Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT Sail downwind faster than the wind!

J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Airhead Designs said:
John Doe:

Funny thing the record of the thread ... you're the only one
that has brought up my business. I've never mentioned it a
single time.

It is right up there...

"Airhead Designs"

You promote it every time you post, Airhead.
--
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
--- No, it's because you're jealous and you can't stand to have
anyone who has accomplished what you haven't stand up to you and
refuse to take your bullshit.

Are you sure about that, Jiffy? Are you not yet getting the idea
that the party crashers Rick Cavallaro and his sidekick are
running around the Internet acting like they are the inventors in
order to solicit investments? Search the Internet, notice that
Rick Cavallaro is repeatedly mentioned as the inventor and that
none of the articles acknowledge the real inventor. Now who do you
think asked for and contributed to those articles (Rick Cavallaro
and his sidekick even claim to have written some of the articles)?
Who do you think gave all those websites the impression that Rick
Cavallaro is the inventor? They are already known to be soliciting
investments. Ricky's sidekick is here advertising their company
name.
--
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
They are not soliciting investment;

How do you know that?
they are seeking confrontation and adulation, victory over ascii
files posted by total strangers. Isn't that weird?

Rick's excuse for pretending to be the inventor is because he
allegedly conceived of the idea independently. So he runs around
telling everyone that he is the inventor. Ego, investment, or
both.
--
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nunya said:
You are a goddamned idiot.

That's not what your mother says, Jackie (or whatever your troll-disguising nym-shifting alias happens to be next time).

You are just a flaming idiot, Jackie.
--









The "Jiffy" proves that, you adolescent
minded putz!
Are you not yet getting the idea
that the party crashers Rick Cavallaro and his sidekick are
running around the Internet acting like they are the inventors in
order to solicit investments?

Cite? I see no calls for investors. You are a goddamned liar,
AND you are fucking forever busted, Doe boy.
Search the Internet, notice that
Rick Cavallaro is repeatedly mentioned as the inventor and that
none of the articles acknowledge the real inventor.

Experimental craft are NOT 'inventions' they are 'creations'.

They may or may not incorporate 'inventions' into them.

You will never have enough grasp of reality to understand
such a premise, however.
Now who do you
think asked for and contributed to those articles (Rick Cavallaro
and his sidekick even claim to have written some of the articles)?

Can you be any more of a convoluted reading comprehension
compromised idiot?
Who do you think gave all those websites the impression that Rick
Cavallaro is the inventor?

He IS the inventor of the craft that he created, idiot.
They are already known to be soliciting
investments.

Cite, you libelous, retarded ****!
Ricky's sidekick is here advertising their company
name.

Whoopie fucking doo. He is not 'advertising' dumbfuck.
Show us where all the spam posts are? Oh, that's right,
you cannot. Why? Because there is no such citation that
can be made. The other reason? You are too
goddamned retarded to have any grasp of the big picture,
little boy. You are a pathetic joke against real men
everywhere.
Simple: You want to believe that yours are far superior to anyone
else's and _you_ are far superior to everyone else.
I'm just a circuit designer.
I like to share circuit designs, giving
and taking and just playing around with them.
You are also a fucking retard for adding non-groups to your posts.
You are as pathetic as it gets.

Get back over to the kook group, where you belong, boy.
 
S

Sylvia Else

Jan 1, 1970
0
Virg:

The debated centered on whether the stored energy of the blades
played a part in autorotation. That last sentence (above) made it
appear as though you might just be still making that claim.

The fact that your statement was rather fuzzily written IMO made be
restate the correct position but I was careful not to say your
statement was wrong (because it wasn't wrong - just unclear.)

Glad you agree with the correct position.

And indeed, with what I said, apparently.

Sylvia
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
UseNet troll-wannabe Rick Cavallaro wrote:


August 11, 2010

(c) LoveEarthNews

In a stunning development, Tesla Motors has announced that it
has ceased production of its electric Roadster and abandoned
development of its next-generation Model S electric sedan. CEO
Elon Musk, citing the difficulty of creating a network of
charging stations, battery life issues, and the fact that the
cars are "just plain ugly", announced that Tesla has licensed
the breakthrough FTTWDW technology of ThinAir Corporation.

(graphic: artists conception of bumper-to-bumper BeanieMobiles
on scenic Interstate 280)

That reminds me of powered paragliding (with an electric motor
instead of gas).

Anybody who likes flying and has not heard of it, just look for
"paramotor" on YouTube. The poster (imasuper0308) has some well
done videos, but takes way too many chances. Powered paragliding
practically makes the jetpack vaporware obsolete. Will not be long
until electric motors will be standard equipment, just requires
better battery technology like so many other things.

Powered paragliding looks like an efficient and exciting form of
transportation, someday. Crrently, I only see recreational uses.
All you need is an Internet connection and a paramotor :D

Good luck and have fun.
--
 
J

John Doe

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nunya said:
George Jetson wanna be retard.

Says the guy who practically every regular on UseNet considers a
troll.

Nymbecile is the nym-shifting kung fu master of UseNet!
--
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sounds like we should add a big clock spring emergency
spin mechanism under the rotor and above the engine that
is never engaged, but gets engaged in the last hundred feet
of an emergency descent so that just a slight bit more last
second lift can be achieved. It would be worth the extra 100Lbs.

if you activated that the helicopter would tend to spin out of control
at the worst possible moment due to autotorque, which is not present
(or even slightly negative) with the blades autorotating, but would
become suddenly positive (and varying) with the spring motor engaged.

IMO external airbags would be cheaper, lighter, and more effective.
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Back to electronics. Will there ever be an electric helicopter in a
man sized form factor?

lithium is right up the top of the periodic table. lithium batteries
are going to be heard to beat for power-to-weight.
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
Sounds entertaining. Can you share it with the class?

these was a sthread aguing that latching relay if used to amplify DC
had infinite power gain as they dont consume power except when
switching.

The real-world gain is of course asymptotic, proportional to 1/p
(where p is the period of the signal)
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
"The real-world gain is of course asymptotic"

"Of course" suggests a simple explanation.

I wrote that.

it takes energy e (joules) to switch the relay on and then off
the relay is on for period t (seconds)
the switched load is load is P (watts)

power gain is tP/e

which is linear in time, but amplifiers are usually measured in the
frequency domain.

In the frequency domain this gain is proportional to 1/F
with an asymptote at F=0





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Larkin said:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:57:25 -0500, John Fields

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:08:36 -0700, John Larkin


On Aug 8, 5:28 pm, John Fields wrote:

In that vein, we can go over the "infinite gain latching relay"
debacle if you want to...

Sounds entertaining. Can you share it with the class?

these was a sthread aguing that latching relay if used to amplify DC
had infinite power gain as they dont consume power except when
switching.

The real-world gain is of course asymptotic, proportional to 1/p
(where p is the period of the signal)

Around our shop, we refer to anything that's unboundedly large as
"infinite." We say stuff like "when R3 hits 2K, the gain goes
infinite." [1] JF wants to debate that point.

---
Nope.

What casual errors you commit in your shop are of no concern to me,
but what you did, in public, was to carelessly declare that latching
relays have infinite gain.

They don't. Period.

It's just as simple as that, but after I called you on it, you tried
every trick in the book, including redefining infinity to follow
whatever sloppy conventions you follow in your shop, to keep from
having to admit to making an error, like you always do.
---

In fact, he's made a career of it.

---
Since latching relays clearly _can't_ have infinite gain, the point
isn't debatable.

You, however, seem obsessed with trying to bend reality to fit into
your little frame every time the point gets mentioned, So I'd have to
say: "PKB"

---
Why?

To provide you with yet another springboard from which you'll try to
launch yet another unwarranted personally vindictive tirade?

I was wondering what the gain of a latching relay might be asymptotic
to. You said it was:

"The real-world gain is of course asymptotic"

"Of course" suggests a simple explanation.
No thank you.

If it clucks like a chicken...


John
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
I've returned to normalcy by simply plonking Larkin.

No agitation. No urge to lose my cool. No need to convince (and try
to educate) idiots that the fundamental rule of Life, Physics and
Engineering is "TANSTAAFL" :)

Now I can ask and answer engineering questions without having to
contend with distracting bloviation.

No, please, Can you explain to me how this little vehicle goes uphill
faster than the
treadmill speed. Please!
MikeK
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can you explain to me how this little vehicle goes uphill
faster than the treadmill speed. Please!

Certainly...

Consider a cart with a generator hooked to the rear axle. We'll
attach the propeller (it IS a propeller - not a turbine) to an
electric motor.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume the following
efficiencies:

generator: 85%
electric motor: 85%
propeller: 85%

And just for now...
rolling resistance: 0 lbs
aerodynamic drag: 0 lbs
(we'll come back to these).


Now let's tow this cart up to 20 mph in a 15 mph tail-wind and let it
loose. That means it will feel a relative head-wind of 5 mph over the
cart. Now I'll adust my generator output until it produces 20 lbs of
drag at the wheels. This means I'm putting power in at a rate of 20
mph x 20 lbs (400 mph-lbs). But I only get 340 mph-lbs out of the
generator due to its limited efficiency. I deliver that power to the
electric motor. But I only get 289 mph-lbs at the motor's shaft due
to the motor's innefficiency. So I'm putting 289 mph-lbs into the
prop - but it's only doing about 245 mph-lbs work on the air due to
it's innefficiency.

So now lets see how much thrust I'm getting from my prop...

245 mph-lbs / 5 mph (the speed I'm moving through the air) gives 49
lbs.

So we're producing 49 lbs of thrust and only 20 lbs of drag. But we
haven't yet accounted for the rolling resistance and aero drag. If we
can get both of those numbers to come in at a total of less than 29
lbs (which should be a piece of cake) we'll be going 5 mph faster than
the wind and still accelerating. But why?

Simple. The car acts as a force multiplier (i.e. lever) between two
media (the ground and the air). Just like any lever, I can get more
force out of one end if I put more distance in the other. Force x
distance = work, so those will nominally be the same on both sides.
But my car is going over the ground at 20 mph while it's only going
through the air at 5 mph. This means the ground side of my lever
moves 20 miles in one hour while the air end of my lever moves only 5
miles in that same hour. With no losses I can get four times the
thrust as the drag I produce.
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Consider a cart with a generator hooked to the rear axle. We'll
attach the propeller (it IS a propeller - not a turbine) to an
electric motor.
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume the following
efficiencies:
generator: 85%
electric motor: 85%
propeller: 85%
And just for now...
rolling resistance: 0 lbs
aerodynamic drag: 0 lbs
(we'll come back to these).

Now let's tow this cart up to 20 mph in a 15 mph tail-wind and let it
loose. That means it will feel a relative head-wind of 5 mph over the
cart. Now I'll adust my generator output until it produces 20 lbs of
drag at the wheels. This means I'm putting power in at a rate of 20
mph x 20 lbs (400 mph-lbs). But I only get 340 mph-lbs out of the
generator due to its limited efficiency. I deliver that power to the
electric motor. But I only get 289 mph-lbs at the motor's shaft due
to the motor's innefficiency. So I'm putting 289 mph-lbs into the
prop - but it's only doing about 245 mph-lbs work on the air due to
it's innefficiency.
So now lets see how much thrust I'm getting from my prop...
245 mph-lbs / 5 mph (the speed I'm moving through the air) gives 49
lbs.
So we're producing 49 lbs of thrust and only 20 lbs of drag. But we
haven't yet accounted for the rolling resistance and aero drag. If we
can get both of those numbers to come in at a total of less than 29
lbs (which should be a piece of cake) we'll be going 5 mph faster than
the wind and still accelerating. But why?
Simple. The car acts as a force multiplier (i.e. lever) between two
media (the ground and the air). Just like any lever, I can get more
force out of one end if I put more distance in the other. Force x
distance = work, so those will nominally be the same on both sides.
But my car is going over the ground at 20 mph while it's only going
through the air at 5 mph. This means the ground side of my lever
moves 20 miles in one hour while the air end of my lever moves only 5
miles in that same hour. With no losses I can get four times the
thrust as the drag I produce.

Thanks Rick,
I was hoping Jim would analyze it and start thinking hmm...
maybe this thing isn't intuative and why is, that car going
faster than the 0 mph wind.
I find it interesting that there are so many nonbelievers with
so many tests showing it works.
One question, is the tacking of the prop necessary or could
a flat blade prop work? Some videos seem to think that is
the key, but your analysis would refute this.
MikeK
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
One question, is the tacking of the prop necessary or could
a flat blade prop work? Some videos seem to think that is
the key, but your analysis would refute this.

I'm not sure if you're referring to a prop with no twist or a prop
with no pitch. The prop has to have at minimum an effectively
positive pitch.

I think I mean a prop with no twist,
a prop with no pitch would be---- a piece of wood :)
I'm not sure what I mean anymore, somewhere along the line some
video suggested the vehicle can go DDWFTTW be cause the prop
is tacking to the wind.
This is not the video, but does give the general idea.
Thanks, MikeK
 
A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson said:
I'm NOT a non-believer. Everything has an explanation that fits
_both_ observation _and_ science.

MikeK, You seem to have trouble understanding what TANSTAAFL means
?:)

Back in the 70s I had a young lady take home fix me lunch and
give me
a little afternoon delight. All I got from it, is a fond memory.
Oh, and a free lunch! :)
MikeK
 
J

Jamie

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim said:
I've returned to normalcy by simply plonking Larkin.

No agitation. No urge to lose my cool. No need to convince (and try
to educate) idiots that the fundamental rule of Life, Physics and
Engineering is "TANSTAAFL" :)

Now I can ask and answer engineering questions without having to
contend with distracting bloviation.

Those who choose to believe in Larkin's (and his camp followers')
bloviation... well, that's their loss.

...Jim Thompson


Keep that up and you'll have no one to talk with..
 
Top