wheel cover turbine
gdew...@gmail.com
more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
I've some what illustrated my idea here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
Please share me your thoughts on this.
Thank you.
:-)
Buteo lineatus
> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
The air pumping effect is at its worst with slick tires because of the
boundary layer.
Tread patterns will break up the boundary layer and cause turbulent
flow.
Another way to break up the boundary layer is by using a strategically
positioned
"trip wire" such as model airplane pylon racers employ.
Sportsracing cars using treadless tires will have louvers in the tops
of the fenders to reduce drag caused by the tires acting as air pumps.
carl...@comcast.net
> If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
Dear Gaby,
No, the last noteworthy trust in bicycling was laid to rest long
before 1900 when Gormully won its lawsuit (involving whale-oil lamps,
to show how the legal mind works) against Pope:
http://velonews.com/news/fea/7550.0.html
http://velonews.com/news/fea/7573.0.html
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7608.0.html
However, if you meant "thrust" (but not as Mr. Dooley meant), then the
answer is that of course you can hook up a fan to a bicycle crank and
produce thrust. That's how the Gossamer Condor managed to fly. But you
can't produce as much thrust as the power required to run the fan.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Buteo lineatus
> Thanks for the references. I confess I don't know much about the
> topic.
I think you should study up on boundary layer, Reynolds numbers,
laminar flow, turbulent flow, Coanda effect, and Tesla boundary layer
pumps before considering any technological solutions if you're trying
to set some kind of record with a bicycle.
>
> To me it seems like a simple flexible extension at the front of the
> rear wheel cover (like in my illustration) would suffer a downwards
> force. As this would tend to bend the extension forwards it should
> create some trust.
Yes, it could create some small amount of thrust, but you have to
realize that the dynamic pressure of air = density ratio X mass of air
X velocity in ft/sec^2 X cross-sectional area pf the stream
The mass of air is so low and the velocity of the air pumped by the
tire is very low,
so the dynamic pressure will be small.
The boundary layer flow is already squashed into
> the ground, I don't think it can get much worse application as that.
No, the boundary layer is viscous and stays attached to the rotating
tire as long as flow in laminar. The larger stream of air outside the
boundary layer would be moving slower than the air stuck in the
boundary layer.
> By gradually making the circle smaller the air accelerates around the
> rim. Like a ballerina pulling her arms in.
You're thinking of angular momentum, and I doubt if the polar moment
of inertia of a mass of air amounts to anything. You can google up
"flywheel" at Wikipedia to study that subject.
> Would that make the boundary layer drag go faster as the tire?
>
> If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
I doubt it. The fastest dustbin-faired downhill bicycle I ever saw
only went about 130 mph. With 32-inch diameter wheels, the RPM at 130
is only 1365 RPM.
But, if you study Tesla boundary layer pumps you can get some idea of
how fast the disks have turn to move an appreciable amount of air.
carl...@comcast.net
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a
>good propeller.
Dear Gaby,
Nope.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 4:39 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:13 -0800 (PST), "gdewi...@gmail.com"
>>
>> <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a
>> >good propeller.
>>
>> Dear Gaby,
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>We both know you are guessing Carl.
carl...@comcast.net
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
>> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
>> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>>
>> I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>>
>> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>>
>> Please share me your thoughts on this.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> :-)
>
>On Dec 22, 1:22 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> the answer is that of course you can hook up a fan to a bicycle crank and
>> produce thrust. That's how the Gossamer Condor managed to fly. But you
>> can't produce as much thrust as the power required to run the fan.
>>
>
>On Dec 22, 4:26 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Oh but you are wrong, the energy output of the thrust depends mainly
>> on the speed and direction of the wind.
>>
>> So with the wind in your back we can divert energy straight from the
>> wheels onto a propeller and you will go faster. Having the wind in
>> your face on the other hand will make thrust increasingly less
>> interesting. Here it would be smarter to convert the wind energy
>> (back) onto the wheels.
>>
>> In the case of our wheel case it could have a valve to take in extra
>> air when it's desirable. I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a
>> good propeller.
>>
>> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
>> On Dec 22, 4:39 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Nope.
>
>On Dec 22, 5:17 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is an interesting answer.
>>
>> We both know you are guessing Carl.
>>
>> This is actually the main reason I look at things like this.
>>
>> No offence but your guess is so vastly inaccurate it's just silly. I
>> can think of a hundred ways to make a wheel that is also a propeller.
>> It's just not possible for you to make claims about any of those
>> designs before you see them.
>>
>> The "nope" you talk of drains the effort going towards such
>> investigation.
>>
>> It gives away how you have never tried to design one.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong.
>>
>> I'm not claiming such a thing is possible. I indeed can't provide one
>> that works jet. But could you explain on what you base your
>> impossibility claim?
>>
>> In some way I'm grateful there are so much treasures buried at the
>> surface. Honestly, the more amazing things I wouldn't even dare
>> talking about. 100 to 1 the only replies will be of the "nope" kind.
>>
>> My personal favorite are people who say you cant sail up the wind. lol
>>
>> If your answer is "it's never been tried", how does that mean it's
>> impossible? If it's never been looked into, is it therefor
>> impossible?
>>
>> It's so ironic?
>>
>> But thanks for your comment.
>>
>> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
>So you think you are not guessing?
>
>But you are!
Dear Gaby,
You're just projecting:
"I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a good propeller."
Nope.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Buteo lineatus
> You are of course right but I'm just being curious. Who knows what we
> can come up with.
One never knows where curiousity may lead, but it helps to focus your
search by
getting involved in some kind of project with a goal. Sudent projects
often involve attempts to exploit the essence of some pet theory,
without ever finding out how the
idea translates into reality.
> If it's really worth it we should investigate how to create additional
> drag with the wheel.
Motor vehicle braking technology being quite adequate, I can't imagine
any use for
additional wheel drag due to aerodynamic effects.
> So far I found this patent from Mr Barefoot, not entirely sure how it
> works but the toy makes lift from spin and the patent makes
> interesting citations from sailing and flying machines.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4051622
It works like an end-plated airfoil, creating "lift" by a combination
of Bernoulli principle, Newtonian reaction and circulation theory.
> The owner had covered the back seat in aluminum foil (as a joke) but
> the foil was blowing upwards from the tire. He wasn't going that fast
> and there was at least 15 cm of space between the wheel and the
> spontaneously self assembled measurement apparatus. :-)
How do you know that the lift on the aluminum foil wasn't caused by
air under the foil trying to move into the low pressure region behind
the rider's butt?
> I'm just curious :-)
Curiousity is a sign of an active mind.
A Muzi
> You are being an annoying cunt again Carl Fogel.
> Could you like shut up and fuck off?
You asked for comments. Carl's were appropriate.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
bsr...@my-deja.com
> On Dec 22, 2:02 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 4:01?pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the references. I confess I don't know much about the
> > > topic.
>
> > I think you should study up on boundary layer, Reynolds numbers,
> > laminar flow, turbulent flow, Coanda effect, and Tesla boundary layer
> > pumps before considering any technological solutions if you're trying
> > to set some kind of record with a bicycle.
>
> can come up with.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > rear wheel cover (like in my illustration) would suffer a downwards
> > > force. As this would tend to bend the extension forwards it should
> > > create some trust.
>
> > Yes, it could create some small amount of thrust, but you have to
> > realize that the dynamic pressure of air = density ratio X mass of air
> > X velocity in ft/sec^2 X cross-sectional area pf the stream
>
> > The mass of air is so low and the velocity of the air pumped by the
> > tire is very low,
> > so the dynamic pressure will be small.
>
> > > The boundary layer flow is already squashed into
> > > the ground, I don't think it can get much worse application as that.
>
> > No, the boundary layer is viscous and stays attached to the rotating
> > tire as long as flow in laminar. The larger stream of air outside the
> > boundary layer would be moving slower than the air stuck in the
> > boundary layer.
>
> almost as fast as the tire. The first one is glued onto the tire,
> every next layer goes a bit slower.
>
> I was suggesting to gradually compress the slowest part so that it
> goes faster as the medium flow. In stead of having a solid frame
> around the wheel it would then be sealed in (some what) moving air.
>
> > > By gradually making the circle smaller the air accelerates around the
> > > rim. Like a ballerina pulling her arms in.
>
> > You're thinking of angular momentum, and I doubt if the polar moment
> > of inertia of a mass of air amounts to anything. You can google up
> > "flywheel" at Wikipedia to study that subject.
>
> layers create drag on the ground and cross the air flowing around the
> bike.(underneath)
>
> So it would be thrust in exchange for drag.
>
> If it's really worth it we should investigate how to create additional
> drag with the wheel.
>
> works but the toy makes lift from spin and the patent makes
> interesting citations from sailing and flying machines.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4051622
>
>
> > > If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
>
> > I doubt it. The fastest dustbin-faired downhill bicycle I ever saw
> > only went about 130 mph. With 32-inch diameter wheels, the RPM at 130
> > is only 1365 RPM.
>
> > But, if you study Tesla boundary layer pumps you can get some idea of
> > how fast the disks have turn to move an appreciable amount of air.
>
> wheel of a bicycle riding in front of me.
>
> The owner had covered the back seat in aluminum foil (as a joke) but
> the foil was blowing upwards from the tire. He wasn't going that fast
> and there was at least 15 cm of space between the wheel and the
> spontaneously self assembled measurement apparatus. :-)
>
> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> Tesla turbine.
>
> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> I'm just curious :-)
>
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
other side of the wheel toward the back. The spoke area of the wheel
should be compleatly enclosed. Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
Notice that on GP bikes and many race replicas they have a close
fitting rear fender attached to the swingarm to maintain the close
spacing.
Bruce
Ben C
> On Dec 21, 10:56 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
>> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
>> Tesla turbine.
>>
>> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>>
>> I'm just curious :-)
>>
>> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
> other side of the wheel toward the back. The spoke area of the wheel
> should be compleatly enclosed.
I cannot rule out the possibility that that kind of thing might have
some beneficial effect.
> Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
But I'm sure this is going too far. If you make the wheel into a fan,
then in effect you're propelling the bike partly by swimming through the
air rather than by pushing against the road. This is certainly going to
be much less efficient.
You could connect the cranks not to the back wheel at all but to a big
propeller on the front or rear. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts
that would be much less efficient than if you did just connect it to the
wheel.
It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road.
Werehatrack
said:
>Nope.
Seemed like a very accurate, simple and direct answer to me.
Some people seem to subscribe to the Management Approach To Problem
Solving, part of which is "If you don't like the answer that you get
when you ask a question, keep asking it over and over until you get
the one you want."
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Werehatrack
>On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Your idea is worthless. Please do not let my analysis dissuade you
from pursuing funding for development; venture capitalists and
research grant readers need amusement, too.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith-Schneider
>"The Voith Schneider propeller (VSP), also known as a cycloid drive is
>a specialized marine propulsion system. It is highly maneuverable,
>being able to change the direction of its thrust almost
>instantaneously. It is widely used on tugs and ferries."
This is relevant to what? Tugs and ferries use this despite its
massive weight, extreme cost and horrible efficiency because it's a
good fit for the task they must perform. I see no usefulness with
air.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls#Cyclic
>"The control is called the cyclic because it changes the pitch of the
>rotor blades cyclically. That is, the pitch or feathering angle of the
>rotor blades change depending upon their position as they rotate
>around the hub so that all blades will change their angle the same
>amount at the same point in the cycle. The change in cyclic pitch has
>the effect of changing the angle of attack and thus the lift generated
>by a single blade as it moves around the rotor disk. This in turn
>causes the blades to fly up or down in sequence, depending on the
>change in lift."
That description apparently is imparting a meaning to you that is not
present for the rest of the world.
>http://www.car16.info/2007/10/14/motorcycle-rear-wheel-propeller-adapter/
>"Many motorcycles can travel up to 165 mph in sixth gear. The average
>Cessna private airplane, which has a single-engine takes off at about
>40 miles per hour. So why can t a motorcycle fly? Only one reason it
>does not have wings and it does not have a propeller."
The author of that entry ignores more than he illuminates. The bottom
line is that a motorcycle is not an airplane, and while they have a
couple of minor things in common (each typically has an internal
combustion engine of some sort, and each typically employs a fossil
fuel as its energy source) the resemblances end soon thereafter.
(I now return to my previously employed plonkage.)
Buteo lineatus
> It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road
Using a propellor to drive a land vehicle is a dumb idea.
The aerodynamic thrust that comes off a propellor is sensitive to the
square of the air velocity passing over the blades, so fixed pitch
propellors work best over a narrow speed range and variable pitch
propellors are used for high speed aircraft.
Imagine varying the angle of your wheel spokes to get more thrust to
go faster and the idea gets ridiculous. A wheel is a wheel, it
transmits mechanical power, not aerodynamic thrust.
Gas turbine engines have many blades, while a propeller might have
from 2 to 5 blades. Gas turbines produce so little power at lower RPM,
80% throtlle is idle speed.
datakoll
ALL HAIL STEVE FOSSETT
datakoll
tires pump air? is this why disc brakes come with heater elements for
those long straights?
Tom Sherman
> On Dec 22, 2:19�pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
butbutbut, you are forgetting the Cuisinart Effect!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Beer - It's not just for breakfast anymore!
bsr...@my-deja.com
> On Dec 22, 11:19 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2007-12-22, bsr3...@my-deja.com <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 10:56 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
> > >> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> > >> Tesla turbine.
>
> > >> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> > >> I'm just curious :-)
>
> > >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> > >> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
> > > other side of the wheel toward the back. The spoke area of the wheel
> > > should be compleatly enclosed.
>
> > I cannot rule out the possibility that that kind of thing might have
> > some beneficial effect.
>
> > > Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
>
> > But I'm sure this is going too far. If you make the wheel into a fan,
> > then in effect you're propelling the bike partly by swimming through the
> > air rather than by pushing against the road. This is certainly going to
> > be much less efficient.
>
> is not spinning forwards the "wind" from the drag is not coming from
> the direction the blade is traveling in.
>
> Even tho it sounds impossible I was trying to figure out how to fit
> the wheel into the rim under an angle. We have flexible couplings, it
> should be possible to have the rim move under a different angle from
> the rest of the wheel.
My response was meant to play with Carl about his "Nope" response.
The wheel can be made into a good propeller, but that isn't the same
as saying it will improve overall efficency.
> But it would still require blade shaped spokes so it would be easier
> to change the wind direction in the first place.
>
> > You could connect the cranks not to the back wheel at all but to a big
> > propeller on the front or rear. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts
> > that would be much less efficient than if you did just connect it to the
> > wheel.
>
> > It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> > solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> > It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> > stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> > that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road.
>
> Yes, more parts = bad need to use the same parts for everything and
> even eliminate them where we can. This makes the wheel an interesting
> candidate to become a propeller.
>
> Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area if we put the wheel
> inlet at the front it would remove the drag from that surface and put
> a vacuum there.
It is my understanding that an enclosed wheel has less drag than an
open wheel. Look at cars that have broken the land speed record.
Someone in this thread mentioned "dustbin" fairings. They did improve
airflow around motorcycles considerably but were banned in motorcycle
racing due to their instability in side winds. I don't know if they
were ever really tried on bicycles. In years past they may not have
been practical due to their weight. That may have changed with modern
materials. You might want to look up the "Gossimer Condor" (sp) which
was a peddle powered airplane.
Another possiblility might be to have an inlet at the front that
splits and guides the air through smooth passages to release it behind
the bike, reducing the vacume there. Current designs concentrate on
splitting the air but do little to bring it back together behind the
rider.
Bruce
> It all sounds a bit Battle star galactica but that is from 1980
>
> 600 internet years ago.
>
> hehehe
Tom Sherman
> gdew...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You are being an annoying cunt again Carl Fogel.
>> Could you like shut up and fuck off?
>
> You asked for comments. Carl's were appropriate.
While Gaby de Wilde would benefit from some high level fluid mechanics
courses, that does not change "Dear Carl" from being annoying [1].
[1] Probably the only opinion that I could get both BS and OB to agree
with me on.
Buteo lineatus
> Someone in this thread mentioned "dustbin" fairings. �They did improve
> airflow around motorcycles considerably but were banned in motorcycle
> racing due to their instability in side winds. �I don't know if they
> were ever really tried on bicycles.
Buteo lineatus
> Ok, say you are traveling at 10 mph up against wind of 10 mph.
>
> This would be 20 mph drag.
>
> We get 8 parts of energy out of 1 part drag and 1 part wind.
>
> That leaves us with 6 parts to play with.
Nope. Buy this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Theory-Pilots-Fourth-Charles/dp/0891004327
>
> But then I just invent a new variable pitch propeller.
Telll it to Hamilton Standard.
> Yes, but we should appreciate how big this problem really is for the
> wind power industry. And they do seem to overcome it thought size. So
> if they can use slow winds standing still we can use fast wind while
> moving fast.
Do you honestly believe that the forward speed of the bike is going to
somehow produce free power to increase the bike's, or do you think
that you can use wind power to make the bike move?
> Or am I wrong to assume that :
>
> 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
is a velocity-squared effect.
datakoll
ahh the Condor. have you visited the Condor at the Space Museum?
Say, DeWilde is the reicannation of Rocket Man?
Can you email a source for Rocket Man info? The fellow on film with
the fireworks strapped to his back. We spoke of this previously.
Pope is CIA.
gene daniels
Buteo lineatus
> Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area
Not necessarily. Depends upon whether the surface area or velocity
squared is the larger variable in the equation. Shape is an important
factor too.
if we put the wheel
> inlet at the front it would remove the drag from that surface and put
> a vacuum there.
No, it would not remove drag, and it wouldn't cause a vacuum at the
front of the bike.
Motorcycle engineers trying to get a few more horsepower out of their
engines by
adding ram air ducting suceeded in getting about 0.3 pounds per square
inch pressure at around 150 mph, so your idea of a ram air propellor/
wheel just won't work.
You're not ready to start designing anything, because you don't know
enough about the physics involved.
Your first drawing showed that you don't understand how bounday layer
air pumping works, and you latest drawing shows you have no idea how
nozzles and
exhaust ducts would be shaped, assuming you had a high pressure source
of air to aim at your turbine blades.
Tom Sherman
>
> It is my understanding that an enclosed wheel has less drag than an
> open wheel. Look at cars that have broken the land speed record.
>
> Someone in this thread mentioned "dustbin" fairings. They did improve
> airflow around motorcycles considerably but were banned in motorcycle
> racing due to their instability in side winds. I don't know if they
> were ever really tried on bicycles.
The Counterpoint Presto [1] is the only production example that comes to
mind with a wheel fairing: <http://www.ihpva.org/people/ianf/bm92/Presto/>.
> In years past they may not have
> been practical due to their weight. That may have changed with modern
> materials. You might want to look up the "Gossimer Condor" (sp) which
> was a peddle powered airplane.
The very thing for traveling salesmen!
> Another possiblility might be to have an inlet at the front that
> splits and guides the air through smooth passages to release it behind
> the bike, reducing the vacume there. Current designs concentrate on
> splitting the air but do little to bring it back together behind the
> rider.
That is what the tail-fairing is for:
<http://www.harwig.tomaatnet.nl/images/cv200515.JPG>.
[1] Later manufactured as the Pashley PDQ.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!
gdew...@gmail.com
And if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
energy.
Agreed?
If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
Do I also get 4 times as much energy?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 22, 4:12�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area
> Not necessarily. Depends upon whether the surface area or velocity
> squared is the larger variable in the equation. Shape is an important
> factor too.
>
Yes, both make important contributions to the drag.
> You're not ready to start designing anything, because you don't know
> enough about the physics involved.
>
> Your first drawing showed that you don't understand how bounday layer
> air pumping works, and you latest drawing shows you have no idea how
> nozzles and exhaust ducts would be shaped, assuming you had a high pressure source of air to aim at your turbine blades.
yes!
if you are going 180 mph up against wind of 5 mph you are suffering
drag at 185 mph.
The difference between 180 and 185 is dramatically bigger as between 0
and 5.
There is no assumption of high pressure source :-)
Buteo lineatus
> There is no assumption of high pressure source :-)
Don't you understand the relationships between pressure and velocity
and area and velocity either?
You really need a text book on fluid dynamics before you begin
designing anything, you're unlikely to stumble upon anything that
wasn't tried and discarded over a century ago.
bsr...@my-deja.com
> On Dec 23, 3:55 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
>
> > If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> > is a velocity-squared effect.
It does, however, take 8 times as much power to maintain 2 times the
speed. The drag (force) is 4 times as high, and the distance covered
per unit of time is 2 times as great. Work is force X distance and
power is work per unit of time.
> And if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> energy.
>
> Agreed?
>
> If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
>
> Do I also get 4 times as much energy?
No. When you double the wind speed you get 4 times the energy because
the formula includes V^2. That is V times V. So if you double your
velocity from 1 to 2 you get 2X2=4 times the energy because of the
change in velocity. When you add a second windmill you have doubled
the surface area which just doubles the force.
gdew...@gmail.com
Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol
I just fail to see my error.
On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > energy.
> >
> > Agreed?
Buteo lineatus said:
"If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
is a velocity-squared effect. "
I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
work. I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
exceed adding things up.
Good,
Please bare with me for a sec here.. you agree that (roughly
speaking):
2 times as much windmills gives 2 times as much wind energy
And
2 times as much wind gives 4 times as much wind energy.
Just like:
2 times as much frontal surface gives 2 times as much wind energy
(drag).
And
2 times as much speed gives 4 times as much wind energy (drag).
In the context of:
2 times as much sail area gives 2 times as much wind energy.
And
2 times as much wind speed gives 4 times as much wind energy.
We note that propeller ships capable of "sailing" directly up the wind
already exist. The combination of sailing and windmilling technologies
thus allow for aerodynamic drag to be a means of propulsion's. If
there is more wind this kind of vessel accelerates UP the wind faster.
You understand? So, to generate more aerodynamic drag would be an
improvement.
If drag can evidently be engineered to be a positive ingredient I ask
you start wondering what happens when we accelerate into the wind
(using an engine).
If there is no wind and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we suffer 4 times
as much drag.
If the wind is 10 mph and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we also suffer 4
times as much drag.
This 4 times includes the wind does it not?
energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
it's parts?
yes?
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
When most of the bike has a reasonable aerodynamic shape the propeller
can easily suffer more drag as the rest of the bike.
Going down the wind one could use the prop to propel the bike again
but that aside.
It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
Yes or no?
Buteo lineatus
> Hello BSR,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
>
> I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol
>
> I just fail to see my error.
>
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > > energy.
>
> > > Agreed?
>
> Buteo lineatus said:
> "If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> is a velocity-squared effect. "
>
> I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
> to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
> work. �I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
> exceed adding things up.
>
> On Dec 23, 5:52 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> it's parts?
Do you think you're going to get more energy out of a system than you
put into it?
That's perpetual motion thinking.
> It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
Sailers claim their boats will go three times the speed of the wind...
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 23, 2:23�pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> > it's parts?
>
> Do you think you're going to get more energy out of a system than you
> put into it?
>
> That's perpetual motion thinking.
>
no a perpetual motion device demands a closed system. This system uses
wind or ambient pressure gradients of the bigger kind.
> > It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> > by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
>
> Sailers claim their boats will go three times the speed of the wind...
I have updated my Negative drag page a bit.
Enjoy! :-)
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag
datakoll
convinced the louvers were dumping air collecting in the wells from
air coming in under he front air dams: as the air collided with the
well's back wall causin drag-say there's another place for...nanoskin
power generation
spoked alloy wheels were thought productive of disc brake or drum
brake cooling but wind tunnel tesing showed spoked wheels were
ineffective pumping air. You've seen the plastic pumps outboard F1
hubs?
datakoll
oh yeah there's an obvious duhduhduh example! more spokes equal more
sidewind displacement right? therefore...
gdew...@gmail.com
> oh yeah there's an obvious duhduhduh example! more spokes equal more
> sidewind displacement right? therefore...
yes,
It also seems the blades can have a fixed position after all.
assume this image for a moment. ^_^
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/aircycle.jpg/aircycle-full;init:.jpg
Say there is no wind
we tune the blades so that they neither accelerate nor decelerate the
air stream going though the wheel.
Now we wait for the wind and we drive up the wind with the thing.
The wind pressure accumulates in the tube and it tries to make the
wheel spin faster as it is already spinning at.
That's what will happen :-)
Now we turn the bike around and we drive it down the wind.
There is insufficient air in the tube!
The tire makes a vacuum.
Energy is extracted from the wheels and transferred to the air.
bsr...@my-deja.com
> Hello BSR,
>
> Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
>
> I don't know how to explain this, I've been trying for days. lol
>
> I just fail to see my error.
>
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > if I have 2 times as much wind my windmill makes 4 times as much
> > > energy.
>
> > > Agreed?
>
> Buteo lineatus said:
> "If you go twice as fast you get four times as much drag because drag
> is a velocity-squared effect. "
That is correct.
> I found the 8 times figure on a windmill website I think. I would like
> to get it right obviously but it's not important for the concept to
> work. I have this gut feeling that says multiplication tends to
> exceed adding things up.
The 8 times figure is correct. My previous answer of 4 times was
based on 4 times the force at the same rpm for the windmill with
everything else the same. In fact if you adjust the pitch of the
blades and/or the rpm the windmill can make 8 times the power at twice
the wind speed. horsepower=torque*rpm/5252
On this page
http://earthsci.org/mineral/energy/wind/wind.html
you will find formulas that contain V^3 or Velocity cubed. So an
increase from 1 to 2 in wind speed results in 2X2X2=8.
> On Dec 23, 5:52 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:54 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If I now put up 2 windmills in 1 times the wind.
> > > Do I also get 4 times as much energy?
>
> > No. When you double the wind speed you get 4 times the energy because
> > the formula includes V^2. That is V times V. So if you double your
> > velocity from 1 to 2 you get 2X2=4 times the energy because of the
> > change in velocity. When you add a second windmill you have doubled
> > the surface area which just doubles the force.
>
> Good,
>
> Please bare with me for a sec here.. you agree that (roughly
> speaking):
>
> 2 times as much windmills gives 2 times as much wind energy
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much wind gives 4 times as much wind energy.
8 times
> Just like:
>
> 2 times as much frontal surface gives 2 times as much wind energy
> (drag).
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much speed gives 4 times as much wind energy (drag).
4 times the force times twice the distance gives 8 times the energy,
same as the windmill.
> In the context of:
>
> 2 times as much sail area gives 2 times as much wind energy.
>
> And
>
> 2 times as much wind speed gives 4 times as much wind energy.
>
> We note that propeller ships capable of "sailing" directly up the wind
> already exist. The combination of sailing and windmilling technologies
> thus allow for aerodynamic drag to be a means of propulsion's. If
> there is more wind this kind of vessel accelerates UP the wind faster.
Are you saying the ship's propeller is powered by a windmill?
Something like this ;)
http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007-2-21/Windmill-Sailboat.jpg
> You understand? So, to generate more aerodynamic drag would be an
> improvement.
With a land vehicle I'm quite certain you could use a windmill to
power it upwind. There you could use very low gearing to overcome the
force of the wind trying to push the vehicle back. But on water there
is slipage. You need to provide power just to keep from being blown
down wind. Any added drag will likely increase that power requirement
more than the power gained by the added drag. That link I provided
above says, "Windmills are NOT efficient. At the very most, a
windmill can extract only 16/27ths of the kinetic energy from the
wind. This is called the Betz Limit and it can be mathematically
proven through calculus. Most of today's windmills extract about 30
percent of the wind's energy."
With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
to slowly creep up wind. With a boat it doesn't look promising that
you could even break even. And for the land based vehicle, as soon as
you try to go faster by supplying energy from another source, the
added drag will sap off more energy than is gained by the increased
wind speed at the windmill.
I see that Ben C gave the same advice in the "Vortex ram" thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/d91dc72297d6d5e1
> If drag can evidently be engineered to be a positive ingredient I ask
> you start wondering what happens when we accelerate into the wind
> (using an engine).
>
> If there is no wind and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we suffer 4 times
> as much drag.
>
> If the wind is 10 mph and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we also suffer 4
> times as much drag.
Not really. Traveling at 10 with a 10 headwind means we start with a
20 mph wind. Traveling at 20 with a 10 headwind means a 30 mph wind.
30 is only 1.5X20 so the drag would force would be 1.5X1.5=2.25 times
as great.
> This 4 times includes the wind does it not?
>
> energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> it's parts?
>
> yes?
Not sure what you are trying to say here. If it is that 30X30 is
greater than 10X10+20X20 then yes.
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
> When most of the bike has a reasonable aerodynamic shape the propeller
> can easily suffer more drag as the rest of the bike.
>
> Going down the wind one could use the prop to propel the bike again
> but that aside.
>
> It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
>
> Yes or no?
Again I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but given the
30% efficiency above I would say that you are only going to get 1 hp
back from the windmill for every 3 hp that you put into overcoming its
drag. So it looks like a losing proposition to try pushing it any
faster than the wind drive alone can propel it.
Bruce
datakoll
no you misunderstand. i didn't write-post the inability of a spoked
wheel to pump air from one side to the other as a turbine MOVING in
the same direction as it's rotation
to read your insane leaps leaps of "logic" and "theory"
the post is a comment on another post not yours.
it's not a vehicle for "a tire makes a vacuum."
understand?
frogggy
gdew...@gmail.com
> With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> to slowly creep up wind. With a boat it doesn't look promising that
> you could even break even.
no no no no, this assumption is just all wrong. Sail boats sail close
to the wind up to 2 times the speed of the wind. You can sail 12
degrees into the wind with a sail. A sail is just like a fixed
propeller blade. But with a rotor the blade is moving relative to the
axle remember? So if we combine the direction of the boat with the
direction of the rotor we get the angle the blade is moving under
relative to the wind.
Instantly it becomes obvious the blades are sailing under a much
better angle as the sails would.
Sails even stop working entirely under that 12 degrees. But still even
at 12 degrees it is enough to argue they are already moving into the
wind more as moving out of it.
There is no slow creeping up the wind here this goes as fast as it
gets.
Our propeller blades are not sailing under 12 degrees they are sailing
under an ideal angle fixed to the apparent wind. If there is wind in
the back the wheel gets less air as it "needs" and generates a vacuum.
Blowing air backwards makes good sense if you have the wind in your
back.
If there is wind coming from the front however the amazing pressure
will accelerate the wheel.
This is also good :
30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20
The amount of wind you capture depends on how fast you go.
The efficiency of a windmill reflects how much drag it generates.
If it's only 30 % efficient then 70 % will fly though it.
If the body is reasonably aerodynamic it is easy to build a prop that
represents 90% of the drag.
The turbine inlet can use the frontal surface that would otherwise be
pushing the air to it's sides.
Without question to would reduce the percentage of drag produced by
the body.
30X30 is greater than 10X10+20X20
so a wind of 5 mph may not be capable of doing useful work.
It's very different from +5 mph wind at 100 mph.
100X100 + 5x5
or
105X105
Beginning to see the difference doctor Livingstone? Yours seems an
highly intellectual case of refusing to understand. But here you have
this simple person explaining something simple to you. And he keeps on
repeating the same question. Made 100 drawings for you.
One more time?
If the wind force grows with the speed you are traveling up the wind
at then the size of the prop will determine at what speed it can
propel the bike entirely.
The faster you go the more wind, there seems to me to be no way to
avoid it?
Where is my error?
I'm going to search some more patents....
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag
gabydewilde - negative drag
bsr...@my-deja.com
> On Dec 24, 4:25 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> > to slowly creep up wind. With a boat it doesn't look promising that
> > you could even break even.
>
> no no no no, this assumption is just all wrong. Sail boats sail close
> to the wind up to 2 times the speed of the wind. You can sail 12
> degrees into the wind with a sail. A sail is just like a fixed
> propeller blade. But with a rotor the blade is moving relative to the
> axle remember? So if we combine the direction of the boat with the
> direction of the rotor we get the angle the blade is moving under
> relative to the wind.
I think you need to take another look at what is making the sail boat
go forward. It is not just the sail but also the keel under the
ship. The sail pushes nearly sideways on the ship, which can not move
in that direction because of the keel. So it moves in the direction
it finds easiest to go. The sail provides that side thrust by being
put at an angle to the wind where the rotor works best facing straight
into it.
> Instantly it becomes obvious the blades are sailing under a much
> better angle as the sails would.
>
> Sails even stop working entirely under that 12 degrees. But still even
> at 12 degrees it is enough to argue they are already moving into the
> wind more as moving out of it.
>
> There is no slow creeping up the wind here this goes as fast as it
> gets.
A sail boat goes fastest when it is about perpendicular to the wind.
When sailing up wind it goes slower and slower as it nears the
direction of the wind. When it gets to 12 degrees, or whatever its
minimum angle is, it stops moving forward.
It's late. I may have more to say later.
Bruce
Buteo lineatus
> If the wind force grows with the speed you are traveling up the wind
> at then the size of the prop will determine at what speed it can
> propel the bike entirely.
You also need to be able to vary the pitch of the blades or the angle
at which wind strikes to blades to get it to work at different speeds,
e.g., less angle of attack at lower speeds, higher angle of attack at
higher speeds.
That's why aircraft have variable pitch props. They climb out in fine
pitch and use coarse pitch for cruising.
>
> The faster you go the more wind, there seems to me to be no way to
> avoid it?
So, you may need a variable pitch prop, fine pitch to get the bicyle
moving and coarse pitch to cruise, but you're going to have to do the
calculations yourself.
>
> Where is my error?
You want other people to "take the piss" for you. Sooner or later,
you're going to have to grab your own hose and direct the stream
yourself.
>
> I'm going to search some more patents....
You're not going to get the information you need from looking at
drawings, you're going to have to learn the physics, chant the
mathemagical spells, make a working prototype, and then finger out why
the mathemagic doesn't quite work the way you intended.
Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
The propellor TORQUE formula investigates the relationship between the
atmospheric density ratio*, the diameter of the propellor and its RPM
and its rate of advance through the medium. It looks like f sub q is
the Froude number, a hydrodynamic analog of the Mach number.
* The density ratio = 1.0 when the ambient temperature of dry air is
59 degrees F at sea level.
Buteo lineatus
> Our propeller blades are not sailing under 12 degrees they are sailing
> under an ideal angle fixed to the apparent wind.
Sails, wings, and propellor blades have a shape that is called an
"airfoil".
If you study the NACA airfoil tables you will see that airfoils have a
*coefficient of lift* that varies as to the angle of attack, i.e., the
angle at which the free stream hits the airfoil. At lower angles of
attack, the coeffcient of lift is lower, and less lift is imparted to
an aircraft wing and less torque is imparted to a propellor blade.
The coefficient of lift is at its maximum when the free stream strikes
the airfoil at about 15 or 16 degrees, Above that angle, the boundary
layer detaches and flow becomes too turbulent, the wing stalls, the
marine propellor cavitates, the sail luffs.
datakoll
all you need is luff due due dodo dodo doooooooooo
all you need is luff luff al you need is luff.
invention comes with rational organized thought directed toward a goal
or an overlay of that on a general synaptic search.
What we read here is the "loose cannon" effect, lufffing in a great
swell.
this does that and that does this so we come up with "tire causes
vacuum" and a sailboat is fastest just off the wind.
you know, reminiscent of a child naming objects around him: mom dad
cat dog poop poop.
not that I want to obstruct creativity but construct.
I always thought many sailboats are fastest just off a broad reach for
obvious reasons but what do I know?
for each and every general statement made by the perp, an answer lies
in fathomless cyberspace.
searching and reading would be more creative than naming poop
we know what poop is already.
all you need is poop poop all you need is poop.
a Q and Q difference.
ahem
Buteo lineatus
> What we read here is the "loose cannon" effect, lufffing in a great
> swell.
Yes, he has been hopefully flapping his jib, hasn't he?
> I always thought many sailboats are fastest just off a broad reach for
> obvious reasons but what do I know?
Don't tell him how that works, he'll get his spanker tangled with a
passing lorry and be drug upwind.
datakoll
well, we certainly don't want him upwind.
this afternoon, a thought (one of four)crossed my mind that the
concoction is a premeditated inverse reality designed to get a small
sectioj of cyberspace jumoing about like beads of water on a hot
griddle.
gdew...@gmail.com
Yes, I should probably ask if you have objection against this kind of
devices? ^_^ There are at least 4 credible sounding and looking people
who claim to have build working prototypes rolling up the wind. There
are also patents describing the effect. But to be really honest I feel
I should accept that normal sailing close to the wind under is closer
towards sailing up the wind as out of it. Then have hundreds of
millions of examples.
Those last few degrees don't seem like a big deal to me. The
amplification of wind is a well known effect.
But keep in mind: any further drag may decrease speed with a negative
value.
Drag = good
> That link I provided
> above says, "Windmills are NOT efficient. At the very most, a
> windmill can extract only 16/27ths of the kinetic energy from the
> wind. This is called the Betz Limit and it can be mathematically
> proven through calculus. Most of today's windmills extract about 30
> percent of the wind's energy."
Yes the other 70% of the drag is lost.
That doesn't mean it suffers it, it blows though the mill.
> With the land based vehicle even a small amount of power can be used
> to slowly creep up wind.[..]And for the land based vehicle, as soon as
> you try to go faster by supplying energy from another source, the
> added drag will sap off more energy than is gained by the increased
> wind speed at the windmill.
>
"added drag"? I agree drag goes up but added to what? The drag is
negative. So I think we can agree the drag does negative work.
right?
> I see that Ben C gave the same advice in the "Vortex ram" thread.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/d91dc72297d6d5e1
>
Yes good post, but a ram is still far away. :-(
> > If drag can evidently be engineered to be a positive ingredient I ask
> > you start wondering what happens when we accelerate into the wind
> > (using an engine).
>
> > If there is no wind and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we suffer 4 times
> > as much drag.
>
> > If the wind is 10 mph and we accelerate from 10 to 20 we also suffer 4
> > times as much drag.
>
> Not really. Traveling at 10 with a 10 headwind means we start with a
> 20 mph wind. Traveling at 20 with a 10 headwind means a 30 mph wind.
> 30 is only 1.5X20 so the drag would force would be 1.5X1.5=2.25 times
> as great.
>
how sloppy. :-)
The point is that a negative aerodynamic profile creates more
propulsion if there is more drag. Just like a normal aerodynamic
profile takes away propulsion.
So even when it's not very efficient at low speeds it's output goes up
the faster it goes. As that little percentage of negative drag
accumulates just as much as normal drag does.
> > This 4 times includes the wind does it not?
>
> > energy content of the combination of drag and wind exceeds the sum of
> > it's parts?
>
> > yes?
>
> Not sure what you are trying to say here. If it is that 30X30 is
> greater than 10X10+20X20 then yes.
>
Say we push a windmill on a kart.
It's rotor spins free, most of it's drag disappears slowly.
We use it's coupling and the demanded force to roll the mill goes up
the moment we start to extract kinetic energy from the propellers.
We use this kinetic energy to move the kart again.
Now the energy is getting pumped in a circle but it's not even going
to be 100% efficient.
In an ideal configuration the end result would roll just as fast with
the prop attached to the gearing as it would spinning free. A few
meters, then it stops.
But we don't have an ideal configuration. We have much much losses in
our conversion processes. We do keep it kinetic so the losses don't
grow to insane levels like turning fire from coal into electricity and
using the electricity to charge your electric car in order to drive
around enormous battery collections. But losses there will be.
It's also not a closed system, the wind is blowing exponentially, it
becomes stronger the faster you travel into it.
The closed loop assembly would have the opposing wind force at it's
disposal at all speeds.
The incoming drag is always 1 wind speed faster as it should be.
The faster we travel the bigger it becomes.
At 0 mph the 5 mph wind doesn't do much useful work.
At 100 mph the 5 mph wind does loads of work.
At least thats what it seems like to me.
Sure you have to overcome the drag but we had agreed on a negative
figure.
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> > gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
> > When most of the bike has a reasonable aerodynamic shape the propeller
> > can easily suffer more drag as the rest of the bike.
>
> > Going down the wind one could use the prop to propel the bike again
> > but that aside.
>
> > It seems one may obtain the full wind energy at all speeds multiplied
> > by the speed they are moving up the wind at.
>
> > Yes or no?
>
> Again I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say, but given the
> 30% efficiency above I would say that you are only going to get 1 hp
> back from the windmill for every 3 hp that you put into overcoming its
> drag. So it looks like a losing proposition to try pushing it any
> faster than the wind drive alone can propel it.
>
> Bruce
I think the 30% relates to the energy available in the square meters?
If no energy is taken then there is no drag either?
The fact that various working models have been made does not leave
room for contradicting assumptions. Moving up the wind does not remove
or decrease the wind. The increase in drag cant possibly have
negative effects on the prop.
I don't have access to those fancy science journals and I doubt I
could understand much of what goes written there. If some one claim to
have build various boats and have pictures of those then thats the
evidence for me.
It's not proof, but normally I need only one of those claims to go 'n
try figure out what the invention was. One clue is enough for me. But
under this topic there is math, pictures and there are patents. A
paper that mathematically disproves heavier than air flying apparatus
wouldn't mean anything to me. I would say the emperor is neked. lol
The boats and toys worked. End of story.
I think a wheel turbine can consume a large percentage of the frontal
area.
Imagine a spiral of flat spokes, like U shaped rotor blades stacked
all the way around the wheel but with the center missing.
Air from the conical inlet tubes is injected into the center (or just
below it).
The inlet tube may be concaved and textured in order to vortex the air
a bit in the direction the wheel is spinning in. Giving the tubes an
in inwards spiral shape will also increase the speed of the flow (make
more drag)
The air is then collected again in the outer ring of the turbine and
directed to the back of the ride.
The length of the vehicle determines how fast we can vortex the air
before injecting it into the turbine.
It can do so without increasing the frontal surface.
Y.Porat
> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> Thank you.
>
> :-)
---------------
the main idea is interesting
yet i am not optimistic as you are :
obviously the cover cannot cover the bottom part of the wheel
2
the wind (air streem) will look for the easiest location to escape
out
the first 'hole' it will find
is not in your 'favourit' location
it will be just at the front- bottom location
and it will press rather backwards !!! ??
so the main point is missed ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------
datakoll
consider a stand up routine in LA?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Dec 21, 10:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> > more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> > to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> > I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> > Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > :-)
>
> ---------------
> the main idea is interesting
> yet i am not optimistic as you are :
>
Oh, we all agree the initial idea doesn't work.
> obviously the cover cannot cover the bottom part of the wheel
> 2
It's just a close fit.
> the wind (air streem) will look for the easiest location to escape
> out
> the first 'hole' it will find
> is not in your 'favourit' location
> it will be just at the front- bottom location
> and it will press rather backwards !!! ??
> so the main point is missed ??
>
Normally air is dragged forwards by the wheel then sucked into the the
vacuum behind the riders back, this was the main problem the device
was trying to address. I thought the tire made just as big a
contribution to this airstream as the rider but it did not.
I've since moved on to looking at other peoples ideas. The dustbin
fairing is an interesting start at doing something with the end
product we make out of the invested energy.
Here is one.
"The Venturi Eclectic, touted as an "autonomous energy vehicle," gets
its charge from wind gusts"
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/30/venturis-eclectic-solar-wind-powered-car/
Read some patents here.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag-patents
assume the self propelled research toys.
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/negative-drag-video
How to forge a normal vehicle that does the same thing?
gdew...@gmail.com
workable methods using a small propeller with a conical inlet (the
venturi effect?) or a big inlet with a big rotor.
For thousands of years people have been searching for a good place to
put a wind turbine. I'm not saying this is the ideal spot, I only
claim to be looking here (inside the wheel).
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
On Dec 21 2007, 9:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> Thank you.
>
> :-)
On Dec 22 2007, 1:01 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 21, 11:20 pm, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 12:29?pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> > > more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> > > to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> > The air pumping effect is at its worst with slick tires because of the
> > boundary layer.
>
> > Tread patterns will break up the boundary layer and cause turbulent
> > flow.
>
> > Another way to break up the boundary layer is by using a strategically
> > positioned
> > "trip wire" such as model airplane pylon racers employ.
>
> > Sportsracing cars using treadless tires will have louvers in the tops
> > of the fenders to reduce drag caused by the tires acting as air pumps.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the references. I confess I don't know much about the
> topic.
>
> To me it seems like a simple flexible extension at the front of the
> rear wheel cover (like in my illustration) would suffer a downwards
> force. As this would tend to bend the extension forwards it should
> create some trust. The boundary layer flow is already squashed into
> the ground, I don't think it can get much worse application as that.
>
> I imagine the extension can fit around the tire quite tightly. If it
> makes contact it should just bend forwards a bit without touching the
> ground. Could even put a small wheel on it to push against the tire.
>
> By gradually making the circle smaller the air accelerates around the
> rim. Like a ballerina pulling her arms in.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Would that make the boundary layer drag go faster as the tire?
>
> If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 22 2007, 4:26 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 1:22 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:> On Dec 21, 5:01 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
>
> > Dear Gaby,
>
> > No, the last noteworthy trust in bicycling was laid to rest long
> > before 1900 when Gormully won its lawsuit (involving whale-oil lamps,
> > to show how the legal mind works) against Pope:
>
> Hello Carl,
>
> I love reading old patents. Some how the grammar doesn't disturb me at
> all. (lol) Today "pope" makes for an excellent bicycle patent search
> keyword.
>
> Reading around those it seems the chain drive defeated the axle driven
> system though production cost? We have 100 years worth of patents
> claiming an axle is more efficient? How hilarious?
>
> > http://velonews.com/news/fea/7550.0.html
>
> > http://velonews.com/news/fea/7573.0.html
>
> > http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7608.0.html
>
> > However, if you meant "thrust" (but not as Mr. Dooley meant), then the
> > answer is that of course you can hook up a fan to a bicycle crank and
> > produce thrust. That's how the Gossamer Condor managed to fly. But you
> > can't produce as much thrust as the power required to run the fan.
>
> Oh but you are wrong, the energy output of the thrust depends mainly
> on the speed and direction of the wind.
>
> So with the wind in your back we can divert energy straight from the
> wheels onto a propeller and you will go faster. Having the wind in
> your face on the other hand will make thrust increasingly less
> interesting. Here it would be smarter to convert the wind energy
> (back) onto the wheels.
>
> In the case of our wheel case it could have a valve to take in extra
> air when it's desirable. I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a
> good propeller.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 22 2007, 4:56 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2:02 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 4:01?pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for the references. I confess I don't know much about the
> > > topic.
>
> > I think you should study up on boundary layer, Reynolds numbers,
> > laminar flow, turbulent flow, Coanda effect, and Tesla boundary layer
> > pumps before considering any technological solutions if you're trying
> > to set some kind of record with a bicycle.
>
> You are of course right but I'm just being curious. Who knows what we
> can come up with.
>
>
>
> > > To me it seems like a simple flexible extension at the front of the
> > > rear wheel cover (like in my illustration) would suffer a downwards
> > > force. As this would tend to bend the extension forwards it should
> > > create some trust.
>
> > Yes, it could create some small amount of thrust, but you have to
> > realize that the dynamic pressure of air = density ratio X mass of air
> > X velocity in ft/sec^2 X cross-sectional area pf the stream
>
> > The mass of air is so low and the velocity of the air pumped by the
> > tire is very low,
> > so the dynamic pressure will be small.
>
> > > The boundary layer flow is already squashed into
> > > the ground, I don't think it can get much worse application as that.
>
> > No, the boundary layer is viscous and stays attached to the rotating
> > tire as long as flow in laminar. The larger stream of air outside the
> > boundary layer would be moving slower than the air stuck in the
> > boundary layer.
>
> I didn't word that correctly. The layer closest to the tire would go
> almost as fast as the tire. The first one is glued onto the tire,
> every next layer goes a bit slower.
>
> I was suggesting to gradually compress the slowest part so that it
> goes faster as the medium flow. In stead of having a solid frame
> around the wheel it would then be sealed in (some what) moving air.
>
> > > By gradually making the circle smaller the air accelerates around the
> > > rim. Like a ballerina pulling her arms in.
>
> > You're thinking of angular momentum, and I doubt if the polar moment
> > of inertia of a mass of air amounts to anything. You can google up
> > "flywheel" at Wikipedia to study that subject.
>
> Only the fastest moving layer should remain on the tire. The slower
> layers create drag on the ground and cross the air flowing around the
> bike.(underneath)
>
> So it would be thrust in exchange for drag.
>
> If it's really worth it we should investigate how to create additional
> drag with the wheel.
>
> So far I found this patent from Mr Barefoot, not entirely sure how it
> works but the toy makes lift from spin and the patent makes
> interesting citations from sailing and flying machines.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4051622
>
> > > Would that make the boundary layer drag go faster as the tire?
>
> > > If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
>
> > I doubt it. The fastest dustbin-faired downhill bicycle I ever saw
> > only went about 130 mph. With 32-inch diameter wheels, the RPM at 130
> > is only 1365 RPM.
>
> > But, if you study Tesla boundary layer pumps you can get some idea of
> > how fast the disks have turn to move an appreciable amount of air.
>
> I started thinking about this when I saw the wind coming from the rear
> wheel of a bicycle riding in front of me.
>
> The owner had covered the back seat in aluminum foil (as a joke) but
> the foil was blowing upwards from the tire. He wasn't going that fast
> and there was at least 15 cm of space between the wheel and the
> spontaneously self assembled measurement apparatus. :-)
>
> As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> Tesla turbine.
>
> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> I'm just curious :-)
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 22 2007, 5:17 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:39 am, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:26:13 -0800 (PST), "gdewi...@gmail.com"
>
> > <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I guess I'm wondering if a wheel can be a
> > >good propeller.
>
> > Dear Gaby,
>
> > Nope.
>
> This is an interesting answer.
>
> We both know you are guessing Carl.
>
> This is actually the main reason I look at things like this.
>
> No offence but your guess is so vastly inaccurate it's just silly. I
> can think of a hundred ways to make a wheel that is also a propeller.
> It's just not possible for you to make claims about any of those
> designs before you see them.
>
> The "nope" you talk of drains the effort going towards such
> investigation.
>
> It gives away how you have never tried to design one.
>
> Don't get me wrong.
>
> I'm not claiming such a thing is possible. I indeed can't provide one
> that works jet. But could you explain on what you base your
> impossibility claim?
>
> In some way I'm grateful there are so much treasures buried at the
> surface. Honestly, the more amazing things I wouldn't even dare
> talking about. 100 to 1 the only replies will be of the "nope" kind.
>
> My personal favorite are people who say you cant sail up the wind. lol
>
> If your answer is "it's never been tried", how does that mean it's
> impossible? If it's never been looked into, is it therefor
> impossible?
>
> It's so ironic?
>
> But thanks for your comment.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 22 2007, 6:38 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> > more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> > to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> > I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> > Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > :-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith-Schneider
> "The Voith Schneider propeller (VSP), also known as a cycloid drive is
> a specialized marine propulsion system. It is highly maneuverable,
> being able to change the direction of its thrust almost
> instantaneously. It is widely used on tugs and ferries."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls#Cyclic
> "The control is called the cyclic because it changes the pitch of the
> rotor blades cyclically. That is, the pitch or feathering angle of the
> rotor blades change depending upon their position as they rotate
> around the hub so that all blades will change their angle the same
> amount at the same point in the cycle. The change in cyclic pitch has
> the effect of changing the angle of attack and thus the lift generated
> by a single blade as it moves around the rotor disk. This in turn
> causes the blades to fly up or down in sequence, depending on the
> change in lift."
>
> http://www.car16.info/2007/10/14/motorcycle-rear-wheel-propeller-adap...
> "Many motorcycles can travel up to 165 mph in sixth gear. The average
> Cessna private airplane, which has a single-engine takes off at about
> 40 miles per hour. So why can t a motorcycle fly? Only one reason it
> does not have wings and it does not have a propeller."
On Dec 23 2007, 12:59 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:22 pm, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How do you know that the lift on the aluminum foil wasn't caused by
> > air under the foil trying to move into the low pressure region behind
> > the rider's butt?
>
> Yes, but of course, that has to be it. The pressure is there but that
> vacuum is obviously much bigger. To move air we need both a high and a
> low pressure zone. So my weird observation was that air flows from the
> back end of the tire to the back of the rider. It's still weird to
> see.
>
> > Motor vehicle braking technology being quite adequate, I can't imagine
> > any use for additional wheel drag due to aerodynamic effects.
>
> Yeah, but I'm sure you can imagine creating drag is possible. Just
> treat it like an ability to create something. Drag doesn't sound very
> useful but it's work to move air? Have to use the tire because there
> isn't any room on a bike for devices that size.
>
> > > So far I found this patent from Mr Barefoot, not entirely sure how it
> > > works but the toy makes lift from spin and the patent makes
> > > interesting citations from sailing and flying machines.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4051622
>
> > It works like an end-plated airfoil, creating "lift" by a combination
> > of Bernoulli principle, Newtonian reaction and circulation theory.
>
> Even tho it sounds impossible I was trying to figure out how to fit
> the wheel into the rim under an angle. We have flexible couplings, it
> should be possible to have the rim move under a different angle from
> the rest of the wheel and put blades on the spokes so that the drag
> accelerates the wheel as if sailing up the wind.
>
> I put a new turbine design on the page. Nothing has the right size,
> it's just an illustration of a thought.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
>
> I was drawing to slow it was already described by Bruce in the
> meantime.
On Dec 23 2007, 1:01 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 10:07 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 10:56 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 22, 2:02 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 4:01?pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Thanks for the references. I confess I don't know much about the
> > > > > topic.
>
> > > > I think you should study up on boundary layer, Reynolds numbers,
> > > > laminar flow, turbulent flow, Coanda effect, and Tesla boundary layer
> > > > pumps before considering any technological solutions if you're trying
> > > > to set some kind of record with a bicycle.
>
> > > You are of course right but I'm just being curious. Who knows what we
> > > can come up with.
>
> > > > > To me it seems like a simple flexible extension at the front of the
> > > > > rear wheel cover (like in my illustration) would suffer a downwards
> > > > > force. As this would tend to bend the extension forwards it should
> > > > > create some trust.
>
> > > > Yes, it could create some small amount of thrust, but you have to
> > > > realize that the dynamic pressure of air = density ratio X mass of air
> > > > X velocity in ft/sec^2 X cross-sectional area pf the stream
>
> > > > The mass of air is so low and the velocity of the air pumped by the
> > > > tire is very low,
> > > > so the dynamic pressure will be small.
>
> > > > > The boundary layer flow is already squashed into
> > > > > the ground, I don't think it can get much worse application as that.
>
> > > > No, the boundary layer is viscous and stays attached to the rotating
> > > > tire as long as flow in laminar. The larger stream of air outside the
> > > > boundary layer would be moving slower than the air stuck in the
> > > > boundary layer.
>
> > > I didn't word that correctly. The layer closest to the tire would go
> > > almost as fast as the tire. The first one is glued onto the tire,
> > > every next layer goes a bit slower.
>
> > > I was suggesting to gradually compress the slowest part so that it
> > > goes faster as the medium flow. In stead of having a solid frame
> > > around the wheel it would then be sealed in (some what) moving air.
>
> > > > > By gradually making the circle smaller the air accelerates around the
> > > > > rim. Like a ballerina pulling her arms in.
>
> > > > You're thinking of angular momentum, and I doubt if the polar moment
> > > > of inertia of a mass of air amounts to anything. You can google up
> > > > "flywheel" at Wikipedia to study that subject.
>
> > > Only the fastest moving layer should remain on the tire. The slower
> > > layers create drag on the ground and cross the air flowing around the
> > > bike.(underneath)
>
> > > So it would be thrust in exchange for drag.
>
> > > If it's really worth it we should investigate how to create additional
> > > drag with the wheel.
>
> > > So far I found this patent from Mr Barefoot, not entirely sure how it
> > > works but the toy makes lift from spin and the patent makes
> > > interesting citations from sailing and flying machines.http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4051622
>
> > > > > Would that make the boundary layer drag go faster as the tire?
>
> > > > > If so, would it create any note-worthy trust?
>
> > > > I doubt it. The fastest dustbin-faired downhill bicycle I ever saw
> > > > only went about 130 mph. With 32-inch diameter wheels, the RPM at 130
> > > > is only 1365 RPM.
>
> > > > But, if you study Tesla boundary layer pumps you can get some idea of
> > > > how fast the disks have turn to move an appreciable amount of air.
>
> > > I started thinking about this when I saw the wind coming from the rear
> > > wheel of a bicycle riding in front of me.
>
> > > The owner had covered the back seat in aluminum foil (as a joke) but
> > > the foil was blowing upwards from the tire. He wasn't going that fast
> > > and there was at least 15 cm of space between the wheel and the
> > > spontaneously self assembled measurement apparatus. :-)
>
> > > As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
> > > motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> > > Tesla turbine.
>
> > > Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> > > I'm just curious :-)
>
> > >http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> > > gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
> > other side of the wheel toward the back. The spoke area of the wheel
> > should be compleatly enclosed. Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
>
> > Notice that on GP bikes and many race replicas they have a close
> > fitting rear fender attached to the swingarm to maintain the close
> > spacing.
>
> > Bruce
>
> I was thinking of just that, thanks for pointing out the GP bikes.
>
> My drawing of what you describe is on the page.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 23 2007, 1:12 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 22, 11:19 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2007-12-22, bsr3...@my-deja.com <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 10:56 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > >> As that was just a slow moving bike I became curious how much wind
> > >> motor cycles blow into the ground. The tire isn't quite flat like a
> > >> Tesla turbine.
>
> > >> Still that doesn't mean there is note worthy action to be exploited.
>
> > >> I'm just curious :-)
>
> > >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> > >> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Put an inlet on one side of the wheel in front and an outlet on the
> > > other side of the wheel toward the back. The spoke area of the wheel
> > > should be compleatly enclosed.
>
> > I cannot rule out the possibility that that kind of thing might have
> > some beneficial effect.
>
> > > Make the spokes into blades of a fan.
>
> > But I'm sure this is going too far. If you make the wheel into a fan,
> > then in effect you're propelling the bike partly by swimming through the
> > air rather than by pushing against the road. This is certainly going to
> > be much less efficient.
>
> Imagine each blade as a sail sailing close to the wind. If the blade
> is not spinning forwards the "wind" from the drag is not coming from
> the direction the blade is traveling in.
>
> Even tho it sounds impossible I was trying to figure out how to fit
> the wheel into the rim under an angle. We have flexible couplings, it
> should be possible to have the rim move under a different angle from
> the rest of the wheel.
>
> But it would still require blade shaped spokes so it would be easier
> to change the wind direction in the first place.
>
> > You could connect the cranks not to the back wheel at all but to a big
> > propeller on the front or rear. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts
> > that would be much less efficient than if you did just connect it to the
> > wheel.
>
> > It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> > solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> > It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> > stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> > that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road.
>
> Yes, more parts = bad need to use the same parts for everything and
> even eliminate them where we can. This makes the wheel an interesting
> candidate to become a propeller.
>
> Drag is mainly caused by frontal surface area if we put the wheel
> inlet at the front it would remove the drag from that surface and put
> a vacuum there.
>
> It all sounds a bit Battle star galactica but that is from 1980
>
> 600 internet years ago.
>
> hehehe
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
On Dec 23 2007, 1:48 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:37 am, Buteo lineatus <Buteo.linea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 2:19?pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
> > > It's one thing to try to improve the overall drag of a vehicle with some
> > > solution involving moving parts-- this is quite an interesting question.
> > > It's quite another to actually increase the work you're doing in
> > > stirring up the air as a means of pushing the vehicle along. I doubt
> > > that's ever going to be as efficient as turning a wheel against a road
>
> > Using a propellor to drive a land vehicle is a dumb idea.
>
> Yes, we all agreed on that for hundreds of years.
>
> > The aerodynamic thrust that comes off a propellor is sensitive to the
> > square of the air velocity passing over the blades,
>
> Ok, say you are traveling at 10 mph up against wind of 10 mph.
>
> This would be 20 mph drag.
>
> We get 8 parts of energy out of 1 part drag and 1 part wind.
>
> That leaves us with 6 parts to play with.
>
> lol
>
> > so fixed pitch
> > propellors work best over a narrow speed range and variable pitch
> > propellors are used for high speed aircraft.
>
> But then I just invent a new variable pitch propeller.
>
> Sounds easy.
>
> We are making very simple use of the prop, there is no need to adjust
> it the mechanism can just be mechanically configured .
>
> So the blade is attached to the spoke at the front side (direction of
> travel) and we use a simple spring to pull the blade to the center
> where it cuts no wind.
>
> The angle of the blades will automagically change when there is air
> streaming though the tube (either forwards or backwards).
>
> By making the front side of the blade heavier as the back one can
> prevent sidewards trust when breaking.
>
> > Imagine varying the angle of your wheel spokes to get more thrust to
> > go faster and the idea gets ridiculous. A wheel is a wheel, it
> > transmits mechanical power, not aerodynamic thrust.
>
> The wheel should of course continue to operate exactly like it does or
> it wouldn't be an improvement. :-) I know it all sounds very weird but
> I'm grateful for your thoughts on the subject. I always forget to
> mention that. lol
>
> > Gas turbine engines have many blades, while a propeller might have
> > from 2 to 5 blades. Gas turbines produce so little power at lower RPM,
> > 80% throtlle is idle speed.
>
> Yes, but we should appreciate how big this problem really is for the
> wind power industry. And they do seem to overcome it thought size. So
> if they can use slow winds standing still we can use fast wind while
> moving fast.
>
> A no nonsense way to power the world?
>
> Or am I wrong to assume that :
>
> 2 times 10 mph gives about 8 times as much drag as 10 mph?
On Dec 23 2007, 2:14 am, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:14 am, Werehatrack <raul...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:38:53 -0800 (PST), "gdewi...@gmail.com"
> > <gdewi...@gmail.com> may have said:
>
> > >On Dec 21, 9:29 pm, "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> A tire drags air along it's rim, this airstream becomes thicker and
> > >> more violent when you go faster. I was thinking perhaps it is possible
> > >> to find a way to cut this Mohawk of air into a more useful shape.
>
> > >> I've some what illustrated my idea here.
>
> > >>http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
>
> > >> Please share me your thoughts on this.
>
> > Your idea is worthless.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Please do not let my analysis dissuade you
> > from pursuing funding for development; venture capitalists and
> > research grant readers need amusement, too.
>
> It's not even an idea jet, it's still an observation. After the
> observation there might be an idea. That what is trash to you is
> treasure to me. That collection of things you would call impossible
> contains everything human kind is ever going to discover in it's
> future.
>
> Here is a good example derived from this topic.
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/firefighting-motorcycle
>
> I had to invent it first to be able to search for it.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voith-Schneider
> > >"The Voith Schneider propeller (VSP), also known as a cycloid drive is
> > >a specialized marine propulsion system. It is highly maneuverable,
> > >being able to change the direction of its thrust almost
> > >instantaneously. It is widely used on tugs and ferries."
>
> > This is relevant to what? Tugs and ferries use this despite its
> > massive weight, extreme cost and horrible efficiency because it's a
> > good fit for the task they must perform. I see no usefulness with
> > air.
>
> You should imagine it's a wheel hub. :-)
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_flight_controls#Cyclic
> > >"The control is called the cyclic because it changes the pitch of the
> > >rotor blades cyclically. That is, the pitch or feathering angle of the
> > >rotor blades change depending upon their position as they rotate
> > >around the hub so that all blades will change their angle the same
> > >amount at the same point in the cycle. The change in cyclic pitch has
> > >the effect of changing the angle of attack and thus the lift generated
> > >by a single blade as it moves around the rotor disk. This in turn
> > >causes the blades to fly up or down in sequence, depending on the
> > >change in lift."
>
> > That description apparently is imparting a meaning to you that is not
> > present for the rest of the world.
>
> This describes creating trust with a rotor in a conventional way.
>
> > >http://www.car16.info/2007/10/14/motorcycle-rear-wheel-propeller-adap...
> > >"Many motorcycles can travel up to 165 mph in sixth gear. The average
> > >Cessna private airplane, which has a single-engine takes off at about
> > >40 miles per hour. So why can t a motorcycle fly? Only one reason it
> > >does not have wings and it does not have a propeller."
>
> > The author of that entry ignores more than he illuminates. The bottom
> > line is that a motorcycle is not an airplane, and while they have a
> > couple of minor things in common (each typically has an internal
> > combustion engine of some sort, and each typically employs a fossil
> > fuel as its energy source) the resemblances end soon thereafter.
>
> But say you could calculate the energy in the wind and you could
> calculate the energy in the drag
>
> Now I ask you is the SUM not different when combined before squared?
>
> say 10 km/hr is 1 energy
>
> is 20 km/hr now 2 energy?
>
> and 30 km/hr is 3?
>
> I thought it was 8, 64, 512 ..... hehehehe
>
> I'm convinced I've made a mistake here but where is it?
>
> http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/wheel-cover-turbine
> gabydewilde - wheel cover turbine
Perhaps it's such an awful idea the turbine should be made to fold in
when driving, fold out when breaking etc etc. There are lots of angles
to look under.
There are supper efficient electric bikes.
There are very good recumbent bicycles.
Solar cars are still expensive but they do work.
I'm not in a race with anyone, my solar car can have as much batteries
as she can carry and she can have pedals to.
But suggesting to stick a wind turbine on it would be weird?