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

[electrodacus]

Anyone know who Andrea Rossi is?  He is a well known con-artist and "free energy" inventor.  He claims to have invented several devices that are just short of being commercialized.  When anyone wants to view his inventions to verify they work, he severely limits their ability to inspect the devices and constructs elaborate explanations for how they work. 

ED's methods remind me of Rossi.  If someone looks like they are going to pin you, change the discussion to something else so you can add more confusion. 

That's why ED wants to talk about balls striking the sails instead of the wind.  Now he wants to talk about the sails hitting balls.  lol 

He is the one who insists the proper equation is

P_w = 0.5 * air density * area * (wind speed - vehicle speed)³

Yet, he now will not acknowledge this equation.  He wants to talk about balls instead of wind and wants to talk about the speed of the sail when it is folded up, not in contact with the wind and other absurdities. 

Yes, ED is a troll in the true sense of the term, and I am as guilty as anyone for feeding him.  Even in the face of incontrovertible evidence the vehicle can be propelled faster than the wind, he does a shuffle and a side step and simply won't discuss the fact as he previously had stated.

Nobody care about that Rossi. I'm on the opposite side of free energy as that is what you seems to claim unwillingly and maybe what you know free energy con artists by name.

What are you talking about ? That is the proper equation. When did I not acknowledged.
For your example the result is this
5m/s wind 10m/s vehicle will just say area is 1m² for easy calculation
P_w= 0.5 * air density * area * (wind speed - vehicle speed)³ = 0.5 * 1.2 * 1 * (5 - 10)³ = -75W
The negative means vehicle will decelerate at that rate if it happens to find itself there.

Again is important to specify that energy storage (pressure differential) was ignored to show that no wind powered vehicle no matter the design will not exceed wind speed without energy storage.

[gnuarm]

But now the balls do strike the sail for any vehicle speed below 4 times the wind speed.  For all vehicle speeds below that, the sails are moving at less than the wind speed, and the wind particles will impact the sails.  The power imparted to the sails is defined by the formula you insist is the correct formula for a sail in the wind. 

You are just trying to muddy waters here.  I'm not interested in discussing other models.


Yes, the wind will impact the sails when the vehicle is moving at any speed that is less than four times the wind speed.  This is because the wind is moving faster than the sails which move at 1/4 the vehicle speed.

Good thing we don't need to worry about the sails hitting the wind.  That doesn't happen.  The wind is 5 m/s and the sails are moving at 2.5 m/s.  So the sails will be inflated by the wind with a relative speed of 2.5 m/s. 

Do you concur?

No I do not concur.
You have a trouble understanding the dynamic of all this.
When vehicle is below wind speed the sails will be hit by air particles from the back of the vehicle accelerating the vehicle forward.
When vehicle travels atr wind speed there is no interaction between those particles and vehicle.

You can't seem to understand what is going on.  When the vehicle is at the wind speed, the sails are at 1/4 the wind speed, so they clearly do interact with the wind. 

Please acknowledge this.  Do you agree that the sails are moving at 1/4 the speed of the wind, and therefore are both impacted by the wind and receive power from the wind.

When vehicle speed is above wind speed the air particles will be hit by the vehicle.

Why are you talking about "the vehicle" rather than the sails?  Please focus on the sails and do not let your ADD interfere with understanding what is happening.
 

So the other side of the sail will collide with the air particle slowing the vehicle down.
Keep in mind that in all the above I removed the air compressibility from the equation so it is like if I was talking about water not air.

Now you are back to talking about the sail, but you have confused its speed with the vehicle speed.  The sail moves at 1/4 the vehicle speed.  Try to keep that in mind as you analyzed the problem, and you will get the right answer. 

DO NOT LET YOUR ADD DISTRACT YOU.

You fail to understand the change in direction. What side of the sail will be in cont with the balls and what hits what.
That 5m/s wind moves from the front of the vehicle to the back. You may be confused because you select car speed of 10m/s and wind speed of 5m/s
So wind speed relative to ground will be 5m/s from left to right while wind speed relative to a 10m/s moving vehicle will be 5m/s from right to left.

Vehicle experiences a head wind of 5m/s.   

Now that I've explained your errors, do you understand?  Do I need to type more slowly for you?

[electrodacus]

You can't seem to understand what is going on.  When the vehicle is at the wind speed, the sails are at 1/4 the wind speed, so they clearly do interact with the wind. 

Please acknowledge this.  Do you agree that the sails are moving at 1/4 the speed of the wind, and therefore are both impacted by the wind and receive power from the wind.



Why are you talking about "the vehicle" rather than the sails?  Please focus on the sails and do not let your ADD interfere with understanding what is happening.
 


Now you are back to talking about the sail, but you have confused its speed with the vehicle speed.  The sail moves at 1/4 the vehicle speed.  Try to keep that in mind as you analyzed the problem, and you will get the right answer. 

DO NOT LET YOUR ADD DISTRACT YOU.


Now that I've explained your errors, do you understand?  Do I need to type more slowly for you?

It seems you just have a hard time understanding that sails move with the vehicle and around the vehicle. Even after the explanation using balls you still do not see what happens so not sure but that may be a limitation you have.

Sails average speed equal vehicle speed.
Please switch back and consider air as 1.2kg balls 1m apart and a vehicle total length of 0.5m
It is the only way you will understand how sails interact with particles as you do not see air as small particles but as something else.

[gnuarm]

You can't seem to understand what is going on.  When the vehicle is at the wind speed, the sails are at 1/4 the wind speed, so they clearly do interact with the wind. 

Please acknowledge this.  Do you agree that the sails are moving at 1/4 the speed of the wind, and therefore are both impacted by the wind and receive power from the wind.



Why are you talking about "the vehicle" rather than the sails?  Please focus on the sails and do not let your ADD interfere with understanding what is happening.
 


Now you are back to talking about the sail, but you have confused its speed with the vehicle speed.  The sail moves at 1/4 the vehicle speed.  Try to keep that in mind as you analyzed the problem, and you will get the right answer. 

DO NOT LET YOUR ADD DISTRACT YOU.


Now that I've explained your errors, do you understand?  Do I need to type more slowly for you?

It seems you just have a hard time understanding that sails move with the vehicle and around the vehicle. Even after the explanation using balls you still do not see what happens so not sure but that may be a limitation you have.

Sails average speed equal vehicle speed.
Please switch back and consider air as 1.2kg balls 1m apart and a vehicle total length of 0.5m
It is the only way you will understand how sails interact with particles as you do not see air as small particles but as something else.

Dude, you are psychotic.  You really think anyone can't see your BS?  Don't switch to anything.  Stick to the wind since that is what's happening.  You can't grasp how to manipulate the model to agree with your claims, so you have to change them. 

You have done this every time.  You have misrepresented the facts many, many times and you continue to refuse to see reality.

Ok, that's on you.  The rest of us understand what is happening. 

I feel sorry for your employers.

[electrodacus]

Dude, you are psychotic.  You really think anyone can't see your BS?  Don't switch to anything.  Stick to the wind since that is what's happening.  You can't grasp how to manipulate the model to agree with your claims, so you have to change them. 

You have done this every time.  You have misrepresented the facts many, many times and you continue to refuse to see reality.

Ok, that's on you.  The rest of us understand what is happening. 

I feel sorry for your employers.

Hopefully others can provide their understanding.

Your vehicle when moving at 10ms direct downwind with a 5m/s wind will experience a 5m/s (10m/s - 5m/s) headwind.
No air particle will be able to hit the back of the sail in order to power the vehicle.

You just forget what powers this vehicle. No air particle hitting the back of the vehicle (this includes the sail) no forward acceleration.
It is useful to think in terms of balls as that will be a non compressible fluid equivalent and you will realize that without energy storage it can not work.

It is a limitation that you have not allowing you to deal with multiple variable changing at the same time. That is a bit strange based on your user name.
You refuse to understand that sails move around the vehicle and you imagine an infinite long belt so sails never need to go under the vehicle.


Maybe it helps if you take a few points to build a graph
wind speed always 5m/s
Vehicle speed:
0m/s   air molecules hit the back of the sail at 5m/s so most wind power
1m/s   air molecule hits the back of the sail at 4m/s while the sail hits back at 0.75m/s total collision speed 4.75m/s
2m/s   air molecule hits the back of the sail at 3m/s while sail hits back at 1.5m/s total 4.5m/s
3m/s   air molecule hits the back of the sail at 2m/s while sail hits back at 2.25m/s but this point is already impossible for your vehicle to accelerate in a non compressible fluid.

If it is a compressible fluid from this point the vehicle is powered by the energy it stored up to this point.
It will be an inferior design to blackbird so max speed will be lower but I understand the reason you think this is easier to understand but is just not what you think it is.

And I can ignore the fact that vehicle is no longer power by wind and just continue to calculate what will happen with air particles assuming vehicle can advance forward by magic or an internal energy source
 
4m/s air molecules will hit the back of the sail at 1m/s and sail will sit back at 3m/s
5m/s air molecule can no longer hit the air molecule but if there are air molecules in between those sails it could push them out at 4m/s using the magic or on board energy source.
6m/s air molecule will travel from front of the vehicle to the back at 1m/s so those air molecules ending between sails can be pushed out by the sails that will hit them at just 3.5m/s (sails move at 4.5m/s but the air molecule already travels in the same direction at 1m/s).
7m/s air molecules move at 2m/s and so (5.25 - 2)= 3.25m/s (air particle hit by the propeller).
8m/s air molecules move at 3m/s and so (6-3) = 3m/s
9m/s air molecules move at 4m/s and so (6.75-4) = 2.75m/s
10m/s air molecules move at 5m/s and so (7.5-5) = 2.5m/s

Do you understand that if the air molecule hits the vehicle/sail at higher speed than the sail hits back you get some net energy form the air molecule to accelerate your vehicle and if the sail hits the vehicle then your vehicle needs some other energy source as it is no longer powered by wind.

[Naej]

Did you read Newton's second law?
I think you distract yourself when there are 2 speeds involved.

It seems you do not understand what it means for a vehicle to be connected to two mediums at different speeds and to be powered by that difference.
Such a vehicle can not exceed the delta between those two speed without using energy storage.

Now you quoted Newton's 420th law, but not the 2nd.

The computation was simple, but ok.
How about this: one limo A at 10m/s its wheels are connected to a 1kW generator, another limo B is next to it at 11 m/s with a 1kW electric engine connected to the generator.
Which limo accelerates/decelerates?

Sorry but I do not understand your problem. Please be more specific.
Limo A is at this time at 10m/s. I guess there is no engine or anything it was just pushed at 10m/s and there is no friction.
What is with the 1kW generator ? is that connected at the wheel and just dumps 1kW as maybe heat in to a resistor ?
What is the weight of lima A ? without that there is not enough data to provide an answer to your question.
 
Limo B "1kW electric engine" do you mean 1kW electric motor maybe powered by a battery ? and then this is "connected to the generator" ?

The electric generator is connected on limo A wheels and produce 1kW (say 1kV, 1A DC). Regenerative breaking if you will.
The 1kW electric engine is connected on limo B wheels and powered by limo A's electric generator.
10t limos.
So, will the fast limo get faster, and the slow one slower? Or the reverse perhaps?

[PlainName]

If you have many of them in parallel too, then the velocity of each individual marble is low, but the number of marbles pushed in and out huge.  If you knock one marble in, it takes only a tiny fraction of a second for the outermost marble to ping correspondingly, even though the velocity of any individual marble is very low.  (Consider, in particular, how the length of the marble chain doesn't really affect much how long that takes.)

I don't think that's correct. [But it may be - see next post]

The motion in a cat's cradle is propagated via a shockwave, which presumably would be the speed of sound in the material. It just looks instant because the line of marbles is so short.

In the situation you suppose where there are many parallel lines and consequent large capacity of marbles, the output is no faster than the input unless the output is restricted by a bottleneck. Then the many marbles must all pass through a smaller outlet in the same time and you get an increase in speed, but only at the outlet and the speed between individual marbles in the parallel rows would still be the speed of the shockwave down the line.

[PlainName]

I think I may have misunderstood the proposition. I assumed that any marble in the cat's cradle would do as the initial one, for the purposes of tracking motion, but I think instead you mean the one you swing, which does obviously move slower than the shockwave in the chain.

So, yes, the first marble would be slow and the last seem to be moved almost simultaneously. But I am not sure that represents the electron situation. Specifically, I am missing the first swinging electron - perhaps there isn't one, or I and seeing it and not recognising it.

[cbutlera]

We have got something like Planck scale, time, force, length, energy, temperature, volume, area, density, frequency, momentum, acceleration.. Why we cannot define the smallest blobs of energy then?

I do believe Feynman was making the same point as Magritte, when he painted "This is not a pipe".

I don't see Feynman playing with words in that way.

It is not wordplay.  It is a fundamental idea of what physics and mathematics are.  Philosophy, not wordplay.

I may see one Joule apparently moving from A to B.  Someone looking at the same event from a different reference frame may see five Joules apparently moving from B to A.  So what is this thing that moved?

Right.  Physics models the observations, and never tries to explain what 'that thing that moved' is; only quantify it and describe how it behaves.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28”—always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas." - Richard Feynman.

To me, it is clear what Feynman is saying here, and it is exactly the reason that I quoted him in the first place.  He is warning us that knowing the name of something and knowing how it is represented and modelled in some mathematical space, is not understanding the reality of it.  Trying to form a visual image of it as something that can flow from place to place will very likely lead one astray.  As has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

I hadn't thought too much about the pipe before, so my earlier response was just to compare the obvious superficial message in the painting to Feynman's statement.  But having researched the painting a little more I agree with you, there is a similar warning there.  I have no eye for art, so any subtle message it contains usually goes straight over my head, unless it is pointed out to me.

[electrodacus]

The electric generator is connected on limo A wheels and produce 1kW (say 1kV, 1A DC). Regenerative breaking if you will.
The 1kW electric engine is connected on limo B wheels and powered by limo A's electric generator.
10t limos.
So, will the fast limo get faster, and the slow one slower? Or the reverse perhaps?

Thanks for clarifying.
Obviously the limo A will go slower as it converts his kinetic energy in to electrical energy that is then transferred through wires to limo B witch will use that electrical energy to increase kinetic energy by the amount limo A has lost.
You will need a very long cable as the distance between the two limos will increase over time.
But what is even the point of this example.

[electrodacus]

I think I may have misunderstood the proposition. I assumed that any marble in the cat's cradle would do as the initial one, for the purposes of tracking motion, but I think instead you mean the one you swing, which does obviously move slower than the shockwave in the chain.

So, yes, the first marble would be slow and the last seem to be moved almost simultaneously. But I am not sure that represents the electron situation. Specifically, I am missing the first swinging electron - perhaps there isn't one, or I and seeing it and not recognising it.

The analogy is very good (with the limitation of any analogy) other than speed of sound in the material vs speed of light for electron wave.
Even Derek mentioned this analogy I think in his first video.
The first electrons will be jumping the small space between contacts when switch is being closed how large this distance is will depend on potential.

[PlainName]

I think I may have misunderstood the proposition. I assumed that any marble in the cat's cradle would do as the initial one, for the purposes of tracking motion, but I think instead you mean the one you swing, which does obviously move slower than the shockwave in the chain.

So, yes, the first marble would be slow and the last seem to be moved almost simultaneously. But I am not sure that represents the electron situation. Specifically, I am missing the first swinging electron - perhaps there isn't one, or I and seeing it and not recognising it.

The analogy is very good (with the limitation of any analogy) other than speed of sound in the material vs speed of light for electron wave.
Even Derek mentioned this analogy I think in his first video.
The first electrons will be jumping the small space between contacts when switch is being closed how large this distance is will depend on potential.

I think you shouldn't like this analogy because the logical conclusion is that it's the shockwave that transfers the energy, not the marbles/electrons. So the shockwave would be the field.

[electrodacus]

I think you shouldn't like this analogy because the logical conclusion is that it's the shockwave that transfers the energy, not the marbles/electrons. So the shockwave would be the field.

What you call shock wave I call electron wave and mentioned that in almost all comments I made on the subject.
The thing is that electron wave travels inside the wire not outside the wire.

The main claim Derek made with witch I disagree is "energy doesn't flow in wires" and that is an absurd claim to make.
His "proof" is that current flows through lamp much sooner than electron wave has time to travel through entire length of the wire while is completely ignores the line capacitance which is actually responsible for what he is seeing in the initial transient phase.   

[gnuarm]

Dude, you are psychotic.  You really think anyone can't see your BS?  Don't switch to anything.  Stick to the wind since that is what's happening.  You can't grasp how to manipulate the model to agree with your claims, so you have to change them. 

You have done this every time.  You have misrepresented the facts many, many times and you continue to refuse to see reality.

Ok, that's on you.  The rest of us understand what is happening. 

I feel sorry for your employers.

Hopefully others can provide their understanding.

Your vehicle when moving at 10ms direct downwind with a 5m/s wind will experience a 5m/s (10m/s - 5m/s) headwind.
No air particle will be able to hit the back of the sail in order to power the vehicle.

Why do you continue to distort the example.  The SAILS are traveling at 2.5 m/s, not 10 m/s.  I've made that very clear.  So the sails will feel the wind pushing them in the direction of the car with 2.5 m/s relative velocity.  Usually you try to muddy the waters.  In this case, you are just making up your own reality, basically LYING about the facts. 

Don't do that.

You just forget what powers this vehicle. No air particle hitting the back of the vehicle (this includes the sail) no forward acceleration.
It is useful to think in terms of balls as that will be a non compressible fluid equivalent and you will realize that without energy storage it can not work.

It is a limitation that you have not allowing you to deal with multiple variable changing at the same time. That is a bit strange based on your user name.
You refuse to understand that sails move around the vehicle and you imagine an infinite long belt so sails never need to go under the vehicle.

This is the more typical BS you espouse, making up irrelevant crap.

I trimmed the rest of your pointless tirade.  We've read all your crap before.  When are you going to acknowledge reality?

[Alex Eisenhut]

I think you shouldn't like this analogy because the logical conclusion is that it's the shockwave that transfers the energy, not the marbles/electrons. So the shockwave would be the field.

What you call shock wave I call electron wave and mentioned that in almost all comments I made on the subject.
The thing is that electron wave travels inside the wire not outside the wire.

Amazing! How does a wave propagate slower in a stripline than in a microstrip?

Why did Tektronix put a variable velocity on their TDR systems? How does this "electron wave" propagate at different speeds inside the wire depending on the material outside the wire?

For that matter, how do you explain dielectric losses?

[electrodacus]

Why do you continue to distort the example.  The SAILS are traveling at 2.5 m/s, not 10 m/s.  I've made that very clear.  So the sails will feel the wind pushing them in the direction of the car with 2.5 m/s relative velocity.  Usually you try to muddy the waters.  In this case, you are just making up your own reality, basically LYING about the facts. 

Don't do that.


This is the more typical BS you espouse, making up irrelevant crap.

I trimmed the rest of your pointless tirade.  We've read all your crap before.  When are you going to acknowledge reality?

Reality will not care about what you think happens.
Sails on your vehicles are attached to the vehicle and travel at the same speed the vehicle travels it just that they also move around the vehicle.

There is a difference (very important difference) between air particles colliding with vehicle (any part including sails) and vehicle colliding with the air particles.
The only way any wind powered vehicle is powered by the wind power is if wind particles collide with vehicle (any part of the vehicle) as they will transfer energy to vehicle.
If vehicle (any part) collides with air particles then vehicle provides energy to the air particles.

The fact that you fail to see that sails are attached to vehicle so they move at the same speed relative to the ground in average makes you unable to predict the outcome.
Ignoring the fact that air is a compressible fluid and seeing the incomplete test results makes you come to ridiculous conclusion like vehicle is still powered by wind power when well above wind speed.

Why do you even need a propeller or moving sails ? If you think air compressibility has no role why not demonstrate a  direct downwind vehicle using just wheels and two solid surfaces moving at different speeds ?
You will not be able to demonstrate that as it is not possible.

[electrodacus]

Amazing! How does a wave propagate slower in a stripline than in a microstrip?

Why did Tektronix put a variable velocity on their TDR systems? How does this "electron wave" propagate at different speeds inside the wire depending on the material outside the wire?

For that matter, how do you explain dielectric losses?

They are good questions but not a proof that energy travels outside the wire.
A strip line all else being equal will have 2x the capacitance of a microstrip as there are return paths on both sides of a strip line.
Same happens if you add different dielectric materials between the capacitor plates.
In Derek's case he had just bare copper pipes 1m apart thus the speed of electron wave was very close maybe 98 or 99% of the speed of light.
What Derek observed after the time the light speed needed to travel about 1m was line capacitance being charged.

Same as electrical energy is not flowing through a capacitor (else it will no longer be a capacitor) the electrical energy is not flowing through that 1m air space.
Charges in that piece of wire 1m apart are just rearranged and there are no electrons fling trough that 1m of air gap at just 20Vdc.
If there where electrons fling trough that air space then electrical energy will have been transferred there.

If the ends of the circuit will not have been connected in Derks experiment then you will still have observed that current through the lamp as charges are redistributed while capacitor made by those wires is being charged then nothing will have happened if you opened the switch and then close the switch again as the line capacitance was already charged when the switch was closed for the first time.
And there is that electrical energy stored there in the line capacitance that did no work. Obviously charging the capacitor means electrical energy travel through wires and there was some amount of energy converted to thermal energy than then was dissipated to space as infrared photons.

That is why I considered a charged capacitor paralleled to a discharged capacitor as the best example of describing how electrical energy is transferred from one capacitor to another.
The difference between a charged a a discharged capacitor is just the difference between the number of free electrons between the two parallel plates of the capacitor.

[Naej]

The electric generator is connected on limo A wheels and produce 1kW (say 1kV, 1A DC). Regenerative breaking if you will.
The 1kW electric engine is connected on limo B wheels and powered by limo A's electric generator.
10t limos.
So, will the fast limo get faster, and the slow one slower? Or the reverse perhaps?

Thanks for clarifying.
Obviously the limo A will go slower as it converts his kinetic energy in to electrical energy that is then transferred through wires to limo B witch will use that electrical energy to increase kinetic energy by the amount limo A has lost.
You will need a very long cable as the distance between the two limos will increase over time.
But what is even the point of this example.

The point was to have you admit that it is possible for a slow object to transfer its energy to a fast one. Which you said was impossible.

Now truck A is at 10 m/s, truck B is at 11 m/s (both 10 tons).
An electric bike (200kg, driver is Carrie-Anne Moss) is on truck B and at 10 m/s (with respect to the ground), so that it can jump on truck A.
Once on truck A, it accelerates with its 10kW engine during 1s, and jumps on truck B. (Moss is now at 20 m/s with respect to the ground)
On truck B, the bike uses regenerative breaking until it stops at 10kW, which gives 8100J to the bike during 0.81 s.
The bike is recharged with a generator on truck B wheels, by exactly 2000J.
Now the bike is turned around and back at 10 m/s (with respect to ground), which it can do with the 100J remaining.
And the cycle can repeat, with truck A'.

Question: what is the kinetic energy of truck B?
You just have to compute what was given to truck B by Moss when breaking, and remove the 2000J.
Or compute the decrease in kinetic energy of truck A.

[electrodacus]

The point was to have you admit that it is possible for a slow object to transfer its energy to a fast one. Which you said was impossible.

There was a cable connecting this two vehicles that needed to be longer and longer as the distance between the vehicle grows very fast.
There is no cable between air particles and wind powered vehicle and the only way the air particle can transfer energy to vehicle is to hit the back of the vehicle (propeller or sail is at same speed as the vehicle and part of the vehicle).

Now truck A is at 10 m/s, truck B is at 11 m/s (both 10 tons).
An electric bike (200kg, driver is Carrie-Anne Moss) is on truck B and at 10 m/s (with respect to the ground), so that it can jump on truck A.
Once on truck A, it accelerates with its 10kW engine during 1s, and jumps on truck B. (Moss is now at 20 m/s with respect to the ground)
On truck B, the bike uses regenerative breaking until it stops at 10kW, which gives 8100J to the bike during 0.81 s.
The bike is recharged with a generator on truck B wheels, by exactly 2000J.
Now the bike is turned around and back at 10 m/s (with respect to ground), which it can do with the 100J remaining.
And the cycle can repeat, with truck A'.

Question: what is the kinetic energy of truck B?
You just have to compute what was given to truck B by Moss when breaking, and remove the 2000J.
Or compute the decrease in kinetic energy of truck A.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I heard.
Air particles and direct downwind vehicle interaction can only be air particle collides with vehicle and transfers kinetic energy to vehicle.
As air is a compressible fluid a higher number of air particles will bunch up in the back of the vehicle and a lower number will be in front thus a pressure differential.
If you have a propeller like on blackbird you can use wind energy (while well below wind speed) to keep this pressure differential from dropping and so basically store energy in this pressure differential.

All you have is potential wind energy which is 0.5 *  vehicle mass * (wind speed)²
For a sail vehicle you can convert this to vehicle kinetic energy so you trade the potential energy for kinetic energy and the vehicle can not exceed wind speed.
For blackbird direct downwind version you start with the same potential wind energy but as you start to convert that to kinetic energy part of it instead of converting into kinetic energy will be put back to increase the potential wind energy.
Of course as vehicle slowly accelerates there is less wind power available and at some point well before vehicle gets at wind speed the stored potential energy is used up to accelerate the vehicle so pressure differential will continue to drop but before it gets to zero it accelerated the vehicle well above wind speed then vehicle just starts to slow down.


So to use your analogy all you need is vehicle A and a generator connected to a battery.
Without the generator and battery vehicle A can best case get to wind speed as it is pushed by air particles.
With the generator instead of accelerating the energy from wind is stored in to battery so more time is spent at low vehicle speed and then that stored battery energy is converted in to vehicle kinetic energy.

[gnuarm]

Why do you continue to distort the example.  The SAILS are traveling at 2.5 m/s, not 10 m/s.  I've made that very clear.  So the sails will feel the wind pushing them in the direction of the car with 2.5 m/s relative velocity.  Usually you try to muddy the waters.  In this case, you are just making up your own reality, basically LYING about the facts. 

Don't do that.


This is the more typical BS you espouse, making up irrelevant crap.

I trimmed the rest of your pointless tirade.  We've read all your crap before.  When are you going to acknowledge reality?

Reality will not care about what you think happens.
Sails on your vehicles are attached to the vehicle and travel at the same speed the vehicle travels it just that they also move around the vehicle.

Dude!  Reality is only a concept to you, something you are free to wrap around your finger.  You wouldn't know reality if it smacked you in the face.

You know as well as anyone that the sails are in the wind when on the top side and are furled and not in the wind on the bottom side.  The wind, as well as your little balls, get into the sails and push the car along all day long.

There is a difference (very important difference) between air particles colliding with vehicle (any part including sails) and vehicle colliding with the air particles.
The only way any wind powered vehicle is powered by the wind power is if wind particles collide with vehicle (any part of the vehicle) as they will transfer energy to vehicle.
If vehicle (any part) collides with air particles then vehicle provides energy to the air particles.

The fact that you fail to see that sails are attached to vehicle so they move at the same speed relative to the ground in average makes you unable to predict the outcome.
Ignoring the fact that air is a compressible fluid and seeing the incomplete test results makes you come to ridiculous conclusion like vehicle is still powered by wind power when well above wind speed.

LOL  You clearly either have a mental illness, or are just trolling.  I think you are just a troll.  You get off on trying to jerk people... I mean around. 

Why do you even need a propeller or moving sails ? If you think air compressibility has no role why not demonstrate a  direct downwind vehicle using just wheels and two solid surfaces moving at different speeds ?
You will not be able to demonstrate that as it is not possible.

Who cares.  The sail experiment is very clear and shows how, in very simple terms that pretty much any idiot can understand, that a vehicle can travel faster than the wind.  A person has to be very "special" to not understand the factors involved.  "Special" indeed.

[electrodacus]

Dude!  Reality is only a concept to you, something you are free to wrap around your finger.  You wouldn't know reality if it smacked you in the face.

You know as well as anyone that the sails are in the wind when on the top side and are furled and not in the wind on the bottom side.  The wind, as well as your little balls, get into the sails and push the car along all day long.

LOL  You clearly either have a mental illness, or are just trolling.  I think you are just a troll.  You get off on trying to jerk people... I mean around. 


Who cares.  The sail experiment is very clear and shows how, in very simple terms that pretty much any idiot can understand, that a vehicle can travel faster than the wind.  A person has to be very "special" to not understand the factors involved.  "Special" indeed.

You just fail to understand wind direction relative to vehicle is what is important and that is 5m/s headwind instead of tailwind (5m/s-10m/s)
I guess an "idiot" will think is simple and he understood. As I mentioned before likely I will not be able to help you.

[Naej]

The point was to have you admit that it is possible for a slow object to transfer its energy to a fast one. Which you said was impossible.

There was a cable connecting this two vehicles that needed to be longer and longer as the distance between the vehicle grows very fast.
There is no cable between air particles and wind powered vehicle and the only way the air particle can transfer energy to vehicle is to hit the back of the vehicle (propeller or sail is at same speed as the vehicle and part of the vehicle).

Okay so you admit it is possible.

Now truck A is at 10 m/s, truck B is at 11 m/s (both 10 tons).
An electric bike (200kg, driver is Carrie-Anne Moss) is on truck B and at 10 m/s (with respect to the ground), so that it can jump on truck A.
Once on truck A, it accelerates with its 10kW engine during 1s, and jumps on truck B. (Moss is now at 20 m/s with respect to the ground)
On truck B, the bike uses regenerative breaking until it stops at 10kW, which gives 8100J to the bike during 0.81 s.
The bike is recharged with a generator on truck B wheels, by exactly 2000J.
Now the bike is turned around and back at 10 m/s (with respect to ground), which it can do with the 100J remaining.
And the cycle can repeat, with truck A'.

Question: what is the kinetic energy of truck B?
You just have to compute what was given to truck B by Moss when breaking, and remove the 2000J.
Or compute the decrease in kinetic energy of truck A.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I heard.
Air particles and direct downwind vehicle interaction can only be air particle collides with vehicle and transfers kinetic energy to vehicle.
As air is a compressible fluid a higher number of air particles will bunch up in the back of the vehicle and a lower number will be in front thus a pressure differential.
If you have a propeller like on blackbird you can use wind energy (while well below wind speed) to keep this pressure differential from dropping and so basically store energy in this pressure differential.

All you have is potential wind energy which is 0.5 *  vehicle mass * (wind speed)²
For a sail vehicle you can convert this to vehicle kinetic energy so you trade the potential energy for kinetic energy and the vehicle can not exceed wind speed.
For blackbird direct downwind version you start with the same potential wind energy but as you start to convert that to kinetic energy part of it instead of converting into kinetic energy will be put back to increase the potential wind energy.
Of course as vehicle slowly accelerates there is less wind power available and at some point well before vehicle gets at wind speed the stored potential energy is used up to accelerate the vehicle so pressure differential will continue to drop but before it gets to zero it accelerated the vehicle well above wind speed then vehicle just starts to slow down.


So to use your analogy all you need is vehicle A and a generator connected to a battery.
Without the generator and battery vehicle A can best case get to wind speed as it is pushed by air particles.
With the generator instead of accelerating the energy from wind is stored in to battery so more time is spent at low vehicle speed and then that stored battery energy is converted in to vehicle kinetic energy.

Why are you speaking about wind?
What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

[electrodacus]

Why are you speaking about wind?
What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

There is nothing the equivalent of an electric cable or an electric bicycle between the air particles and the direct down wind vehicle.
The only way vehicle A can increase the kinetic energy of vehicle B is if the vehicle B is slower so that vehicle A can bump in to it.

You are trying to find a way so that a vehicle directly downwind faster than wind can still be powered by wind and that is just impossible.

What you are proposing is like this:
A wind turbine fixed on the ground connected with a long cable to a vehicle that then uses that always available energy to accelerated faster than wind direct down wind.
And second option a cyclist commuting back in forth below wind speed to store some energy then above wind speed to deliver that stored energy to vehicle.

[Naej]

Why are you speaking about wind?
What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

There is nothing the equivalent of an electric cable or an electric bicycle between the air particles and the direct down wind vehicle.
The only way vehicle A can increase the kinetic energy of vehicle B is if the vehicle B is slower so that vehicle A can bump in to it.

Who talked about "bumping"? Only you.
You just need to disconnect wires with the slower vehicle and connect them to the next one, also slower but in front of you.

You are trying to find a way so that a vehicle directly downwind faster than wind can still be powered by wind and that is just impossible.

What you are proposing is like this:
A wind turbine fixed on the ground connected with a long cable to a vehicle that then uses that always available energy to accelerated faster than wind direct down wind.
And second option a cyclist commuting back in forth below wind speed to store some energy then above wind speed to deliver that stored energy to vehicle.

What is the kinetic energy of truck A and truck B after the maneuver, which put the battery level back to its original position?
Is truck B faster than it used to be, and truck A slower?
(Remember that a bike accelerated on truck A and Newton's third law)

[PlainName]

The fact that you fail to see that sails are attached to vehicle so they move at the same speed relative to the ground in average makes you unable to predict the outcome.

LOL  You clearly either have a mental illness, or are just trolling.  I think you are just a troll.  You get off on trying to jerk people... I mean around. 

Yep, I think that bit unequivocally proves he is a first class troll.