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

[Alex Eisenhut]

[Naej]

Yes you got it! Brake force of 6.66N, and accelerating force 20N so the vehicle accelerates!
Or do you disagree with Newton's law too?

Not sure you read fully what I wrote.
is 6.66N against the ground with vehicle relative to that drives at 15m/s
and is 20N applied against a surface that moves at just 5m/s relative to vehicle.
So vehicle will not accelerate as there are 100W and same 100W out. Is ideal case so it will maintain the same speed else it will slow down with this conditions.
If it was 6.66N brake against ground and 20N to accelerate against ground then it will accelerate but 20N at 15m/s is 300W and so you need some stored energy to add the missing 200W.

Yes now you understand that it accelerates with 20-6.66N. Good.
Now look at what Newton's 2nd law says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Second

[electrodacus]

Yes now you understand that it accelerates with 20-6.66N. Good.
Now look at what Newton's 2nd law says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Second

OK so you want to look at this with vehicle body as reference.
See the 3 examples below and let me know if you think any of the equations are wrong.

[Naej]

Yes now you understand that it accelerates with 20-6.66N. Good.
Now look at what Newton's 2nd law says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Second

OK so you want to look at this with vehicle body as reference.
See the 3 examples below and let me know if you think any of the equations are wrong.

Not sure what you're trying to do here in these 3 different situations, but it looks like you understand the vehicle can go as fast as it wants, and that COP can be >1. 

[electrodacus]

Yes now you understand that it accelerates with 20-6.66N. Good.
Now look at what Newton's 2nd law says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Second

OK so you want to look at this with vehicle body as reference.
See the 3 examples below and let me know if you think any of the equations are wrong.

Not sure what you're trying to do here in these 3 different situations, but it looks like you understand the vehicle can go as fast as it wants, and that COP can be >1. 

In all those 3 cases wind speed is 6m/s that is emulated by the Wind treadmill.
The vehicle speed is emulated by the road treadmill.

Case:
A)  vehicle speed is 2m/s so lower than wind speed and the wind speed relative to vehicle will be 4m/s
B)  vehicle speed equals wind speed so 6m/s that means wind speed relative to vehicle is 0m/s
C)  vehicle speed higher than wind speed at 10m/s and it this conditions vehicle can not accelerate forward.

So unless you think I used the wrong equations the 3 cases show A) vehicle can accelerate forward when vehicle speed is below wind speed
B) vehicle can ideal case just stay at wind speed and C) vehicle can only slow down/decelerate.
   

This is basically the equivalent of the treadmill propeller model with the exception that propeller was replaced by a wheel M and the wind treadmill is there to be able to control the equivalent of wind speed.
Obviously when wind speed is zero as it was in the indoor treadmill example the version with wheel will not be able to move forward as the pressure differential energy storage is missing (air and propeller are out of the equation).

[Naej]

Case:
A)  vehicle speed is 2m/s so lower than wind speed and the wind speed relative to vehicle will be 4m/s
B)  vehicle speed equals wind speed so 6m/s that means wind speed relative to vehicle is 0m/s
C)  vehicle speed higher than wind speed at 10m/s and it this conditions vehicle can not accelerate forward.

So unless you think I used the wrong equations the 3 cases show A) vehicle can accelerate forward when vehicle speed is below wind speed
B) vehicle can ideal case just stay at wind speed and C) vehicle can only slow down/decelerate.

You chose F_M=F_G so in all cases the vehicle does not accelerate.
However in cases A) and C) you have 20W & 4W to spare so it shows that you can extract energy from 2 objects moving at different speeds, a fact that is indeed true, and that you can see everywhere (wind turbines, water turbines, regenerative braking, etc.).
In case B) you can choose any F_M of course, so you can choose your acceleration.

[electrodacus]

You chose F_M=F_G so in all cases the vehicle does not accelerate.
However in cases A) and C) you have 20W & 4W to spare so it shows that you can extract energy from 2 objects moving at different speeds, a fact that is indeed true, and that you can see everywhere (wind turbines, water turbines, regenerative braking, etc.).
In case B) you can choose any F_M of course, so you can choose your acceleration.

There is no choice other to have those forces equal.
There is no onboard energy storage or energy source.
You can only have a value for F_G  if you have an equal and opposite force (Newton's 3'rd law).

There is a +20W net for case A) so vehicle will be accelerated from left to right.
For case C) there is a -4W net meaning vehicle will move from right to left.

[Naej]

You chose F_M=F_G so in all cases the vehicle does not accelerate.
However in cases A) and C) you have 20W & 4W to spare so it shows that you can extract energy from 2 objects moving at different speeds, a fact that is indeed true, and that you can see everywhere (wind turbines, water turbines, regenerative braking, etc.).
In case B) you can choose any F_M of course, so you can choose your acceleration.

There is no choice other to have those forces equal.
There is no onboard energy storage or energy source.
You can only have a value for F_G  if you have an equal and opposite force (Newton's 3'rd law).

There is a +20W net for case A) so vehicle will be accelerated from left to right.
For case C) there is a -4W net meaning vehicle will move from right to left.

Did you read Newton's laws?

[cbutlera]

OK so you want to look at this with vehicle body as reference.
See the 3 examples below and let me know if you think any of the equations are wrong.

(Attachment Link)

That is a nice diagram, although there are some errors in the equations.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, the vehicle is assumed to be travelling at a constant velocity.  The question being asked is whether there is any net power remaining that could be used to accelerate the vehicle.

The first equation error is that F_M should be equal to -F_G.  The two forces must be of equal magnitude but opposite direction, if the vehicle is to remain at a constant velocity.

The second equation error is the inclusion of the P_in term in the equation for P_out.  The motor knows nothing about P_in other than the force F_G that it has to compensate for.

The third equation error is the sign of P_net.  The net power remaining is equal to the power provided by the generator, less the power consumed by the motor, not the other way around.

With these corrections, P_out will be negative in case A), the below wind speed case.  In other words the motor will be acting as a generator, as would be expected.

In case C), the above wind speed case, P_out will now be 4W.  So a power P_net = 6W will remain and could be utilised to accelerate the vehicle.

[electrodacus]

Did you read Newton's laws?

So are you saying that Newton's 3'rd law (for every force there is an equal and opposite force) does not apply for some reason to my three examples ?
I will love to hear the reason.
This is maybe as important as the law of conservation of energy in understanding how this wind powered vehicle works.
If you disagree with my calculations and or conclusions then show what you think it will happen especial for case C)

As it is that vehicle is nothing more than a gearbox with input connected to Road treadmill and the output connected to Wind treadmill and importantly the case of the gearbox (vehicle body) is not connected to anything.

[gnuarm]

I made the drawing, not that it will make any difference.  ED seems to always find a bogus out that he will not back down from.  But for others, here it is.



The idea is simple.  Remove the propeller from the Blackbird which is hard to analyze because of the way it interacts with the wind.  Here simple sails are used, which fit EDs favorite equation perfectly. 

The pulley ratios make the belt move backwards relative to the car, at 3/4 of the speed of the car relative to the ground.  This means the sails move relative to the ground, at 1/4 the speed of the car relative to the ground.

So now, at any speed up to four times the speed of the wind, the sails will receive power according to the equation ED himself has provided.

The sails collapse on reaching the end of the belt, so they do not interact with the wind at all.  So ED's analysis using the "average" speed of the sails is totally bogus. 

This simply model and analysis is so clear, that even ED is having trouble finding enough toilet paper to clean up his BS in trying to explain why it won't work.  I'm surprised he hasn't tried to find energy storage in something. 

[pcprogrammer]

This simply model and analysis is so clear, that even ED is having trouble finding enough toilet paper to clean up his BS in trying to explain why it won't work.  I'm surprised he hasn't tried to find energy storage in something.

Ooh I see it now, there is energy stored in the toilet paper. You can burn it to make steam

[electrodacus]

That is a nice diagram, although there are some errors in the equations.

For the purposes of this thought experiment, the vehicle is assumed to be travelling at a constant velocity.  The question being asked is whether there is any net power remaining that could be used to accelerate the vehicle.

The first equation error is that F_M should be equal to -F_G.  The two forces must be of equal magnitude but opposite direction, if the vehicle is to remain at a constant velocity.

The second equation error is the inclusion of the P_in term in the equation for P_out.  The motor knows nothing about P_in other than the force F_G that it has to compensate for.

The third equation error is the sign of P_net.  The net power remaining is equal to the power provided by the generator, less the power consumed by the motor, not the other way around.

With these corrections, P_out will be negative in case A), the below wind speed case.  In other words the motor will be acting as a generator, as would be expected.

In case C), the above wind speed case, P_out will now be 4W.  So a power P_net = 6W will remain and could be utilised to accelerate the vehicle.

The vehicle at the start of the experiment is not moving (for many people a moving vehicle is a difficult concept).
A moving vehicle will have stored kinetic energy.
What I calculate is the power at input vs power at the output.
For input force at the generator "G" wheel I just select a force so that generated power is 10W
This 10W is the applied to the motor wheel "M" so that vehicle can move from left to right.
To this 10W from input the Wind treadmill adds additional power in case A as vehicle speed is below wind speed and that additional power adds to the motor power.
The P^net = P_out  - P_in  and this in case A is 20W meaning vehicle will accelerate from left to right at 20W rate.
So if you want to find out the speed of the vehicle after 1ms ideal case no friction
The you know vehicle is 10kg and you know applied power 20W and also know starting kinetic energy is zero.
After 0.001 seconds the 20W will convert in to 20mWs and that will be the new kinetic energy of the vehicle.
From that you can calculate the speed 0.020Ws = 0.5 * 10kg * v²
v = sqrt(0.020Ws/(10*0.5)) = 0.063m/s Direction of the vehicle will be left to right.

As I already mentioned the power from G wheel is transferred to M wheel  either mechanically through a belt or electrically through wires but ideal case is considered so power is transferred with zero loss.
The motor can not act as a generator due to vehicle design (blackbird even implemented a freewheel so only generator wheel can turn the propeller the propeller can not turn the wheels).

Are you saying that in case C vehicle can move from left to right ?

[electrodacus]

I made the drawing, not that it will make any difference.  ED seems to always find a bogus out that he will not back down from.  But for others, here it is.


The idea is simple.  Remove the propeller from the Blackbird which is hard to analyze because of the way it interacts with the wind.  Here simple sails are used, which fit EDs favorite equation perfectly. 

The pulley ratios make the belt move backwards relative to the car, at 3/4 of the speed of the car relative to the ground.  This means the sails move relative to the ground, at 1/4 the speed of the car relative to the ground.

So now, at any speed up to four times the speed of the wind, the sails will receive power according to the equation ED himself has provided.

The sails collapse on reaching the end of the belt, so they do not interact with the wind at all.  So ED's analysis using the "average" speed of the sails is totally bogus. 

This simply model and analysis is so clear, that even ED is having trouble finding enough toilet paper to clean up his BS in trying to explain why it won't work.  I'm surprised he hasn't tried to find energy storage in something.

I appreciate the fact the you took the time to draw this.
Let say both wind speed and vehicle speed is 10m/s

So even with this drawing you can not see that sails travel at the same speed as the vehicle ?
The sail rotates around the vehicle (just take any individual sail) it will travel at 2.5m/s relative to ground when sail is unfolded above the vehicle and then travel at 17.5m/s relative to ground when below the vehicle.
Average of this two speeds show that sail travels with the vehicle at 10m/s and it rotates around the vehicle at 7.5m/s

Let me know if any of this speed values I mentioned are wrong and if so what is the value.

[gnuarm]

I made the drawing, not that it will make any difference.  ED seems to always find a bogus out that he will not back down from.  But for others, here it is.


The idea is simple.  Remove the propeller from the Blackbird which is hard to analyze because of the way it interacts with the wind.  Here simple sails are used, which fit EDs favorite equation perfectly. 

The pulley ratios make the belt move backwards relative to the car, at 3/4 of the speed of the car relative to the ground.  This means the sails move relative to the ground, at 1/4 the speed of the car relative to the ground.

So now, at any speed up to four times the speed of the wind, the sails will receive power according to the equation ED himself has provided.

The sails collapse on reaching the end of the belt, so they do not interact with the wind at all.  So ED's analysis using the "average" speed of the sails is totally bogus. 

This simply model and analysis is so clear, that even ED is having trouble finding enough toilet paper to clean up his BS in trying to explain why it won't work.  I'm surprised he hasn't tried to find energy storage in something.

I appreciate the fact the you took the time to draw this.
Let say both wind speed and vehicle speed is 10m/s

So even with this drawing you can not see that sails travel at the same speed as the vehicle ?
The sail rotates around the vehicle (just take any individual sail) it will travel at 2.5m/s relative to ground when sail is unfolded above the vehicle and then travel at 17.5m/s relative to ground when below the vehicle.
Average of this two speeds show that sail travels with the vehicle at 10m/s and it rotates around the vehicle at 7.5m/s

Let me know if any of this speed values I mentioned are wrong and if so what is the value.

Your idea of the "average" speed of the sail being important is irrelevant.  You know that.  The sail is impacted by the wind while it is moving on top of the car.  The rest of the time it is not interacting with the wind.

If you can't understand this, you have no claim to understanding anything in physics or math. 

Do this, split the actions on the sails into two phases.  Phase 1 is while on top of the car and moving towards the rear of the car.  Phase 2 is the rest of the time while the sails are are tiny and not interacting with the wind.

So during phase 1 the power provided by the wind on the sails is given by your equation, no?  In that case, the wind speed relative to the sail is 3/4 of the vehicle speed.

During phase 2, the power provided by the wind on the sails is zero, because the wind does not reach the sails.  So the vehicle speed does not matter.  Zero times anything is still zero.

I know you won't admit that you understand this.  But that is because you refuse to acknowledge you are wrong and are being a troll. 

[electrodacus]

Your idea of the "average" speed of the sail being important is irrelevant.  You know that.  The sail is impacted by the wind while it is moving on top of the car.  The rest of the time it is not interacting with the wind.

If you can't understand this, you have no claim to understanding anything in physics or math. 

Do this, split the actions on the sails into two phases.  Phase 1 is while on top of the car and moving towards the rear of the car.  Phase 2 is the rest of the time while the sails are are tiny and not interacting with the wind.

So during phase 1 the power provided by the wind on the sails is given by your equation, no?  In that case, the wind speed relative to the sail is 3/4 of the vehicle speed.

During phase 2, the power provided by the wind on the sails is zero, because the wind does not reach the sails.  So the vehicle speed does not matter.  Zero times anything is still zero.

I know you won't admit that you understand this.  But that is because you refuse to acknowledge you are wrong and are being a troll.

I just explained this to my wife and she understands the concept so I will try to simplify this as I'm sure you will be able to understand.

Say vehicle is just 0.5m long.
We replace the air with 1.2kg balls spaced 1m apart.
At some point in time the vehicle (ideal no friction) moves at constant 10m/s
The 1.2kg balls that also move at 10m/s are one behind the vehicle say 0.25m from vehicle and the other is in front 0.25m from the vehicle.
Can you get that the moving sails on top of the vehicle can not be hit by the ball traveling at same speed as the vehicle 10m/s?

If you can understand the ball example then air is the same way.
If you can not understand the ball example and still think the sails somehow can be hit by the ball then I have no idea how to help.

[gnuarm]

Your idea of the "average" speed of the sail being important is irrelevant.  You know that.  The sail is impacted by the wind while it is moving on top of the car.  The rest of the time it is not interacting with the wind.

If you can't understand this, you have no claim to understanding anything in physics or math. 

Do this, split the actions on the sails into two phases.  Phase 1 is while on top of the car and moving towards the rear of the car.  Phase 2 is the rest of the time while the sails are are tiny and not interacting with the wind.

So during phase 1 the power provided by the wind on the sails is given by your equation, no?  In that case, the wind speed relative to the sail is 3/4 of the vehicle speed.

During phase 2, the power provided by the wind on the sails is zero, because the wind does not reach the sails.  So the vehicle speed does not matter.  Zero times anything is still zero.

I know you won't admit that you understand this.  But that is because you refuse to acknowledge you are wrong and are being a troll.

I just explained this to my wife and she understands the concept so I will try to simplify this as I'm sure you will be able to understand.

Say vehicle is just 0.5m long.
We replace the air with 1.2kg balls spaced 1m apart.
At some point in time the vehicle (ideal no friction) moves at constant 10m/s
The 1.2kg balls that also move at 1m/s are one behind the vehicle say 0.25m from vehicle and the other is in front 0.25m from the vehicle.
Can you get that the moving sails on top of the vehicle can not be hit by the ball traveling at same speed as the vehicle 10m/s?

If you can understand the ball example then air is the same way.
If you can not understand the ball example and still think the sails somehow can be hit by the ball then I have no idea how to help.

Yes, I understand that you screwed the numbers.  Here are the correct numbers.

Car is moving 10 m/s.  Sails are moving 2.5 m/s.  Wind is blowing 5 m/s. 

Now the sails receive a 2.5 m/s wind and can easily propel the car.

Can YOU understand this?  I explained it to my cat and she understood it quite well.

[electrodacus]

Yes, I understand that you screwed the numbers.  Here are the correct numbers.

Car is moving 10 m/s.  Sails are moving 2.5 m/s.  Wind is blowing 5 m/s. 

Now the sails receive a 2.5 m/s wind and can easily propel the car.

Can YOU understand this?

I have not screwed the numbers just used the simplest example so you can understand.
As for your new numbers think in the same way with 1.2kg balls spaced 1m apart.
The sail (front side) will hit those balls not the other way around.
It is relevant to know if ball hits the sail or sail hits the ball to know what happens with vehicle kinetic energy and thus also vehicle speed.

[gnuarm]

Yes, I understand that you screwed the numbers.  Here are the correct numbers.

Car is moving 10 m/s.  Sails are moving 2.5 m/s.  Wind is blowing 5 m/s. 

Now the sails receive a 2.5 m/s wind and can easily propel the car.

Can YOU understand this?

I have not screwed the numbers just used the simplest example so you can understand.
As for your new numbers think in the same way with 1.2kg balls spaced 1m apart.
The sail (front side) will hit those balls not the other way around.
It is relevant to know if ball hits the sail or sail hits the ball to know what happens with vehicle kinetic energy and thus also vehicle speed.

Of course you screwed the numbers.  You know this clearly shows you to be wrong, so you have to "simplify" it to a point where you have constructed an example that breaks.  It's not the concept that is broken, just YOUR example. 

I can fix your example very easily.  First your typo has to be fixed.  "The 1.2kg balls that also move at 1m/s" should be "The 1.2kg balls that also move at 10 m/s", no? 

Then change the spacing of the balls from "1 m" to 0.1 meter.  Now the balls will hit the sails and the car will be propelled faster than the wind. 

[electrodacus]

Of course you screwed the numbers.  You know this clearly shows you to be wrong, so you have to "simplify" it to a point where you have constructed an example that breaks.  It's not the concept that is broken, just YOUR example. 

I can fix your example very easily.  First your typo has to be fixed.  "The 1.2kg balls that also move at 1m/s" should be "The 1.2kg balls that also move at 10 m/s", no? 

Then change the spacing of the balls from "1 m" to 0.1 meter.  Now the balls will hit the sails and the car will be propelled faster than the wind.

Thanks for correcting my typo. It is 10m/s as you correctly pointed out.

OK we can change the ball distance to 0.1m it will make no difference.
Now you have about 5 balls moving around between sails assuming they do not fall down.
The reason for simplification is so you understand that air is made from individual molecules. It is not a long stick pushing the vehicle as Derek falsely explained in his video.

The vehicle with wheels that Derek falsely claimed to be the equivalent of a direct downwind vehicle is actually the equivalent of a direct upwind vehicle with input wheels on the floor and output wheel traveled on the lumber.
Confusing input with output will result in ridiculous conclusions.

Back to latest example where wind speed is 5m/s and vehicle speed 10m/s in the same direction as the wind.
Will the vehicle/sails not hit the balls? no matter how small or spaced apart?
And vehicle hitting the balls is very different from balls hitting the vehicle. One case will slow down the vehicle and the other one will accelerate the vehicle.

[SiliconWizard]

So. In the end, can someone tell the link between electrons, current and energy flow yet?

[electrodacus]

So. In the end, can someone tell the link between electrons, current and energy flow yet?

People seems to have trouble with understanding energy in the macro scale case even when invisible small air molecules are replaced by large 1.2kg balls.
And you expect people to imagine electrons traveling through what looks like solid copper wire?
Why will you not contribute ? Are you afraid of being wrong ?

[Naej]

Did you read Newton's laws?

So are you saying that Newton's 3'rd law (for every force there is an equal and opposite force) does not apply for some reason to my three examples ?
I will love to hear the reason.
This is maybe as important as the law of conservation of energy in understanding how this wind powered vehicle works.
If you disagree with my calculations and or conclusions then show what you think it will happen especial for case C)

As it is that vehicle is nothing more than a gearbox with input connected to Road treadmill and the output connected to Wind treadmill and importantly the case of the gearbox (vehicle body) is not connected to anything.

Did you read Newton's second law? What does it say on the vehicle acceleration in A, B and C?

[Naej]

So. In the end, can someone tell the link between electrons, current and energy flow yet?

Well in both cases some people argue that there's invisible energy stored here and moving there, which just happens to explain what you see. 

[electrodacus]

Did you read Newton's second law? What does it say on the vehicle acceleration in A, B and C?

Do you disagree with my conclusions that are already there to see in the image?
If you do disagree then provide the correct equations and results. All data for the problem is there.

As far as I'm concerned the equations posted there and the results are consistent with what you will find in real world test (of course in real world test you need to add friction).  This is ideal best case scenario just so that there is no discussion about me adding to much friction loss.