Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "Engineering with Rosie" channel.

  1. I think the autorotation just stores energy into the rotor so it's not quite the same thing.
    1
  2.  @Merlin3189  In the case of coal gas it was a byproduct of producing coke (or if the gas was the main product you also got coke as byproduct). Also, the coal gas plants could probably close to where the gas was being consumed. Today, we don't need gas as much because the same things can be done with electricity. Oil fields where gas is flared might be in some remote locations where getting a gas pipeline can be expensive. If gas is cheap in that region and emissions don't have an associated cost it might make more commercial sense to just flare the gas. I'm not 100% of this but this is my best guess as to why in many places they have not bothered to utilize the gas.
    1
  3. This isn't free energy. The energy is coming from the wind.
    1
  4.  @onebig77thbrigademonkey.57  If by "over-unity" you mean "over 100% efficiency", then no. As long as losses are sufficiently low then theoretically any speed could be reached.
    1
  5. He's not a scientist but he does have an engineering degree.
    1
  6. Probably not practical. (Rotor sails, on the other hand, can be practical but they require some energy to operate.)
    1
  7.  @tka2000  It's not perpetual motion. The cart is getting kinetic energy from the wind. "The energy of the spinning wheels must overcome all the rotational power of the wind to make it turn where it turns." Yes, and this is possible precisely because the air is moving relative to the ground.
    1
  8.  @tka2000  "But according the other proving video it moves forward the trade mill even with no wind." What video is that? Veritasium certainly made no such claims.
    1
  9.  @tka2000  Well, I've not seen that video and the description is too vague for me to find it. Anyway, Veritasium and Rosie aren't claiming that it would move even without wind.
    1
  10.  @richardmcdonald7565  "DOES NOT BODE well for anything which derives from that creation" Any kind of "foreboding" is just a superstition. It's not like the intent of some military people many decades ago affect people who design commercial nuclear reactors today.
    1
  11. What is VSR? The maximum speed is limited by friction and drag. There isn't a simple formula for that.
    1
  12.  @SternLX  The wheels are powering the propeller.
    1
  13.  @SternLX  "Prior to that the Prop, still chained to the wheels, is being turned by the wind which in turn powers the wheels." No, the prop is being turned by the wheels in that case too. If the prop were turned by the wind it would spin to the other direction.
    1
  14.  @SternLX  "Blow on a fan and it starts turning in which ever way the pitch dictates. Remove the wind. Fan is still turning in the same direction but is now creating it's own wind on the back side of the fan as it spools down." But that would be creating wind to the same direction you blew. In this cart the direction is the opposite. The propeller (when it's turning) is always turning to such direction that it's pushing air backwards while the wind is coming from behind. "AT NO TIME BELOW WIND SPEED are the wheels driving the Prop." The wheels are driving the propeller both below and above the wind speed.
    1
  15. "How is this different from infinite energy/perpetual motion or even more?" The cart is taking kinetic energy from the wind so it's not creating energy out of nothing.
    1
  16. Well, that would actually break the laws of thermodynamics unlike this car.
    1
  17.  @Jiggledance  I thought you were implying this cart was also a perpetual motion machine.
    1
  18.  @Jiggledance  OK, then I misunderstood you.
    1
  19.  @reesecup4567  It's not free energy. The energy is coming from the wind (even when windspeed has been exceeded).
    1
  20.  @onebig77thbrigademonkey.57  It's not free energy. The moving air is losing kinetic energy and the cart is gaining some. No energy is being created out of nowhere.
    1
  21. "It is agreed that when the cart reaches wind speed, the wind provides zero energy from outside." It is not agreed. The propeller can still push the cart if it spins fast enough. "Now people, in the style of the old perpetuum mobile, believes that the cart can energize itself to go faster than the wind." It's not a perpetual motion machine. The conservation of energy is not violated because the cart can extract energy from the wind even when going faster than the wind (this is when viewed from the inertial frame tied to the ground).
    1
  22.  @ratandmonkey2982  "financial cost due to his loss of reputation" Has there been any such cost? I seriously doubt it. Everyone makes mistakes.
    1
  23. Does anyone know if the hydropower management is better in Norway?
    1
  24.  @anufriyev  "But you can't use the energy of the wind if the wind doesn't exist anymore." But the wind (relative to the ground) still exists so it can be used.
    1
  25.  @anufriyev  "The car and wind moves relative to the ground with the same speed and in the same direction. For the car, the wind does not exist anymore." If you want to consider the inertial frame tied to the cart in such a case then you should note that the ground is moving relative to the cart and the cart can extract energy from the ground's movement. I personally find it more intuitive to consider energy in the inertial frame tied to the ground. In that frame the cart is extracting energy from the kinetic energy of the wind.
    1
  26.  @DynamicFortitude  But Poland is in the EU so emitters there have to buy permits in accordance with the EU emissions trading scheme. It's, at least in theory, equivalent to a carbon tax.
    1
  27. Wut?
    1
  28. "So explaining why it does work here quite the challenge." Because here the wind is an external energy source so it's not a perpetual motion machine.
    1
  29.  @jonathanedelson6733  OK, I misunderstood you.
    1
  30.  @AnonyMous-jf4lc  "If this concept really worked, you could put this car in a completely still environment, push it to get it moving, and it would self sustain." No, that would be true free energy. This cart is taking energy from the wind.
    1
  31.  @AnonyMous-jf4lc  The wind is still (kind of) driving the cart. The propeller accelerates the cart whereas the wheels driving the propeller decelerate it. Because of the wind the acceleration from the propeller is greater than the deceleration from the wheels. Yes, from the cart's perspective the wind is coming from the front (after windspeed has been exceeded) but it's relative speed is slower than that of the ground.
    1
  32.  @AnonyMous-jf4lc  "In order for that to occur, the propeller must be providing more thrust than the drag of the car, and that drag includes driving the propeller." Which is perfectly possible.
    1
  33.  @AnonyMous-jf4lc  "If I can provide more thrust than the drag it takes to create it, I have just invented free energy." No, it's not free energy. Energy is being extracted from the wind.
    1
  34. No, then it would slow down and stop.
    1
  35. You have no evidence for that assertion.
    1
  36. "10,300 kWh per annum though that is a 4 adult household" That's 2575 kWh per adult per year, which is less than the figure given for Australia.
    1