Electroboom: How Right IS Veritasium?! Don't Electrons Push Each Other??

[AnalogueLove1867]

the terminal will push extra electrons into the object creating an overall negative charge.

What pushes them?

The chemical reaction in the battery cells which generates moving ions that release electrons to the cathode and subtract them from the anode.
This means that there is now more electrons than protons in the negative terminal and more protons than electrons in the positive terminal. Thus a potential difference is generated.

Sure, but what pushes against an electron to make it move? Is it some physical partical that actually brushes up against it, or a field or what?

It is a chemical reaction that initiates the movement of the first electron. This first electron needs to move a certain distance before its electrostatic field can push the next electron in line
via repulsion with its electrostatic field. This isn't instant because electrons have momentum due to mass and are restricted in their movements by the atoms inside the metal. All this is tiny masses, movements and fields existing INSIDE the wire.
As an analogy...
If a big heavy metal ball ( the electron ) is covered with a very light but elastic rubber coating ( the electric field ) and it collides with another similar ball, would you actually say that the rubber coating
is what caused the first and second ball to move?
Two metal balls can easily collide with each other and transfer energy without any coating.
The  rubber coating ( that is very light and so does not contribute to momentum )  acts as an elastic extension of the balls volume. The position of the coating, The speed of the coating and the energy that it transmits to another ball
is all controlled and dictated by the position and momentum of the metal balls. Exactly the same thing applies to the electrostatic field around an electron.

[AnalogueLove1867]

Someone is getting their fields crossed (pun intended).

Wow, people here are an interesting bunch. If you connect any insulated metallic object to a minus 9v terminal, the terminal will push extra electrons into the object creating an overall negative charge.

That is wrong.  An insulated metalic object will be polarized with more electrons further away from the battery minus terminal, and less electrons closer to the battery minus terminal, but the net charge will be unaffected. 

Where did you get this idea?  Or did you simply mistype it?

When you disconnect the terminal the object will retain its charge because there is no way for the extra electrons to escape to an area with a lower concentration of electrons.
When you discharge the metallic object a small measurable current will pass from the object to ground. That is the extra electrons flowing from the object to ground. The object then returns to a 0 potential.
All conductors have some capacitance. It isn't just capacitors.

No, there is no chicken and the egg situation. In every example you can possibly give, it is a forced movement of charged particles with mass that produces a macroscopic potential difference in electronics.
The energy required to move electrons can come from chemical reactions, thermal energy, Nuclear bombardment, Radioactive decay, macroscopic motion ( turboelectric generators ), compression ( piezo-electrics) etc

Everything after your error can be ignored.

You are confusing electrostatic induction at a distance with a direct conducting connection lol. That is YOUR error! Yes, everything YOU say is probably garbage.
You are directly connecting a minus 9v battery terminal to an insulated conductor. It becomes a conducting extension of the terminal.
So during the connection extra electrons can flow from the negative terminal into the conductor until it also contains more electrons than protons and thus carries a net negative charge.
When you disconnect the conductor it retains this charge because it IS INSULATED! SUSPENDED ON A FOAM CUP ETC PLEASE USE YOUR OWN BRAIN. INSULATED FROM GROUND....
When you discharge it to ground a small current of surplus electrons flows out to ground.
This routinely happens all the time.
If a charged insulated conductor touches an identical neutral insulated conductor they both end up charged to half the capacity of the original conductor. Conservation of charge.
Monopole magnets don't exist but mono-charges certainly do.
Funny how you represent yourself with a monkey pic. An accurate depiction.

[PlainName]

If a big heavy metal ball ( the electron ) is covered with a very light but elastic rubber coating ( the electric field ) and it collides with another similar ball, would you actually say that the rubber coating is what caused the first and second ball to move?

Normally, no, because it's irrelevant, particularly at scale. But if the question was "how does one ball push another" then the answer would have to be "it pushes against the elastic rubber coating". That's relevant because 'elastic rubber coating' reacts differently to 'metal on metal spark-inducing ricochet', and the way in which the subsequent balls move will be different.

Further, the elastic rubber coating may have non-bounce effects - if the ball was doing this under water, for instance, perhaps the coating would give the ball buoyancy which would be important to what later balls will do.

[gnuarm]

Someone is getting their fields crossed (pun intended).

Wow, people here are an interesting bunch. If you connect any insulated metallic object to a minus 9v terminal, the terminal will push extra electrons into the object creating an overall negative charge.

That is wrong.  An insulated metalic object will be polarized with more electrons further away from the battery minus terminal, and less electrons closer to the battery minus terminal, but the net charge will be unaffected. 

Where did you get this idea?  Or did you simply mistype it?

When you disconnect the terminal the object will retain its charge because there is no way for the extra electrons to escape to an area with a lower concentration of electrons.
When you discharge the metallic object a small measurable current will pass from the object to ground. That is the extra electrons flowing from the object to ground. The object then returns to a 0 potential.
All conductors have some capacitance. It isn't just capacitors.

No, there is no chicken and the egg situation. In every example you can possibly give, it is a forced movement of charged particles with mass that produces a macroscopic potential difference in electronics.
The energy required to move electrons can come from chemical reactions, thermal energy, Nuclear bombardment, Radioactive decay, macroscopic motion ( turboelectric generators ), compression ( piezo-electrics) etc

Everything after your error can be ignored.

You are confusing electrostatic induction at a distance with a direct conducting connection lol. That is YOUR error! Yes, everything YOU say is probably garbage.
You are directly connecting a minus 9v battery terminal to an insulated conductor. It becomes a conducting extension of the terminal.
So during the connection extra electrons can flow from the negative terminal into the conductor until it also contains more electrons than protons and thus carries a net negative charge.
When you disconnect the conductor it retains this charge because it IS INSULATED! SUSPENDED ON A FOAM CUP ETC PLEASE USE YOUR OWN BRAIN. INSULATED FROM GROUND....
When you discharge it to ground a small current of surplus electrons flows out to ground.
This routinely happens all the time.
If a charged insulated conductor touches an identical neutral insulated conductor they both end up charged to half the capacity of the original conductor. Conservation of charge.
Monopole magnets don't exist but mono-charges certainly do.
Funny how you represent yourself with a monkey pic. An accurate depiction.

The problem is your misstatement of touching an insulated conductor to the battery.  If it is insulated, the conductor can't make contact with the battery terminal. 

Why would you describe the conductor as insulated if it is intended to make conductive contact with the battery?  I suggest you focus on the relevant aspects of the problem and not introduce confusion.

[electrodacus]

Yeah, completely agree with you. No resistance so no loss by that mechanism.
Placing a piece of unmagnetized iron next to the  superconductor loop would also reduce the current of the loop as it expends energy in magnetizing the iron.
Same goes with the air  and other moving gases or liquids. the  flow of air past a superconductor would gradually extract energy because it has a relative permeability of 1.00000037 lol.
So  you would need magnetic shielding AND a vacuum to prevent those loss mechanisms.
Just don't understand why nobody has done a long-term superconducting energy storage test. Seems crazy. Would love it if someone could find some study over months or years.

First time I heard of a superconductor I asked myself if the resistance was truly zero or it was just limited by measurement precision.
But then when you see what actually happen with type 1 superconductors in terms of resistance, that sudden drop to zero when the critical temperature is reached you know that something very significant has happened is not a gradual resistance drop towards zero.
If you drop a permanent magnet through a thick copper pipe so ultra low electrical resistance the speed at witch the magnet falls is reduced as part of the potential energy of the magnet is converted to electromagnetic radiation (heat) in the copper pipe.
If that pipe is made of super conductor material then magnet will just levitate / float likely forever but even if it is a few minutes and you have no special measurement devices it is enough to show that it is a perfect mirror for the magnetic field.
It will be the equivalent to having a perfect mirror for photos so if you had that you put some photons in a box and they will bounce there for a few minutes then you will know for sure it is a perfect mirror.
There is no perfect isolator not even perfect vacuum in real life but it seems perfect conductor is not a problem.  But is also not magical as while resistance is zero you are limited to max current you can transport through the superconductor before it becomes a normal conductor.

[electrodacus]

And, actually, you didn't answer the question. You go on about how one circuit is 1V/1W and the other is 2V/2W and that's exactly the point! Despite that difference, there is still 1A going along that top wire.

You can not look at current only as that is just one part of power and thus energy.
The number of electrons that will travel through a section of wire every second at 1A is  6241509128999772160
But it is also important to know the electrical potential as that is what accelerates those electrons.

So     1V * 1As = 1Ws = 1 Joule
while 2V * 1As = 2Ws = 2 Joule

Again to give an analogy. Say you have a small pinhole (equivalent to resistance) in your tire so you're losing energy at some rate.
Say 1000 molecules of air are lost every second (equivalent with number of electrons) at 200kPa (equivalent with electrical potential)
You can now have a tire with a smaller pinhole that also loses 1000 molecules per second but pressure is 300kPa and that means you lose more energy than in the first case even if you lose the same number of air molecules because those 1000 molecules are accelerated by a pressure 2x larger.

When you go to charge the tire with say an electric compressor you will see that more energy will be used to push 1000 molecules when you have 300kPa in the tire vs when you have just 200kPa with say ambient pressure of 100kPa.

[SiliconWizard]

Electroboom just inserted another coin!

[PlainName]

So     1V * 1As = 1Ws = 1 Joule
while 2V * 1As = 2Ws = 2 Joule

There is the same voltage across the wire in each case: in the first it is 1V_bat - 1V_res, and in the second it is (1V_bat+1V) - (1V_res+1V_res). This is, after all, what the last few pages have been about. We KNOW there is 1W and 2W, but how does this wire know that?

Say you have a small pinhole (equivalent to resistance) in your tire

The wire is not limiting the current or potential, so is not equivalent to a pinhole. The potential difference is the same, so it's not equivalent to your air pressure.

[electrodacus]

There is the same voltage across the wire in each case: in the first it is 1V_bat - 1V_res, and in the second it is (1V_bat+1V) - (1V_res+1V_res). This is, after all, what the last few pages have been about. We KNOW there is 1W and 2W, but how does this wire know that?

For anyone that draws a wire in a schematic it just means an ideal conductor with no resistance no inductance and no capacitance (this does not exist in real world).

The wire is not limiting the current or potential, so is not equivalent to a pinhole. The potential difference is the same, so it's not equivalent to your air pressure.

The wire (real wire made out of a room temperature metal) is a resistor so yes it limits the current the same as a pinhole limits the air flow.
In your example you can take a 58cm copper wire with a section of 0.01mm² that will have a resistance of about 1Ohm and connect the wire across the terminals of a 1V battery.
Or you can take a wire twice as long 1.16m same 0.01mm² cross section and connect it across a 2V battery or if you prefer across two 1V batteries connected in series which means actually the same thing.  You do not call a 9V battery a 6x 1.5V batteries in series.
So yes that 1.16m long wire limits the current that flows through it to 1A if the supply is 2V.

[PlainName]

In your example you can take a 58cm copper wire with a section of 0.01mm2 that will have a resistance of about 1Ohm and connect the wire across the terminals of a 1V battery.

Only if we wanted to to plonk a dead cat on the table. Just take it that this is a normal wire with a resistance that is negligible compared to everything else. Like normal wires.

[electrodacus]

In your example you can take a 58cm copper wire with a section of 0.01mm2 that will have a resistance of about 1Ohm and connect the wire across the terminals of a 1V battery.

Only if we wanted to to plonk a dead cat on the table. Just take it that this is a normal wire with a resistance that is negligible compared to everything else. Like normal wires.

Yes it is a normal copper wire with 0.01mm² cross section and a length of 58cm.
You can call this a wire or a 1Ohm resistor as both description will be correct since a wire and a resistor are the exact same thing.

All you have is a voltage source 1V and this wire or if you want call it a resistor.

[PlainName]

Yes it is a normal copper wire with 0.01mm2 cross section and a length of 58cm.

No it isn't. It's 2.5mm² of 10mm length. So there. And if that ain't good enough, it's 10V batteries and 10R resistors. The question doesn't change.

Since you're determined to keep steering past this question I think we can safely assume you can't answer it.

[electrodacus]

Yes it is a normal copper wire with 0.01mm2 cross section and a length of 58cm.

No it isn't. It's 2.5mm² of 10mm length. So there. And if that ain't good enough, it's 10V batteries and 10R resistors. The question doesn't change.

Since you're determined to keep steering past this question I think we can safely assume you can't answer it.

Do you get the point that wire and resistors are one and the same thing ?
The diagram showed a 1V voltage source and a 1Ohm resistor and nothing else.
So if I take a 1V constant voltage supply and 1Ohm wire/resistor witch I just decided will be a copper wire with cross section of 0.01mm² and 58cm long then it conforms perfectly with the schematic.

And if you want 10V and 10Ohm I can just use 5.8m of this same 0.01mm² wire that I got on sale
All I try to show you is that there is no distinction between a wire and a resistor.

[gnuarm]

How's it going guys?  Are you making good progress? 

Someone remind me, is this the discussion on the current in conductors, or the one on wind powered cars traveling faster than the wind?

Has anyone talked about leverage on the electrons yet?  It's all about the leverage.

[Nominal Animal]

Has anyone talked about leverage on the electrons yet?  It's all about the leverage.

What on Earth does the debt-to-equity ratio have to do with electrons?  Can you buy those too?  I'll have a dozen, please; one never has enough surplus electrons.

Mmmm, surplus electrons... 

[Alex Eisenhut]

If I use a hair dryer, does the wind make the electons flow faster on the outside of the heating coil?

[electrodacus]

If I use a hair dryer, does the wind make the electons flow faster on the outside of the heating coil?

Electrons flow inside the wire. Since air particles hitting the wire have a much lower temperature than the wire the wire temperature will drop thus the resistance of the wire will drop slightly meaning higher current as electrical potential is about the same.
That means a bit more electrons flow in a unit of time through a section of wire. But this increase in number of electrons flowing through the wire also results in a higher number of collisions so slightly more energy is radiated + conducted (conduction due to air molecules) than with just normal air convection.

[AnalogueLove1867]

Someone is getting their fields crossed (pun intended).

Wow, people here are an interesting bunch. If you connect any insulated metallic object to a minus 9v terminal, the terminal will push extra electrons into the object creating an overall negative charge.

That is wrong.  An insulated metalic object will be polarized with more electrons further away from the battery minus terminal, and less electrons closer to the battery minus terminal, but the net charge will be unaffected. 

Where did you get this idea?  Or did you simply mistype it?

When you disconnect the terminal the object will retain its charge because there is no way for the extra electrons to escape to an area with a lower concentration of electrons.
When you discharge the metallic object a small measurable current will pass from the object to ground. That is the extra electrons flowing from the object to ground. The object then returns to a 0 potential.
All conductors have some capacitance. It isn't just capacitors.

No, there is no chicken and the egg situation. In every example you can possibly give, it is a forced movement of charged particles with mass that produces a macroscopic potential difference in electronics.
The energy required to move electrons can come from chemical reactions, thermal energy, Nuclear bombardment, Radioactive decay, macroscopic motion ( turboelectric generators ), compression ( piezo-electrics) etc

Everything after your error can be ignored.

You are confusing electrostatic induction at a distance with a direct conducting connection lol. That is YOUR error! Yes, everything YOU say is probably garbage.
You are directly connecting a minus 9v battery terminal to an insulated conductor. It becomes a conducting extension of the terminal.
So during the connection extra electrons can flow from the negative terminal into the conductor until it also contains more electrons than protons and thus carries a net negative charge.
When you disconnect the conductor it retains this charge because it IS INSULATED! SUSPENDED ON A FOAM CUP ETC PLEASE USE YOUR OWN BRAIN. INSULATED FROM GROUND....
When you discharge it to ground a small current of surplus electrons flows out to ground.
This routinely happens all the time.
If a charged insulated conductor touches an identical neutral insulated conductor they both end up charged to half the capacity of the original conductor. Conservation of charge.
Monopole magnets don't exist but mono-charges certainly do.
Funny how you represent yourself with a monkey pic. An accurate depiction.

The problem is your misstatement of touching an insulated conductor to the battery.  If it is insulated, the conductor can't make contact with the battery terminal. 

Why would you describe the conductor as insulated if it is intended to make conductive contact with the battery?  I suggest you focus on the relevant aspects of the problem and not introduce confusion.

INSULATED FROM THE GROUND.... INSULATED FROM THE GROUND.... AN ELECTRICALLY ISOLATED PIECE OF METAL...

[AnalogueLove1867]

If a big heavy metal ball ( the electron ) is covered with a very light but elastic rubber coating ( the electric field ) and it collides with another similar ball, would you actually say that the rubber coating is what caused the first and second ball to move?

Normally, no, because it's irrelevant, particularly at scale. But if the question was "how does one ball push another" then the answer would have to be "it pushes against the elastic rubber coating". That's relevant because 'elastic rubber coating' reacts differently to 'metal on metal spark-inducing ricochet', and the way in which the subsequent balls move will be different.

Further, the elastic rubber coating may have non-bounce effects - if the ball was doing this under water, for instance, perhaps the coating would give the ball buoyancy which would be important to what later balls will do.

Exactly the answer is no. It is completely relevant. Every other query has already been answered. You have no argument. Goodbye now.

[AnalogueLove1867]

If I use a hair dryer, does the wind make the electons flow faster on the outside of the heating coil?

No because the wind in a hair dryer is not exerting anywhere near enough energy in the right place at the right time.  If you could shoot air at the coil with a particle accelerator you would indeed cause electrons
to flow faster in the coil due to ultra fast particles penetrating a fraction of a millimeter deep into the wire before being slowed down by collisions with electrons and protons.
Fast wind with some dust can pull electrons out of fence wire that is insulated from ground. Causing it to develop a high enough charge to give you a nasty shock. So Electrostatic charging by friction.
That is the closest possible thing to what you are talking about.

[AnalogueLove1867]

Yeah, completely agree with you. No resistance so no loss by that mechanism.
Placing a piece of unmagnetized iron next to the  superconductor loop would also reduce the current of the loop as it expends energy in magnetizing the iron.
Same goes with the air  and other moving gases or liquids. the  flow of air past a superconductor would gradually extract energy because it has a relative permeability of 1.00000037 lol.
So  you would need magnetic shielding AND a vacuum to prevent those loss mechanisms.
Just don't understand why nobody has done a long-term superconducting energy storage test. Seems crazy. Would love it if someone could find some study over months or years.

First time I heard of a superconductor I asked myself if the resistance was truly zero or it was just limited by measurement precision.
But then when you see what actually happen with type 1 superconductors in terms of resistance, that sudden drop to zero when the critical temperature is reached you know that something very significant has happened is not a gradual resistance drop towards zero.
If you drop a permanent magnet through a thick copper pipe so ultra low electrical resistance the speed at witch the magnet falls is reduced as part of the potential energy of the magnet is converted to electromagnetic radiation (heat) in the copper pipe.
If that pipe is made of super conductor material then magnet will just levitate / float likely forever but even if it is a few minutes and you have no special measurement devices it is enough to show that it is a perfect mirror for the magnetic field.
It will be the equivalent to having a perfect mirror for photos so if you had that you put some photons in a box and they will bounce there for a few minutes then you will know for sure it is a perfect mirror.
There is no perfect isolator not even perfect vacuum in real life but it seems perfect conductor is not a problem.  But is also not magical as while resistance is zero you are limited to max current you can transport through the superconductor before it becomes a normal conductor.

With your explanation of the blackbird faster-than-wind mechanism. Could you test it by monitoring the speed of the vehicle and the air pressure behind the propeller?
Since the vehicle should be oscillating between being slower than the wind and faster than the wind. Just a thought. Would a heaver vehicle change the rate of speed oscillation? just some thoughts.

[gnuarm]

Someone is getting their fields crossed (pun intended).

Wow, people here are an interesting bunch. If you connect any insulated metallic object to a minus 9v terminal, the terminal will push extra electrons into the object creating an overall negative charge.

That is wrong.  An insulated metalic object will be polarized with more electrons further away from the battery minus terminal, and less electrons closer to the battery minus terminal, but the net charge will be unaffected. 

Where did you get this idea?  Or did you simply mistype it?

When you disconnect the terminal the object will retain its charge because there is no way for the extra electrons to escape to an area with a lower concentration of electrons.
When you discharge the metallic object a small measurable current will pass from the object to ground. That is the extra electrons flowing from the object to ground. The object then returns to a 0 potential.
All conductors have some capacitance. It isn't just capacitors.

No, there is no chicken and the egg situation. In every example you can possibly give, it is a forced movement of charged particles with mass that produces a macroscopic potential difference in electronics.
The energy required to move electrons can come from chemical reactions, thermal energy, Nuclear bombardment, Radioactive decay, macroscopic motion ( turboelectric generators ), compression ( piezo-electrics) etc

Everything after your error can be ignored.

You are confusing electrostatic induction at a distance with a direct conducting connection lol. That is YOUR error! Yes, everything YOU say is probably garbage.
You are directly connecting a minus 9v battery terminal to an insulated conductor. It becomes a conducting extension of the terminal.
So during the connection extra electrons can flow from the negative terminal into the conductor until it also contains more electrons than protons and thus carries a net negative charge.
When you disconnect the conductor it retains this charge because it IS INSULATED! SUSPENDED ON A FOAM CUP ETC PLEASE USE YOUR OWN BRAIN. INSULATED FROM GROUND....
When you discharge it to ground a small current of surplus electrons flows out to ground.
This routinely happens all the time.
If a charged insulated conductor touches an identical neutral insulated conductor they both end up charged to half the capacity of the original conductor. Conservation of charge.
Monopole magnets don't exist but mono-charges certainly do.
Funny how you represent yourself with a monkey pic. An accurate depiction.

The problem is your misstatement of touching an insulated conductor to the battery.  If it is insulated, the conductor can't make contact with the battery terminal. 

Why would you describe the conductor as insulated if it is intended to make conductive contact with the battery?  I suggest you focus on the relevant aspects of the problem and not introduce confusion.

INSULATED FROM THE GROUND.... INSULATED FROM THE GROUND.... AN ELECTRICALLY ISOLATED PIECE OF METAL...

Ohhhh... in contrast to all the grounded metal wires that have been in this discussion.  Very important to distinguish.   

[electrodacus]

With your explanation of the blackbird faster-than-wind mechanism. Could you test it by monitoring the speed of the vehicle and the air pressure behind the propeller?
Since the vehicle should be oscillating between being slower than the wind and faster than the wind. Just a thought. Would a heaver vehicle change the rate of speed oscillation? just some thoughts.

There are two very different version of Blackbird.
One is for direct downwind faster than wind and that will use relatively large energy storage capacity the pressure differential that propeller creates so vehicle will use that energy to accelerate well above wind speed for many seconds even a few minutes then when stored energy is used up the vehicle will slowly decelerate as it is using up the stored kinetic energy and will slow down for some other minutes depending on amount of friction losses untill it gets well below wind speed.
The experiments done where all only a few seconds and ended just before stored energy was used up.
The wind is super variable in real plus the large black bird has propeller with adjustable pitch angle so the data from that is fairly useless.

But the treadmill model is fairly easy to prove since it is inside so zero wind speed and while the model is kept with the hand on treadmill the energy storage is being charged (pressure differential created on each side of the propeller) and when released the energy starts to be used up so if a video from the side is made you can see how the vehicle acceleration rate drops as the stored energy is being used up but the treadmill is way to short and so the experiment can not be done until vehicle uses all stored energy maybe a minute or two and starts to move backwards.

For the direct upwind model yes you can see that vehicle is slower and faster a few times a second. In that case the energy storage is in part of the vehicle like the belt or tiers or even chain and is a very small amount of stored energy so typically only good for a fraction of a second  and is best observed with a high speed camera.
But I already showed that effect with my toy car in the video. The second part of the video talks just about direct upwind vehicle.
The two direct upwind and direct down wind use a very different energy storage so they work different in that sense.
For example you can not have a wheels only analog of direct downwind just an analog of direct upwind because air is compressible and so to emulate that you will need to have one wheel on a super stretchy road to store energy in that.     

[electrodacus]

With your explanation of the blackbird faster-than-wind mechanism. Could you test it by monitoring the speed of the vehicle and the air pressure behind the propeller?
Since the vehicle should be oscillating between being slower than the wind and faster than the wind. Just a thought. Would a heaver vehicle change the rate of speed oscillation? just some thoughts.

Direct downwind vehicle will have an oscillation every few minutes meaning it takes say 2 or 3 minutes to get to top speed can be 2x or 3x the wind speed and then another few minutes for the speed to drop from that top speed to below wind speed then the cycle can be repeated.

The completely different direct upwind uses very small energy storage capacity that is charged and discharged in a few milliseconds.

Below is an example of direct upwind or direct uppaper road and the energy is stored in the belt connecting the generator wheels to the motor wheels.
It is slowed down high speed video else with naked eye may be harder to see if at all in case of stiffer belt or chain. Chain will use gravitational energy storage as the weight of the chain will store the energy as top part of the chain is lifted when tensioned.

https://odysee.com/@dacustemp:8/wheel-cart-energy-storage-slow:8

[PlainName]

Since you're still erroneously pushing the false 'energy storage' thing, so:

That's assuming a sail or similar, isn't it?

The equation I wrote a few post earlier for a direct downwind vehicle applies to all vehicle designs.
You likely are confusing power with energy.

The equation you wrote gives the amount of power for some given sail area, right? By itself it is meaningless because you don't know how much power is needed to push the vehicle along. The entirety of your theory is that at windspeed the power available is zero, and for a sail type that would be true. But it ISN'T a sail type - it is a propeller.

As I pointed out, if it is rotating there is thrust, and when the vehicle is at wind speed that thrust is still pushing. The big question is how slow the wind speed can be be (relative to the vehicle) before the thrust from the prop fails to have an effect.

Your equation doesn't go anywhere near answering that. It is just considering one part of the problem to be solved, not the entirety. If you're relying on that equation to prove your theory then you are fooling yourself.