Foil for current-driven propulsion?

well... I'm not here to do your education, Guys. My purpose is only to use every possible way to explore ideas and find people ready to challenge our common bounds. For some, this is education level. If you don't understand the lines I've drawn, I'm very sorry. There is indeed people who don't need even comments about to understand what I mean, although I admit I'm pretty lazy in explaining to others. Being confused by this lines means - I knows already that I'm a bad guy, although I try to dominate my wild instincts - being confused about physics and thermodynamics. Keeping saying "The energy comes from a moving mass, and can only be tapped by making use of another mass with a different relative speed." is like being in church repeating "Mary the immaculate, mother of Jesus" an infinite time, to make sure people will believe with their faith, and forget any logical mind.

I've shown you many times how energy could only be transformed, not created. You believe that this "craft", that illustrates very well the question of Artemis riding against the current, is able to go against the conveyor belt, then I suggest, again, to go back to formulas and lessons. Again, you illustrate your though about tapping by making use of another mass with a different relative speed, forgetting all about the basic principles of energy conversion.



Try given a bigger and bigger gear ratio of this device, and made bigger and bigger fan to pull up the "craft", the only thing that will happen, is that the wheels are going to slip. When this will happen, the fan won't operate and ultimately, and desesperately, the craft will be taken away by the belt. Worst, there is no crank ratio and fan diameter and wheel rubber formulation that would allow this "craft" to indefinitely stay in place at the given station. Because of the loss in energy conversion. The best result that you can obtain, with this "craft", is by eliminating every loss in the craft's apparatus ( which... by the way, violate thermodynamic laws), to have an energy conversion ratio of 1. In that case, the "craft" will only stay at the same position on the belt conveyor. Now, because it is an example you've proposed, it may be easier for you to understand and conclude about the Artemis case.

The examples of energy conversion that I've shown you, about the helicopter, the glider, the airplane are fully relevant to demonstrate this, but again, the best thing I can, for you, is to suggest to go back to formulas and lessons.

Extra solution to the english conveyor system
The system consumes the energy lost by the ore travelling from uphill to downhill. Down below, the ore is taken away and don't go back uphill. So can you calculate by your self what powers this device, if you just can consider adding to you Newtonian and inertial frames knowledge a little more. (Your actual knowledge is very good indeed, you very know how to make the addition of two speed vectors, that's great!).

When you finish this, be sure that I'll be waiting for you at home, guys, with nice hot chocolates and cookies !

 

I'd like to point out that it's possible to slope soar an autogyro.

Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy of people who put up fake videos of gadgets that can use the wind's energy to go faster than the wind, downwind?





Again, if the boat can sail downwind faster than the wind, it will do so, relative to the water, even if the wind the boat feels is just the motion of the current relative to the air. The boat has no way of knowing about the land, so it only responds to the air and water. We could concoct a crazy apparatus with moving land, still water, and wind, which would act exactly the same. The reference frame of the observer has no power over the boat. If it did, I could sit in a moving vehicle on a ridge with a telescope and screw up everything in sight, just by looking at it. Cars would run off the highway and flip over, birds would fall from the sky, and rivers would run backwards.

 

Excellent, rnlock, this anser to my question about windmill / screw propeller foiler to go faster than the wind downwid !

 

Sorry , answer !

 

I don't suggest, ... Make the calculations by yourself !!!!!!

 

Stop sneaking around on the internet. Why don't you choose a waterfall in the near, and select a swimmer capable of swimming faster than the current.... Propose him some cookies to jump into the water and escape the river flow. Use a drone - Yeah..... Drones are sooooo coooool ...... to trace his path to the bank. Add music to the video and post it on this forum ! If you really hate so badly doing some true calculations by yourself....

edit !!! I forgot !!! Put dollars on the bank upstream before him to jump !

 

I would enjoy Der Ritt der Walküren, von Wagner, for the music. If youtube videos are now proofs, I guess I would prefer seeing the one made by those who think that the earth is flat... The music is better...

 

I already did the calculations. Using the water as the inertial frame makes them simple. You've seen the results, and I gave enough information that anyone can replicate them. The only question is if the boat can do 16 knots with 11.3 knots of wind at 52 degrees off the bow. If so, it can get up-current, if slowly. Of what use is it to repeat the calculations? I'll get the same answer and you will make the same, or additional inscrutable objections.

 

What calculations ? 2+2 = 4 ?

Not the way to have your cookie !

 

Try again !

 

Sorry to play with you RMLOCK, you're not ready to accept the truth. The same goes for Veritaserum... If PhysicistS called this dispositif as impossible, there may be a reason, don't you think ? Have you tried the river thing ?

 

Please, don't be mistaken. If I'm joking here, that is not upon you or anyone. The problem posed is not so simple. In the XIXth century, a question has been posed to the physicists : If i lift myself off a chair, while keeping the seat with my arm, then pull my arm stronger as to hit my bottom, and repeat it as quick as possible, will I be able to fly ? Believe it or not, but it took more than half an century to demonstrate that it is impossible to fly like this. And I am one of those who are not so sure of this demonstration, or more precicely, that the demonstration do not cover all the cases. So I am making several experimentation to prove the demonstration wrong in a particular case, it's been 6 years now. You call it a tunnel effect !!!! So, to conclude, I won't go against your believe, and I always encourage you to prove what you believe, even If this may be not the best advice that one should made.

One last thing (edit ) : In science history, some scientists have also falsified their calculations, just to prove they are right. Don't go this way. In your path, stay honest, be a real scientist. It is the only way to find the thruth - again, I'm not saying that your vector additions is wrong or falsified, my point is to estimate if the boat, in the given conditions, is really able to realize effectively the addition you make, RMLOCK.

 

@Alan Cattelliot , just to make sure we all understand you correctly, do you think the videos @rnlock contributed in post #77 are fake? Or that they do not show vehicles capable of going downwind faster than the windspeed?

 

Well, That should put an end to this hijacked topic !
Errare humanum est .........!

 

Sorry to have used "die Dicke Bertha" . It is just that I didn't want to spend too much times on the question of "vehicles capable of going downwind faster than the windspeed". Here is the the first boat I've worked on, as CFD & VPP guy :


here is her polar (not maximum boat speed, but tempered boat speed in kts, in averaged weather patterns on round the world record) :


As you can see, most of the time, ORANGE II sailed @speed greater than the wind, downwind & upwind. Although it's not an Artemis like polar, she sailed at these speed, or greater, on the oceans without breaking anything but a mainsail batten & a key on the keyboard of the computer ....
To say that I really understand your argument about vector composition. Again, my point was to question the ability, in no wind, to go against the current.

Thanks for your kindess and your patience, again.