease. As stated in The Townsend Letter for Doctors: Cells undergoing partial oxygen starvation send out tiny panic signals which are collectively felt as the continuous vague sensation of uneasiness, dread or disaster. This low level generalized warning tends to get turned out as mere background noise by the individual experiencing it. Or, it is attributed to other sources of uneasiness.
Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of our bodies cells by an anaerobic (oxygen- deficient) cell respiration. Dr. Otto Warburg. Two-time Nobel Laureate Winner of the Nobel Prize For Cancer Research. etc etc etc http://www.appliedozone.com/oxygen_deficiency_disease.html
Some guy mentioned he measured it for school in 1960. 30% it was.
So how is Ryan going to power his car when he doesn't have any oxygen FOR HIS CAR!! Is this where the concentration camps come into the picture?
Or will you just roll over and die with a sad face?
All this group can do is make stupid remarks?
You are like a farm with donkeys?
It's not scientific enough for you?
"The biggest mass extinction in Earth history some 251 million years ago was preceded by elevated extinction rates before the main event and was followed by a delayed recovery that lasted for millions of years. New research by two University of Washington scientists suggests that a sharp decline in atmospheric oxygen levels was likely a major reason for both the elevated extinction rates and the very slow recovery." http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=9592
But you don't have to worry.
Those in power didn't get there though nihilism and ignorance.
They are very realistic about global oxygen depletion.
The filthy rich will assassinate all of us in time. They might have to move into their subterranean bunkers while designer diseases do all the hard work. But they have room for millions of executives, there are even subterranean shopping centers and office complexes.
Why do you think the world is changing into a totalitarian control state?
It's about time the donkey farm woke up.
There might be more to life as entertainment between slavery.
This is a fun article on how Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
Now isn't that good entertainment?
You feel uber already?
:-) gdewilde@gmail.com - 22 Dec 2007 06:04 GMT On Dec 15, 2:13 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A vortex it will always have some vacuum at it's center, it will also > have some pressure towards it's edges. Using some drag and the wind [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent This is a great page with the amazing Helica devices on it.
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_fan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeller
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/vortex-recumbent gabydewilde - vortex recumbent
|
|
|