Can a Wind-Powered Vehicle Travel Downwind Faster Than the Wind?

  • Thread starter spork
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Wind
In summary, the person in the video built a wind powered vehicle that goes directly downwind - faster than the wind - steady state.
  • #71
ThinAirDesign said:
I'm quite surprised frankly that there are not more folks on a physics forum piping up and taking a position on a debate so fundamental to one of the most basic and long-standing physics principles.

No need frankly. They can wait for you and I to go and provide physical proof once again by taking the cart out on the road in a smooth tailwind, to show it behaves the same way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
spork said:
In response to... "How can a vehicle move faster than the wind that is powering it?"

OmCheeto wrote:
"It cannot go faster than the wind when going directly downwind."

Then I built a cart that does exactly that, made a video, and posted it.
Yes you did, but as I pointed out, the parameters of the experiment changed.
For you next experiment, I think you should remove the RC steering control from the first vehicle, add it to your new mini-me "faster than wind" vehicle, and put it back on the treadmill. I bet it would go even faster.
Now OmCheeto incredulously writes:

hmmm... I thought I'd deleted my statement that the reason they called you charlatans was because you are charlatans.
For the record, you used the term before I did.
and my_wan tells me I haven't been insulted, I may not have the stomach for this, and this is "how science works".

There's a kind of twilight-zone sort of entertainment to this I suppose.

I agree. I keep unsubscribing to this thread, yet somehow I keep getting sucked back into this vortex.

I guess it's like forcing ones self to read some poorly written mystery novel, because no matter how bad it gets, you just have to know how it ends.
 
  • #73
OmCheeto said:
...but as I pointed out, the parameters of the experiment changed.

And as I pointed out - you're wrong. I defined the parameters of the experiment. I concieved of the solution. JB and I built the cart, and we demonstrated it doing EXACTLY what we claimed.

For the record, you used the term before I did.

In point of fact I NEVER used to word "charlatan" except to complain about people calling me that.

I agree. I keep unsubscribing to this thread, yet somehow I keep getting sucked back into this vortex.

Next time you feel you're about to get sucked back in you really should call a friend and have them talk you down.

I guess it's like forcing ones self to read some poorly written mystery novel, because no matter how bad it gets, you just have to know how it ends.

I'll save you the trouble - I'm right. Sorry for the spoiler, but now you have no need to get "sucked back in" just to hurl insults at the ones who HAVE proved their point.
 
  • #74
Some members have a very bizarre definition of an "insult." Let me remind you that comments against someone's ideas, or someone's experiments are completely different to comments which are meant to solely put a member down, or insult them. The latter set are not permitted, as per the global guidelines.

The OP has given out way more than he has received, and in fact threw insults in his very first post here at PF. Thus, any remarks along the line of "self defence" are not going to wash.

Since there is clearly no hope of a civil discussion of this topic, this thread is done.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
10K
Replies
60
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
5
Views
956
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
271
Views
40K
  • Other Physics Topics
5
Replies
172
Views
27K
  • Classical Physics
3
Replies
101
Views
13K
Replies
169
Views
12K
Back
Top