- #36
A.T.
Science Advisor
- 12,276
- 3,470
Why NOT?magpies said:Ya know if the wind was strong enough on the given day a car powered by wind power could work... NOT.
Why NOT?magpies said:Ya know if the wind was strong enough on the given day a car powered by wind power could work... NOT.
sophiecentaur said:You don't seemed to have grasped the fact that taking erergy from the air you're traveling through merely increases the energy required to drive you forward. No free lunch.
http://boatdesign.net/articles/tunnel-hull-design/index.htm
50 mph yields 110 lbf of lift
100 mph yields 340 lbf of lift
RonL said:I'm not sure what to say.
Anything set in motion offers a potential of "energy return".
Flying in ground effect involves (in general) fast speed and extensive flat and open areas.
Driving in ground effect will involve much slower speed and contact with the ground, for reasons of operator control.
Any work performed with any compression of air will produce a change of temperature. Making use of pressure changes around a moving object can produce big returns in how much overall energy is needed to keep the object in motion.
sophiecentaur said:You write as if you think there's some magical extra energy available. The best you can do , when you are running steadily, is to minimize your losses.
OmCheeto said:Exactly!
But like Ron, you have to change all parameters of an experiment, regardless of whether or not you think they will come close improving the system.
I thumbed through an insanely long 200 page pdf yesterday describing improvements in the aerodynamics of light trucks. (I own a light truck, so I was mildly interested.)
The last thing in the world I would have believed was that a cowl air dam across the front of the vehicle would contribute the greatest improvement of the 250 variations to the aerodynamics of the vehicle.(I actually still don't believe it)
http://www.tercelreference.com/downloads/gettrdoc.pdf (8 megabytes!)
They of course tried ducting, to no avail...
sophiecentaur said:I remember reading Colin Chapman (Lotus designer) in his classic book of the 60s. He wrote that you cannot approach aerodynamics intuitively. 'Go faster' ideas usually don't.
It seems to be mostly a matter of reducing / shedding vortices rather than have them hanging around your back end. Those turned-up wing tips on all the big jets have more than paid for themselves.
RonL said:Reducing friction drag on the skin of the vehicle will be the biggest area of innovation. We might start with something as non-se*y as a bus and work down.
The test vehicle that NASA used is shown below:
Figure 7. NASA Dryden Research Vehicle – Box Shape
NASA’s interest was primarily directed at improving semi trailer
performance but these results are even more appropriate for light trucks. They
found that a practical drag coefficient (Cd) of .25 was possible when a rounded
front was implemented along with a truncated “boattail” shaped back.
OmCheeto said:You're not an ex-NASA scientist are you?
from page 28 of the http://www.tercelreference.com/downloads/gettrdoc.pdf" I mentioned yesterday:
I was all like; "That's a NASA designed vehicle?" on Sunday. But seeing your bus comment today made me realize that science isn't always pretty, nor as sophie.c pointed out, intuitively logical.