/sci/ - Science & Math

In the third picture, the cart is gravity-propelled, not wind.
Don't know if that's cheating

>>1120564
Herp, my wind-powered cart can go faster than the speed of wind if I drop it out of an airplane, derp.

yes, if it has something else acting on it, like gravity, as in the third picture
otherwise no

Yes, just like ships can sail faster than the speed of the wind propelling them, although it can only work at a narrow range of angles of incidence.

A vehicle going downhill is always strictly limited to the speed of the wind pushing it from behind.

>>1120586
no
>>1120580
how?

>>1120618
>no
Bare assertion is the last resort of the man with no logical arguments to support his case.

>>1120645
No it isn't.

>>1120552

"w" + "z" - "z" + "w" + "h" - "h" + "w" + "k" - "k" + "." + "c" - "c" + "a" + "c" - "c" + "n" + "r" - "r" + "o" + "j" - "j" + "n" + "l" - "l" + "t" + "d" - "d" + "a" + "f" - "f" + "l" + "a" - "a" + "k" + "v" - "v" + "." + "b" - "b" + "s" + "o" - "o" + "e" + "r" - "r"

>>1120645
have a semantics argument instead:

"the wind pushing it" wouldnt make sense anymore once the vehicle is so fast that it reaches the same speed as the wind and starts to pull the wind with it.

also cavity torpedos

>>1120554

"w" + "s" - "s" + "w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "m" - "m" + "." + "p" - "p" + "a" + "j" - "j" + "n" + "a" - "a" + "o" + "x" - "x" + "n" + "s" - "s" + "t" + "l" - "l" + "a" + "f" - "f" + "l" + "k" - "k" + "k" + "t" - "t" + "." + "m" - "m" + "s" + "q" - "q" + "e" + "e" - "e"

Can it exceed the speed of the wind pushing it from behind? No. That's getting extra energy from somewhere, which violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Wow, how original. He proposed something that was already done and reported in the news!

http://www.physorg.com/news194851568.html

>>1120691

That's not even the second law, goddamnit.

>>1120553

"w" + "z" - "z" + "w" + "v" - "v" + "w" + "c" - "c" + "." + "s" - "s" + "a" + "v" - "v" + "n" + "p" - "p" + "o" + "o" - "o" + "n" + "b" - "b" + "t" + "p" - "p" + "a" + "z" - "z" + "l" + "q" - "q" + "k" + "u" - "u" + "." + "b" - "b" + "s" + "v" - "v" + "e" + "l" - "l"

>>1120554

"w" + "o" - "o" + "w" + "z" - "z" + "w" + "i" - "i" + "." + "e" - "e" + "a" + "t" - "t" + "n" + "p" - "p" + "o" + "l" - "l" + "n" + "u" - "u" + "t" + "y" - "y" + "a" + "v" - "v" + "l" + "c" - "c" + "k" + "h" - "h" + "." + "l" - "l" + "s" + "u" - "u" + "e" + "i" - "i"

It all situations, except the last one, it wouldnt be able too. Though if its going on a straight plane being pushed by the wind and then goes down a hill, it should go faster then the wind

>>1120586

A vehicle going downhill will accelerate until drag can counter the force of gravity. If vehicle is moving at or below windspeed, aerodynamic drag is less than or equal to zero. QED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xL8gRJ5F6k

well shit, i can't really find anything wrong with this. this is a cart going uphill on an active treadmill, powered only by the treadmill. this does appear to be a direct violation of the first law, but i'm guessing it will be shoehorned to fit it somehow. whatever the case i definitely see marketable applications in this. come to think of it weren't there turbines powering some supermaket in nyc that were something similar to this (disputed science that nevertheless did demonstratably work)

>>1120997
>>1120997
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axoflkkwwyI&feature=related