Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Digest Number 1165

Expand Messages
  • Arcologic@aol.com
    Beard said, Wings are used primarily on race cars to provide downforce which keeps the car from lifting off the road surface at higher speeds......they can
    Message 1 of 23 , Jun 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Beard said,


      Wings are used primarily on race cars to provide downforce which keeps the
      car from lifting off the road surface at higher speeds......they can also be
      used to split and refine the boundary layer flow to reduce the drag caused
      from the turbulent air on the truncated body.......and in doing so reduce
      the overall drag on the vehicle, it is a bandaid for a car that has horrid
      aerodynamics to begin with.



      I agree with that assessment. The wing on the Beetle is for correcting its
      terrible rear drag. An uncorrected Beetle has Cd = 0.38. My wing lowers
      that very close to 0.30. My wing also develops quite a bit of down force at
      higher speeds.

      Ernie Rogers


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • beard6801@bellsouth.net
      This might be of interest to you...on suspension energies! http://www.lds-group.com/docs/site_documents/integrated.pdf ... From: To:
      Message 2 of 23 , Jun 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This might be of interest to you...on suspension energies!

        http://www.lds-group.com/docs/site_documents/integrated.pdf


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <Arcologic@...>
        To: <future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:49 AM
        Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Digest Number 1165


        >
        > Great answer, Lee
        >
        > I have thought about Murdoch's question too. The calculation of energy
        loss
        > into shocks is a complicated one. I am sure somebody has published
        research
        > on it, and I think the idea of regen shocks is a fine idea. A tough part
        of
        > the problem is to know what is a typical rough road, if there is a
        typical
        > one. One of the truck manufacturers has published a handbook on vehicle
        > efficiency, available on line, sorry I don't remember now which one-- an
        excellent
        > book. They cite an energy loss from rough roads of about 10%. I think
        this
        > is based on government-sponsored testing done a few years ago. That is
        also
        > available on line.
        >
        > That's about all the help I can give on that.
        >
        > About my wing. Go to _www.max-mpg.com_ (http://www.max-mpg.com) and look
        > for the explanation on how it works. It's pretty simple.
        >
        > Ernie Rogers
        >
        > In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:11:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
        > future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:
        >
        > Message: 3
        > Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:51 am (PDT)
        > From: "Lee Dekker" heprv@...
        > Subject: Re: question about vehicular energy savings and momentary
        > gravitatio
        >
        >
        > A seat of the pants (bike seat that is) observation. Having two bicycles
        to
        > choose from, one-fully suspended and another with no suspension, the
        > difference becomes obvious.
        >
        > The suspended bike is fun and cushy. On a rough gravel road, it's
        > delightful. But if you want to get there in a hurry, you'll grab the
        non-suspended
        > bicycle every time.
        >
        > When muscle energy instead of fossil energy is being used, one does not
        miss
        > the subtle differences between suspended and non-suspended vehicles.
        >
        > murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote: Something that has been
        on
        > my mind for awhile:
        >
        > I wonder if calculations have been run to figure approximately what
        > portion of a vehicle's trip energy expenditure goes toward horizontal
        > ups and downs, and not toward getting the vehicle there? How much of
        > that is translated (if any) into vertical travel, via shock
        > mechanisms, aerodynamic steadying, or some other aspect of physics I
        > am not getting?
        >
        > I have been thinking about this in a very abstract amateur-science
        > sort of way, as I recently attended a lecture on gravity by a layman
        > for laymen. It got me to thinking in part that as we take a car down
        > the road, we are so heavily depending on gravity, in the way that we
        > have designed our present vehicles, to keep the car steady on the
        > ground, so that we get traction (with whatever we have decided is
        > "acceptable" slippage). Yet, even if the overall trip is figured to
        > be net-level sea-level measurement, from start to finish, (just to
        > keep the equation relatively simple) as the vehicle goes through the
        > trip it will experience ups and downs in the road, ups and downs in
        > how air affects it, turns which will in part be translated into some
        > vertical oscillation, etc.
        >
        > Even if some of what I am implying here is very minute (so that it
        > goes out to many decimal places... as I say, this started out as an
        > intellectual exercise for me, not an attempt to save the world's
        > energy supply, so I am curious nonetheless.
        >
        > Now, we have participating here one of the world's top experts in
        > mileage-improvements via experimental aerodynamics. Usually when I
        > watch TV races, and they talk about the value of wings, they talk
        > about how it improves traction, and this in turn allows them to apply
        > greater power to the wheels.
        >
        > Yet, I'm not sure if this approach helps me understand things. Ernie's
        > wing seems to be used not so much to win races as to improve mileage.
        > Haven't some of us found this a little counter-intuititve? I know I
        > have, at least at times. The reason is that you are putting into the
        > wind yet another "thing" and so you would think this would increase,
        > rather than decrease, resistance, no? Apparently, this is not exactly
        > the case. What I wonder, in light of my gravity musings, is if the
        > wing also helps "steady" the vehicle, and if "steadying" a vehicle has
        > energy-saving ramifications that we have perhaps been underestimating,
        > perhaps in ways I haven't thought about, or perhaps in ways bearing on
        > any energy that might otherwise be wasted in oscillatory vertical
        > motion.
        >
        > I have in the past spoke with one or two folks who were trying to work
        > on regen shock absorbers, and I think this also would bear on the
        > question of whether there is energy that is being wasted in vertical
        > gravitational game-playing by a vehicle that could be translated into
        > horizontal productive work-motion.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • murdoch
        I think there is more than one issue here, and that we will revisit some of these questions periodically. In addition to what has been laid out for us all to
        Message 3 of 23 , Jun 10, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I think there is more than one issue here, and that we will revisit some of
          these questions periodically.

          In addition to what has been laid out for us all to ponder, I want to go back to
          some of my thought to lay it out in a different way: when we design vehicles to
          be used here on the surface of the Planet Earth, we are designing them in a way
          that uses gravity in the design. Gravity is assumed to be a force that helps
          keep the vehicle positioned such that it can gain efficient and consistent
          traction. This is in part or in whole because we do not design jet or rocket
          cars, that would make use of action-reaction simply to push air backwards and
          move forwards, but rather they push the Earth backwards (spin it) and thus move
          forward.

          If we contrast this to, say, a maglev vehicle or some such, we can start to see
          that some vehicle designs (no matter how much we may have strayed from basic car
          design.. let's set that aside for the moment) do not treat gravity in the same
          way. The magnetic rail vehicles either seem to push or pull upward against
          gravity, and then seem to pull using electro magnetic forces. Thus, instead of
          using friction for traction, they seem to eschew friction, and also would seem
          to eschew the minute "bounciness" that goes with relying on gravity to be
          designed in to attain friction-for-traction?

          As long as I am getting way out there into theorization-land, I will close by
          saying, on an entirely different topic, particularly as you are a reigning de
          facto expert in aero considerations, that I have always thought active aero
          would be tried someday, not only in the big way of rocket or jet type
          propulsion, but in much more minute ways, such as pushing along surface air,
          helping the vehicle swim a bit.

          My thinking on surface aero considerations was affected years ago by seeing some
          show as to how the skin of sharks is sort of non-smooth and how
          counter-intuitively this seems to help their efficiency in getting thruogh
          liquids. So, we do see all manner of concern, rightly, with the passive surface
          design in experimental vehicles (such as making sure the surface of an Indy Car
          is optimized) but I think that someday this will not be enough and designers may
          try some more active elements at the smaller levels, to see if they can get a
          good return on Energy.


          On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:49:18 EDT, you wrote:

          >
          >Great answer, Lee
          >
          >I have thought about Murdoch's question too. The calculation of energy loss
          >into shocks is a complicated one. I am sure somebody has published research
          >on it, and I think the idea of regen shocks is a fine idea. A tough part of
          >the problem is to know what is a typical rough road, if there is a typical
          >one. One of the truck manufacturers has published a handbook on vehicle
          >efficiency, available on line, sorry I don't remember now which one-- an excellent
          >book. They cite an energy loss from rough roads of about 10%. I think this
          >is based on government-sponsored testing done a few years ago. That is also
          >available on line.
          >
          >That's about all the help I can give on that.
          >
          >About my wing. Go to _www.max-mpg.com_ (http://www.max-mpg.com) and look
          >for the explanation on how it works. It's pretty simple.
          >
          >Ernie Rogers
          >
          >In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:11:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
          >future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:
          >
          >Message: 3
          >Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:51 am (PDT)
          >From: "Lee Dekker" heprv@...
          >Subject: Re: question about vehicular energy savings and momentary
          >gravitatio
          >
          >
          >A seat of the pants (bike seat that is) observation. Having two bicycles to
          >choose from, one-fully suspended and another with no suspension, the
          >difference becomes obvious.
          >
          >The suspended bike is fun and cushy. On a rough gravel road, it's
          >delightful. But if you want to get there in a hurry, you'll grab the non-suspended
          >bicycle every time.
          >
          >When muscle energy instead of fossil energy is being used, one does not miss
          >the subtle differences between suspended and non-suspended vehicles.
          >
          >murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote: Something that has been on
          >my mind for awhile:
          >
          >I wonder if calculations have been run to figure approximately what
          >portion of a vehicle's trip energy expenditure goes toward horizontal
          >ups and downs, and not toward getting the vehicle there? How much of
          >that is translated (if any) into vertical travel, via shock
          >mechanisms, aerodynamic steadying, or some other aspect of physics I
          >am not getting?
          >
          >I have been thinking about this in a very abstract amateur-science
          >sort of way, as I recently attended a lecture on gravity by a layman
          >for laymen. It got me to thinking in part that as we take a car down
          >the road, we are so heavily depending on gravity, in the way that we
          >have designed our present vehicles, to keep the car steady on the
          >ground, so that we get traction (with whatever we have decided is
          >"acceptable" slippage). Yet, even if the overall trip is figured to
          >be net-level sea-level measurement, from start to finish, (just to
          >keep the equation relatively simple) as the vehicle goes through the
          >trip it will experience ups and downs in the road, ups and downs in
          >how air affects it, turns which will in part be translated into some
          >vertical oscillation, etc.
          >
          >Even if some of what I am implying here is very minute (so that it
          >goes out to many decimal places... as I say, this started out as an
          >intellectual exercise for me, not an attempt to save the world's
          >energy supply, so I am curious nonetheless.
          >
          >Now, we have participating here one of the world's top experts in
          >mileage-improvements via experimental aerodynamics. Usually when I
          >watch TV races, and they talk about the value of wings, they talk
          >about how it improves traction, and this in turn allows them to apply
          >greater power to the wheels.
          >
          >Yet, I'm not sure if this approach helps me understand things. Ernie's
          >wing seems to be used not so much to win races as to improve mileage.
          >Haven't some of us found this a little counter-intuititve? I know I
          >have, at least at times. The reason is that you are putting into the
          >wind yet another "thing" and so you would think this would increase,
          >rather than decrease, resistance, no? Apparently, this is not exactly
          >the case. What I wonder, in light of my gravity musings, is if the
          >wing also helps "steady" the vehicle, and if "steadying" a vehicle has
          >energy-saving ramifications that we have perhaps been underestimating,
          >perhaps in ways I haven't thought about, or perhaps in ways bearing on
          >any energy that might otherwise be wasted in oscillatory vertical
          >motion.
          >
          >I have in the past spoke with one or two folks who were trying to work
          >on regen shock absorbers, and I think this also would bear on the
          >question of whether there is energy that is being wasted in vertical
          >gravitational game-playing by a vehicle that could be translated into
          >horizontal productive work-motion.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Lee Dekker
          Several high-end luxury models offer various methods to adjust suspension firmness on-the-fly. Some also raise or lower a vehicles profile, as needed. One
          Message 4 of 23 , Jun 10, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Several high-end luxury models offer various methods to adjust suspension firmness on-the-fly. Some also raise or lower a vehicles profile, as needed. One would think these abilities would contribute to better mileage.

            A more manual version of this type of adjustment could easily be applied to bicycles without having too much weight or complexity. I don't know of any such bicycle on the market now but possibly someone else does.

            What's really got me concerned is this thing about pushing the earth backward (spinning it). Unless we coordinate this with wind turbines which are also clearly pushing the earth around, we are going to be in deep trouble. No one likes to be pushed around all the time, even Mother Earth. I'm going to do my part by starting out a little more slowly on my bicycle next time, so as not to spin the earth to quickly all at once.

            murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
            I think there is more than one issue here, and that we will revisit some of
            these questions periodically.

            In addition to what has been laid out for us all to ponder, I want to go back to
            some of my thought to lay it out in a different way: when we design vehicles to
            be used here on the surface of the Planet Earth, we are designing them in a way
            that uses gravity in the design. Gravity is assumed to be a force that helps
            keep the vehicle positioned such that it can gain efficient and consistent
            traction. This is in part or in whole because we do not design jet or rocket
            cars, that would make use of action-reaction simply to push air backwards and
            move forwards, but rather they push the Earth backwards (spin it) and thus move
            forward.

            If we contrast this to, say, a maglev vehicle or some such, we can start to see
            that some vehicle designs (no matter how much we may have strayed from basic car
            design.. let's set that aside for the moment) do not treat gravity in the same
            way. The magnetic rail vehicles either seem to push or pull upward against
            gravity, and then seem to pull using electro magnetic forces. Thus, instead of
            using friction for traction, they seem to eschew friction, and also would seem
            to eschew the minute "bounciness" that goes with relying on gravity to be
            designed in to attain friction-for-traction?

            As long as I am getting way out there into theorization-land, I will close by
            saying, on an entirely different topic, particularly as you are a reigning de
            facto expert in aero considerations, that I have always thought active aero
            would be tried someday, not only in the big way of rocket or jet type
            propulsion, but in much more minute ways, such as pushing along surface air,
            helping the vehicle swim a bit.

            My thinking on surface aero considerations was affected years ago by seeing some
            show as to how the skin of sharks is sort of non-smooth and how
            counter-intuitively this seems to help their efficiency in getting thruogh
            liquids. So, we do see all manner of concern, rightly, with the passive surface
            design in experimental vehicles (such as making sure the surface of an Indy Car
            is optimized) but I think that someday this will not be enough and designers may
            try some more active elements at the smaller levels, to see if they can get a
            good return on Energy.

            On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:49:18 EDT, you wrote:

            >
            >Great answer, Lee
            >
            >I have thought about Murdoch's question too. The calculation of energy loss
            >into shocks is a complicated one. I am sure somebody has published research
            >on it, and I think the idea of regen shocks is a fine idea. A tough part of
            >the problem is to know what is a typical rough road, if there is a typical
            >one. One of the truck manufacturers has published a handbook on vehicle
            >efficiency, available on line, sorry I don't remember now which one-- an excellent
            >book. They cite an energy loss from rough roads of about 10%. I think this
            >is based on government-sponsored testing done a few years ago. That is also
            >available on line.
            >
            >That's about all the help I can give on that.
            >
            >About my wing. Go to _www.max-mpg.com_ (http://www.max-mpg.com) and look
            >for the explanation on how it works. It's pretty simple.
            >
            >Ernie Rogers
            >
            >In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:11:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
            >future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:
            >
            >Message: 3
            >Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:51 am (PDT)
            >From: "Lee Dekker" heprv@...
            >Subject: Re: question about vehicular energy savings and momentary
            >gravitatio
            >
            >
            >A seat of the pants (bike seat that is) observation. Having two bicycles to
            >choose from, one-fully suspended and another with no suspension, the
            >difference becomes obvious.
            >
            >The suspended bike is fun and cushy. On a rough gravel road, it's
            >delightful. But if you want to get there in a hurry, you'll grab the non-suspended
            >bicycle every time.
            >
            >When muscle energy instead of fossil energy is being used, one does not miss
            >the subtle differences between suspended and non-suspended vehicles.
            >
            >murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote: Something that has been on
            >my mind for awhile:
            >
            >I wonder if calculations have been run to figure approximately what
            >portion of a vehicle's trip energy expenditure goes toward horizontal
            >ups and downs, and not toward getting the vehicle there? How much of
            >that is translated (if any) into vertical travel, via shock
            >mechanisms, aerodynamic steadying, or some other aspect of physics I
            >am not getting?
            >
            >I have been thinking about this in a very abstract amateur-science
            >sort of way, as I recently attended a lecture on gravity by a layman
            >for laymen. It got me to thinking in part that as we take a car down
            >the road, we are so heavily depending on gravity, in the way that we
            >have designed our present vehicles, to keep the car steady on the
            >ground, so that we get traction (with whatever we have decided is
            >"acceptable" slippage). Yet, even if the overall trip is figured to
            >be net-level sea-level measurement, from start to finish, (just to
            >keep the equation relatively simple) as the vehicle goes through the
            >trip it will experience ups and downs in the road, ups and downs in
            >how air affects it, turns which will in part be translated into some
            >vertical oscillation, etc.
            >
            >Even if some of what I am implying here is very minute (so that it
            >goes out to many decimal places... as I say, this started out as an
            >intellectual exercise for me, not an attempt to save the world's
            >energy supply, so I am curious nonetheless.
            >
            >Now, we have participating here one of the world's top experts in
            >mileage-improvements via experimental aerodynamics. Usually when I
            >watch TV races, and they talk about the value of wings, they talk
            >about how it improves traction, and this in turn allows them to apply
            >greater power to the wheels.
            >
            >Yet, I'm not sure if this approach helps me understand things. Ernie's
            >wing seems to be used not so much to win races as to improve mileage.
            >Haven't some of us found this a little counter-intuititve? I know I
            >have, at least at times. The reason is that you are putting into the
            >wind yet another "thing" and so you would think this would increase,
            >rather than decrease, resistance, no? Apparently, this is not exactly
            >the case. What I wonder, in light of my gravity musings, is if the
            >wing also helps "steady" the vehicle, and if "steadying" a vehicle has
            >energy-saving ramifications that we have perhaps been underestimating,
            >perhaps in ways I haven't thought about, or perhaps in ways bearing on
            >any energy that might otherwise be wasted in oscillatory vertical
            >motion.
            >
            >I have in the past spoke with one or two folks who were trying to work
            >on regen shock absorbers, and I think this also would bear on the
            >question of whether there is energy that is being wasted in vertical
            >gravitational game-playing by a vehicle that could be translated into
            >horizontal productive work-motion.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >





            "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

            Thomas Jefferson
            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Gil Dawson
            ... No worries, Lee. She doesn t seem to mind. Some people go east, some people go west; it all cancels out. Meteors probably have more effect than cars.
            Message 5 of 23 , Jun 10, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              At 7:56 AM -0700 6/10/06, Lee Dekker wrote:
              >What's really got me concerned is this thing about pushing the earth
              >backward (spinning it). Unless we coordinate this with wind turbines
              >which are also clearly pushing the earth around, we are going to be
              >in deep trouble. No one likes to be pushed around all the time, even
              >Mother Earth. I'm going to do my part by starting out a little more
              >slowly on my bicycle next time, so as not to spin the earth to
              >quickly all at once.

              No worries, Lee. She doesn't seem to mind. Some people go east,
              some people go west; it all cancels out. Meteors probably have more
              effect than cars. Or solar wind, even. The net effect of everything
              is that the earth is slowing down. This is why we add a leap second
              every few years. (http://tf.nist.gov/pubs/bulletin/leapsecond.htm)

              --Gil
            • murdoch
              ... It s an odd way for me to have put it, but I think if I m going to try to explore the basic physics, then it s going to sound stupid regardless of how I
              Message 6 of 23 , Jun 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:56:55 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

                >Several high-end luxury models offer various methods to adjust suspension firmness on-the-fly. Some also raise or lower a vehicles profile, as needed. One would think these abilities would contribute to better mileage.
                >
                >A more manual version of this type of adjustment could easily be applied to bicycles without having too much weight or complexity. I don't know of any such bicycle on the market now but possibly someone else does.
                >
                >What's really got me concerned is this thing about pushing the earth backward (spinning it). Unless we coordinate this with wind turbines which are also clearly pushing the earth around, we are going to be in deep trouble. No one likes to be pushed around all the time, even Mother Earth. I'm going to do my part by starting out a little more slowly on my bicycle next time, so as not to spin the earth to quickly all at once.

                It's an odd way for me to have put it, but I think if I'm
                going to try to explore the basic physics, then it's going
                to sound stupid regardless of how I put it.

                1. I guess in the most basic sense, if we design a vehicle
                to be a rocket, then there is no need to maintain grip with
                a surface. We shoot mass backward, and we move forward, by
                physics laws (action and reaction).

                2. If we are counting on grip then I think what we're doing
                is pushing "backward" on the ground we're standing on with
                our vehicle, and the vehicle moves forward. Continuation of
                this process in an efficient way requires that grip be
                maintained (hence the designed-in use of gravitation in this
                approach). It is perhaps a bit much for me to say
                "spinning" that ground of the earth backwards, but I guess
                it's a frame-of-reference effort on my part. Since the
                earth that is "pushed backwards" is offset, it is not quite
                the same as the rocketry example I gave. There are forces
                at work in more than one dimension holding the system
                together so that 'forward' motion can be achieved for the
                vehicle. I have put it badly, but am I guess just taking a
                moment to go over what I find to be fun physics musings.






                >
                >murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
                > I think there is more than one issue here, and that we will revisit some of
                > these questions periodically.
                >
                > In addition to what has been laid out for us all to ponder, I want to go back to
                > some of my thought to lay it out in a different way: when we design vehicles to
                > be used here on the surface of the Planet Earth, we are designing them in a way
                > that uses gravity in the design. Gravity is assumed to be a force that helps
                > keep the vehicle positioned such that it can gain efficient and consistent
                > traction. This is in part or in whole because we do not design jet or rocket
                > cars, that would make use of action-reaction simply to push air backwards and
                > move forwards, but rather they push the Earth backwards (spin it) and thus move
                > forward.
                >
                > If we contrast this to, say, a maglev vehicle or some such, we can start to see
                > that some vehicle designs (no matter how much we may have strayed from basic car
                > design.. let's set that aside for the moment) do not treat gravity in the same
                > way. The magnetic rail vehicles either seem to push or pull upward against
                > gravity, and then seem to pull using electro magnetic forces. Thus, instead of
                > using friction for traction, they seem to eschew friction, and also would seem
                > to eschew the minute "bounciness" that goes with relying on gravity to be
                > designed in to attain friction-for-traction?
                >
                > As long as I am getting way out there into theorization-land, I will close by
                > saying, on an entirely different topic, particularly as you are a reigning de
                > facto expert in aero considerations, that I have always thought active aero
                > would be tried someday, not only in the big way of rocket or jet type
                > propulsion, but in much more minute ways, such as pushing along surface air,
                > helping the vehicle swim a bit.
                >
                > My thinking on surface aero considerations was affected years ago by seeing some
                > show as to how the skin of sharks is sort of non-smooth and how
                > counter-intuitively this seems to help their efficiency in getting thruogh
                > liquids. So, we do see all manner of concern, rightly, with the passive surface
                > design in experimental vehicles (such as making sure the surface of an Indy Car
                > is optimized) but I think that someday this will not be enough and designers may
                > try some more active elements at the smaller levels, to see if they can get a
                > good return on Energy.
                >
                > On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:49:18 EDT, you wrote:
                >
                > >
                > >Great answer, Lee
                > >
                > >I have thought about Murdoch's question too. The calculation of energy loss
                > >into shocks is a complicated one. I am sure somebody has published research
                > >on it, and I think the idea of regen shocks is a fine idea. A tough part of
                > >the problem is to know what is a typical rough road, if there is a typical
                > >one. One of the truck manufacturers has published a handbook on vehicle
                > >efficiency, available on line, sorry I don't remember now which one-- an excellent
                > >book. They cite an energy loss from rough roads of about 10%. I think this
                > >is based on government-sponsored testing done a few years ago. That is also
                > >available on line.
                > >
                > >That's about all the help I can give on that.
                > >
                > >About my wing. Go to _www.max-mpg.com_ (http://www.max-mpg.com) and look
                > >for the explanation on how it works. It's pretty simple.
                > >
                > >Ernie Rogers
                > >
                > >In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:11:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                > >future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:
                > >
                > >Message: 3
                > >Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:51 am (PDT)
                > >From: "Lee Dekker" heprv@...
                > >Subject: Re: question about vehicular energy savings and momentary
                > >gravitatio
                > >
                > >
                > >A seat of the pants (bike seat that is) observation. Having two bicycles to
                > >choose from, one-fully suspended and another with no suspension, the
                > >difference becomes obvious.
                > >
                > >The suspended bike is fun and cushy. On a rough gravel road, it's
                > >delightful. But if you want to get there in a hurry, you'll grab the non-suspended
                > >bicycle every time.
                > >
                > >When muscle energy instead of fossil energy is being used, one does not miss
                > >the subtle differences between suspended and non-suspended vehicles.
                > >
                > >murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote: Something that has been on
                > >my mind for awhile:
                > >
                > >I wonder if calculations have been run to figure approximately what
                > >portion of a vehicle's trip energy expenditure goes toward horizontal
                > >ups and downs, and not toward getting the vehicle there? How much of
                > >that is translated (if any) into vertical travel, via shock
                > >mechanisms, aerodynamic steadying, or some other aspect of physics I
                > >am not getting?
                > >
                > >I have been thinking about this in a very abstract amateur-science
                > >sort of way, as I recently attended a lecture on gravity by a layman
                > >for laymen. It got me to thinking in part that as we take a car down
                > >the road, we are so heavily depending on gravity, in the way that we
                > >have designed our present vehicles, to keep the car steady on the
                > >ground, so that we get traction (with whatever we have decided is
                > >"acceptable" slippage). Yet, even if the overall trip is figured to
                > >be net-level sea-level measurement, from start to finish, (just to
                > >keep the equation relatively simple) as the vehicle goes through the
                > >trip it will experience ups and downs in the road, ups and downs in
                > >how air affects it, turns which will in part be translated into some
                > >vertical oscillation, etc.
                > >
                > >Even if some of what I am implying here is very minute (so that it
                > >goes out to many decimal places... as I say, this started out as an
                > >intellectual exercise for me, not an attempt to save the world's
                > >energy supply, so I am curious nonetheless.
                > >
                > >Now, we have participating here one of the world's top experts in
                > >mileage-improvements via experimental aerodynamics. Usually when I
                > >watch TV races, and they talk about the value of wings, they talk
                > >about how it improves traction, and this in turn allows them to apply
                > >greater power to the wheels.
                > >
                > >Yet, I'm not sure if this approach helps me understand things. Ernie's
                > >wing seems to be used not so much to win races as to improve mileage.
                > >Haven't some of us found this a little counter-intuititve? I know I
                > >have, at least at times. The reason is that you are putting into the
                > >wind yet another "thing" and so you would think this would increase,
                > >rather than decrease, resistance, no? Apparently, this is not exactly
                > >the case. What I wonder, in light of my gravity musings, is if the
                > >wing also helps "steady" the vehicle, and if "steadying" a vehicle has
                > >energy-saving ramifications that we have perhaps been underestimating,
                > >perhaps in ways I haven't thought about, or perhaps in ways bearing on
                > >any energy that might otherwise be wasted in oscillatory vertical
                > >motion.
                > >
                > >I have in the past spoke with one or two folks who were trying to work
                > >on regen shock absorbers, and I think this also would bear on the
                > >question of whether there is energy that is being wasted in vertical
                > >gravitational game-playing by a vehicle that could be translated into
                > >horizontal productive work-motion.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
                >
                >Thomas Jefferson
                > __________________________________________________
                >Do You Yahoo!?
                >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                >http://mail.yahoo.com
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • csceadraham
                ... message/7187 ... Take a car that is parked, pointing east, and drive off in that direction. As long as you are accelerating, Earth s day is getting
                Message 7 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/
                  message/7187
                  murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > It's an odd way for me to have put it, but I think if I'm
                  > going to try to explore the basic physics, then it's going
                  > to sound stupid regardless of how I put it.
                  >
                  > 1. I guess in the most basic sense, if we design a vehicle
                  > to be a rocket, then there is no need to maintain grip with
                  > a surface. We shoot mass backward, and we move forward, by
                  > physics laws (action and reaction).
                  >
                  > 2. If we are counting on grip then I think what we're doing
                  > is pushing "backward" on the ground we're standing on with
                  > our vehicle, and the vehicle moves forward. Continuation of
                  > this process in an efficient way requires that grip be
                  > maintained (hence the designed-in use of gravitation in this
                  > approach). It is perhaps a bit much for me to say
                  > "spinning" that ground of the earth backwards, but I guess
                  > it's a frame-of-reference effort on my part. Since the
                  > earth that is "pushed backwards" is offset, it is not quite
                  > the same as the rocketry example I gave. There are forces
                  > at work in more than one dimension holding the system
                  > together so that 'forward' motion can be achieved for the
                  > vehicle. I have put it badly, but am I guess just taking a
                  > moment to go over what I find to be fun physics musings.

                  Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                  and drive off in that direction. As long
                  as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter.
                  When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                  the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                  shortened. Then, when you slow down and stop,
                  it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                  began.

                  Coordinate your trip with someone as heavy as you,
                  in an identical car, going the other way,
                  and you can leave the planet's spin untouched
                  by accelerating exactly when he does, and stopping
                  exactly when he does.

                  Gravity isn't essential for this. You could
                  be two astronauts going from handhold to handhold
                  around a space station.


                  --- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                  B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                  http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                • murdoch
                  ... Isn t it though? How do you coordinate the accelerating and decelerating of one or two vehicles if their traction is inconsistent or non-existent? How do
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                    >and drive off in that direction. As long
                    >as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter.
                    >When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                    >the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                    >shortened. Then, when you slow down and stop,
                    >it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                    >began.
                    >
                    >Coordinate your trip with someone as heavy as you,
                    >in an identical car, going the other way,
                    >and you can leave the planet's spin untouched
                    >by accelerating exactly when he does, and stopping
                    >exactly when he does.
                    >
                    >Gravity isn't essential for this.

                    Isn't it though? How do you coordinate the accelerating and
                    decelerating of one or two vehicles if their traction is
                    inconsistent or non-existent? How do you arrange for
                    consistent and predictable traction without assumng that
                    gravity will work, and work in a predictable way?

                    Wouldn't inconsistent traction (or even floating away of
                    vehicles if gravity did not exist) amount to hand slippage
                    or worse, in the comparison of coordinating the handholds
                    and pushoffs of the astronauts?



                    >You could
                    >be two astronauts going from handhold to handhold
                    >around a space station.
                    >
                    >
                    >--- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                    >B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                    >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • beard6801@bellsouth.net
                    Damn...you guys made me remember some of my vector trig....I ll hate you for that later! And now the Doppler effect.... Einstein s theories..... Look out!
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Damn...you guys made me remember some of my vector trig....I'll hate you for that later!

                      And now the Doppler effect....

                      Einstein's theories.....


                      Look out! It's Carl Sagan from Cosmos!

                      Ok..so the earth is rotating and you are in a car accelrating in the same direction as the earths rotation, so you are accelerating at a given rate, but at a base speed of the earth's rotation plus the vehicle speed. Your buddy, is accelerating in the opposite direction so his speed is the rate of acceleration minus the rotational speed of the earth surface at the equator....which is just over 1000mph....

                      So you and your buddy will actually be traveling in the same direction while running away from each other, and will still pass each other headed in opposite directions........or collide.

                      But of course, since the rotation of the earth around it's axis is constant, the speed at the equator is going to be different than it is at the poles..........

                      I think I'll go lay in the road and ponder this some more.....my head hurts!
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: murdoch
                      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 7:47 PM
                      Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: gravity, etc.


                      >Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                      >and drive off in that direction. As long
                      >as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter.
                      >When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                      >the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                      >shortened. Then, when you slow down and stop,
                      >it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                      >began.
                      >
                      >Coordinate your trip with someone as heavy as you,
                      >in an identical car, going the other way,
                      >and you can leave the planet's spin untouched
                      >by accelerating exactly when he does, and stopping
                      >exactly when he does.
                      >
                      >Gravity isn't essential for this.

                      Isn't it though? How do you coordinate the accelerating and
                      decelerating of one or two vehicles if their traction is
                      inconsistent or non-existent? How do you arrange for
                      consistent and predictable traction without assumng that
                      gravity will work, and work in a predictable way?

                      Wouldn't inconsistent traction (or even floating away of
                      vehicles if gravity did not exist) amount to hand slippage
                      or worse, in the comparison of coordinating the handholds
                      and pushoffs of the astronauts?

                      >You could
                      >be two astronauts going from handhold to handhold
                      >around a space station.
                      >
                      >
                      >--- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                      >B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                      >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • csceadraham
                      ... message/7196 ... Vehicles might fail to accelerate due to failure of traction; astronauts might fail to accelerate if their hands slipped off the
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/
                        message/7196
                        murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > >Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                        > >and drive off in that direction. As long
                        > >as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter.
                        > >When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                        > >the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                        > >shortened. Then, when you slow down and stop,
                        > >it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                        > >began.
                        > >
                        > >Coordinate your trip with someone as heavy as you,
                        > >in an identical car, going the other way,
                        > >and you can leave the planet's spin untouched
                        > >by accelerating exactly when he does, and stopping
                        > >exactly when he does.
                        > >
                        > >Gravity isn't essential for this.
                        >
                        > Isn't it though? How do you coordinate the accelerating and
                        > decelerating of one or two vehicles if their traction is
                        > inconsistent or non-existent? How do you arrange for
                        > consistent and predictable traction without assumng that
                        > gravity will work, and work in a predictable way?
                        >
                        > Wouldn't inconsistent traction (or even floating away of
                        > vehicles if gravity did not exist) amount to hand slippage
                        > or worse, in the comparison of coordinating the handholds
                        > and pushoffs of the astronauts?
                        >
                        > >You could
                        > >be two astronauts going from handhold to handhold
                        > >around a space station.

                        Vehicles might fail to accelerate due to failure of traction;
                        astronauts might fail to accelerate if their hands slipped
                        off the handholds, or the handholds broke.
                        I don't see how conceivable experimental imperfections
                        change the essence.

                        On further thought, I realized that the parked car
                        pointed east is being carried in the direction
                        it is pointing by Earth's rotation. If it accelerates
                        forward, it must slow the earth's spin, making the day
                        longer, not shorter as I said.

                        If you want something like handholds, but for wheeled
                        vehicles, that would be a rail with wheels pressing
                        on both sides of it.


                        --- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                        B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                        http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                      • murdoch
                        ... The essence of your thought experiment shows that my spinning frame of reference suggestion had some basis. Your expriment did not show that my idea that
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >Vehicles might fail to accelerate due to failure of traction;
                          >astronauts might fail to accelerate if their hands slipped
                          >off the handholds, or the handholds broke.
                          >I don't see how conceivable experimental imperfections
                          >change the essence.

                          The essence of your thought experiment shows that my
                          "spinning" frame of reference suggestion had some basis.

                          Your expriment did not show that my idea that gravity is an
                          integral part of our present vehicle design is invalid.

                          In our present mainstream vehicle design, we assume that
                          gravity will be at work in several ways, most particularly
                          as the glue which holds the parts of the system together so
                          that traction (at fairly high and constant levels) and
                          forward motion may be achieved.

                          I think another obvious different system might be a train
                          that uses electro-magnetism to suspend the train from the
                          tracks (either by pushing upwards or pulling upwards) so not
                          all present systems depend on gravity to provide traction
                          and enable a process of energy expenditure in exchange for
                          acceleration, but cars basically do.

                          So, I am just trying to ensure that this aspect of my point
                          does not get lost in the shuffle of discussing some other
                          aspect of things.


                          >
                          >On further thought, I realized that the parked car
                          >pointed east is being carried in the direction
                          >it is pointing by Earth's rotation. If it accelerates
                          >forward, it must slow the earth's spin, making the day
                          >longer, not shorter as I said.
                          >
                          >If you want something like handholds, but for wheeled
                          >vehicles, that would be a rail with wheels pressing
                          >on both sides of it.
                          >
                          >
                          >--- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                          >B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                          >http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • beard6801@bellsouth.net
                          They are working on the aeroynamics thing.... http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0006/VA9901.html The Ferrari Enzo utilizes active aerodynamics as well...but
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jun 18, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            They are working on the aeroynamics thing....

                            http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/0006/VA9901.html

                            The Ferrari Enzo utilizes active aerodynamics as well...but with moveable panels...not actually distorting them.
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: murdoch
                            To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 8:42 AM
                            Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] gravity, etc.



                            I think there is more than one issue here, and that we will revisit some of
                            these questions periodically.

                            In addition to what has been laid out for us all to ponder, I want to go back to
                            some of my thought to lay it out in a different way: when we design vehicles to
                            be used here on the surface of the Planet Earth, we are designing them in a way
                            that uses gravity in the design. Gravity is assumed to be a force that helps
                            keep the vehicle positioned such that it can gain efficient and consistent
                            traction. This is in part or in whole because we do not design jet or rocket
                            cars, that would make use of action-reaction simply to push air backwards and
                            move forwards, but rather they push the Earth backwards (spin it) and thus move
                            forward.

                            If we contrast this to, say, a maglev vehicle or some such, we can start to see
                            that some vehicle designs (no matter how much we may have strayed from basic car
                            design.. let's set that aside for the moment) do not treat gravity in the same
                            way. The magnetic rail vehicles either seem to push or pull upward against
                            gravity, and then seem to pull using electro magnetic forces. Thus, instead of
                            using friction for traction, they seem to eschew friction, and also would seem
                            to eschew the minute "bounciness" that goes with relying on gravity to be
                            designed in to attain friction-for-traction?

                            As long as I am getting way out there into theorization-land, I will close by
                            saying, on an entirely different topic, particularly as you are a reigning de
                            facto expert in aero considerations, that I have always thought active aero
                            would be tried someday, not only in the big way of rocket or jet type
                            propulsion, but in much more minute ways, such as pushing along surface air,
                            helping the vehicle swim a bit.

                            My thinking on surface aero considerations was affected years ago by seeing some
                            show as to how the skin of sharks is sort of non-smooth and how
                            counter-intuitively this seems to help their efficiency in getting thruogh
                            liquids. So, we do see all manner of concern, rightly, with the passive surface
                            design in experimental vehicles (such as making sure the surface of an Indy Car
                            is optimized) but I think that someday this will not be enough and designers may
                            try some more active elements at the smaller levels, to see if they can get a
                            good return on Energy.

                            On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 00:49:18 EDT, you wrote:

                            >
                            >Great answer, Lee
                            >
                            >I have thought about Murdoch's question too. The calculation of energy loss
                            >into shocks is a complicated one. I am sure somebody has published research
                            >on it, and I think the idea of regen shocks is a fine idea. A tough part of
                            >the problem is to know what is a typical rough road, if there is a typical
                            >one. One of the truck manufacturers has published a handbook on vehicle
                            >efficiency, available on line, sorry I don't remember now which one-- an excellent
                            >book. They cite an energy loss from rough roads of about 10%. I think this
                            >is based on government-sponsored testing done a few years ago. That is also
                            >available on line.
                            >
                            >That's about all the help I can give on that.
                            >
                            >About my wing. Go to _www.max-mpg.com_ (http://www.max-mpg.com) and look
                            >for the explanation on how it works. It's pretty simple.
                            >
                            >Ernie Rogers
                            >
                            >In a message dated 6/2/2006 4:11:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
                            >future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com writes:
                            >
                            >Message: 3
                            >Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006 7:51 am (PDT)
                            >From: "Lee Dekker" heprv@...
                            >Subject: Re: question about vehicular energy savings and momentary
                            >gravitatio
                            >
                            >
                            >A seat of the pants (bike seat that is) observation. Having two bicycles to
                            >choose from, one-fully suspended and another with no suspension, the
                            >difference becomes obvious.
                            >
                            >The suspended bike is fun and cushy. On a rough gravel road, it's
                            >delightful. But if you want to get there in a hurry, you'll grab the non-suspended
                            >bicycle every time.
                            >
                            >When muscle energy instead of fossil energy is being used, one does not miss
                            >the subtle differences between suspended and non-suspended vehicles.
                            >
                            >murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote: Something that has been on
                            >my mind for awhile:
                            >
                            >I wonder if calculations have been run to figure approximately what
                            >portion of a vehicle's trip energy expenditure goes toward horizontal
                            >ups and downs, and not toward getting the vehicle there? How much of
                            >that is translated (if any) into vertical travel, via shock
                            >mechanisms, aerodynamic steadying, or some other aspect of physics I
                            >am not getting?
                            >
                            >I have been thinking about this in a very abstract amateur-science
                            >sort of way, as I recently attended a lecture on gravity by a layman
                            >for laymen. It got me to thinking in part that as we take a car down
                            >the road, we are so heavily depending on gravity, in the way that we
                            >have designed our present vehicles, to keep the car steady on the
                            >ground, so that we get traction (with whatever we have decided is
                            >"acceptable" slippage). Yet, even if the overall trip is figured to
                            >be net-level sea-level measurement, from start to finish, (just to
                            >keep the equation relatively simple) as the vehicle goes through the
                            >trip it will experience ups and downs in the road, ups and downs in
                            >how air affects it, turns which will in part be translated into some
                            >vertical oscillation, etc.
                            >
                            >Even if some of what I am implying here is very minute (so that it
                            >goes out to many decimal places... as I say, this started out as an
                            >intellectual exercise for me, not an attempt to save the world's
                            >energy supply, so I am curious nonetheless.
                            >
                            >Now, we have participating here one of the world's top experts in
                            >mileage-improvements via experimental aerodynamics. Usually when I
                            >watch TV races, and they talk about the value of wings, they talk
                            >about how it improves traction, and this in turn allows them to apply
                            >greater power to the wheels.
                            >
                            >Yet, I'm not sure if this approach helps me understand things. Ernie's
                            >wing seems to be used not so much to win races as to improve mileage.
                            >Haven't some of us found this a little counter-intuititve? I know I
                            >have, at least at times. The reason is that you are putting into the
                            >wind yet another "thing" and so you would think this would increase,
                            >rather than decrease, resistance, no? Apparently, this is not exactly
                            >the case. What I wonder, in light of my gravity musings, is if the
                            >wing also helps "steady" the vehicle, and if "steadying" a vehicle has
                            >energy-saving ramifications that we have perhaps been underestimating,
                            >perhaps in ways I haven't thought about, or perhaps in ways bearing on
                            >any energy that might otherwise be wasted in oscillatory vertical
                            >motion.
                            >
                            >I have in the past spoke with one or two folks who were trying to work
                            >on regen shock absorbers, and I think this also would bear on the
                            >question of whether there is energy that is being wasted in vertical
                            >gravitational game-playing by a vehicle that could be translated into
                            >horizontal productive work-motion.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Arcologic@aol.com
                            Comments in BLUE SORRY, NOT QUITE RIGHT-- G.R.L. Cowan said, Take a car that is parked, pointing east, and drive off in that direction. As long as you are
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Comments in BLUE

                              SORRY, NOT QUITE RIGHT--


                              G.R.L. Cowan said,


                              Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                              and drive off in that direction. As long
                              as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter. LONGER
                              When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                              the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                              shortened.
                              NO, GETS LONGER WITH TIME. EARTH ROTATION IS CONSTANT, SLOWER.

                              Then, when you slow down and stop,
                              it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                              began.



                              NO, STAYS LONGER, LENGTH STOPS CHANGING. THE NEXT DAY WILL BE NORMAL LENGTH
                              BUT SHIFTED IN TIME. IF THE CAR RETURNS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, THINGS
                              WILL BE AS BEFORE.

                              Ernie Rogers


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • csceadraham
                              ... message/7205 ... Longer is correct. ... B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet: http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/
                                message/7205
                                Arcologic@... included:
                                >
                                > Comments in BLUE
                                >
                                > SORRY, NOT QUITE RIGHT--
                                >
                                >
                                > G.R.L. Cowan said,
                                >
                                >
                                > Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                                > and drive off in that direction. As long
                                > as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter. LONGER

                                Longer is correct.


                                --- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                                B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                                http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                              • csceadraham
                                ... message/7200 ... It s true: car designers rely on gravity. ... B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet: http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/
                                  message/7200
                                  murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > >Vehicles might fail to accelerate due to failure of traction;
                                  > >astronauts might fail to accelerate if their hands slipped
                                  > >off the handholds, or the handholds broke.
                                  > >I don't see how conceivable experimental imperfections
                                  > >change the essence.
                                  >
                                  > The essence of your thought experiment shows that my
                                  > "spinning" frame of reference suggestion had some basis.
                                  >
                                  > Your expriment did not show that my idea that gravity is an
                                  > integral part of our present vehicle design is invalid.
                                  >
                                  > In our present mainstream vehicle design, we assume that
                                  > gravity will be at work in several ways, most particularly
                                  > as the glue which holds the parts of the system together so
                                  > that traction (at fairly high and constant levels) and
                                  > forward motion may be achieved.
                                  >
                                  > I think another obvious different system might be a train
                                  > that uses electro-magnetism to suspend the train from the
                                  > tracks (either by pushing upwards or pulling upwards) so not
                                  > all present systems depend on gravity to provide traction
                                  > and enable a process of energy expenditure in exchange for
                                  > acceleration, but cars basically do.
                                  >
                                  > So, I am just trying to ensure that this aspect of my point
                                  > does not get lost in the shuffle of discussing some other
                                  > aspect of things.

                                  It's true: car designers rely on gravity.


                                  --- G. R. L. Cowan (former hydrogen fan)
                                  B: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
                                  http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
                                • Forbes Bagatelle-Black
                                  ... NORMAL LENGTH ... THINGS ... Actually, it will get longer and longer as you accelerate up to the speed of the earth s surface due to the earth s rotation,
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, Arcologic@... wrote:

                                    > Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                                    > and drive off in that direction. As long
                                    > as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter. LONGER
                                    > When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                                    > the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                                    > shortened.
                                    > NO, GETS LONGER WITH TIME. EARTH ROTATION IS CONSTANT, SLOWER.
                                    >
                                    > Then, when you slow down and stop,
                                    > it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                                    > began.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > NO, STAYS LONGER, LENGTH STOPS CHANGING. THE NEXT DAY WILL BE
                                    NORMAL LENGTH
                                    > BUT SHIFTED IN TIME. IF THE CAR RETURNS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
                                    THINGS
                                    > WILL BE AS BEFORE.
                                    >
                                    Actually, it will get longer and longer as you accelerate up to the
                                    speed of the earth's surface due to the earth's rotation, assuming
                                    your velocity vector is exactly opposite to the velocity vector of the
                                    earth's surface. At that point, the status of daylight/darkness will
                                    not change because you will stay at the same point on the earth
                                    relative to the sun's rays - if it is daylight, it will stay daylight
                                    as long as you maintain that velocity.

                                    Now, if you continue to accelerate past that velocity, the day will
                                    start to shorten again as your velocity relative to the the velocity
                                    of the earth's surface once again brings you out-of-sync with the
                                    sun's appearance and disappearance on the two horizons. If you keep
                                    accelerating, days will get shorter and shorter. Once you get to a
                                    very high velocity, days and nights will whip by so fast, it will all
                                    be a blur.

                                    Of course, as Superman showed us way back in the 70s, if you keep
                                    accelerating past the speed of light, you will start going back in
                                    time, so the day/night cycle will get all kinda' messed up. But at
                                    least you will be able to fish Lois Lane out of that nasty fissure
                                    full of molten magna and foil Lex Luther's fiendish plot.

                                    I hope this clears everything up.

                                    Snuggles,

                                    Forbes
                                  • Forbes Bagatelle-Black
                                    ... Oops! I forgot to take seasonal changes in day length into account. Quick! Someone do the math... Yours, Forbes How Many Angels Can Dance...? B-Black
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "Forbes
                                      Bagatelle-Black" <diarmaede@...> wrote:

                                      > Actually, it will get longer and longer as you accelerate up to the
                                      > speed of the earth's surface due to the earth's rotation, assuming
                                      > your velocity vector is exactly opposite to the velocity vector of the
                                      > earth's surface. At that point, the status of daylight/darkness will
                                      > not change because you will stay at the same point on the earth
                                      > relative to the sun's rays - if it is daylight, it will stay daylight
                                      > as long as you maintain that velocity.
                                      >

                                      Oops! I forgot to take seasonal changes in day length into account.
                                      Quick! Someone do the math...

                                      Yours,

                                      Forbes "How Many Angels Can Dance...?" B-Black
                                    • Dave Cline
                                      You know, I d really like a few more hours in the day - so if we could all get in our cars and drive, hmm, let s see, East really fast and then use your
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        You know, I'd really like a few more hours in the day - so if we could all
                                        get in our cars and drive, hmm, let's see, East really fast and then use
                                        your ChittyChittyBangBang wings to lift off so that your subsequent braking
                                        doesn't just slow the earth down again. I figure that if we could get the
                                        Chinese to do this - we could easily add at least an hour a month. What say?
                                        Ready, Set, Slow.

                                        dc

                                        On 6/19/06, Forbes Bagatelle-Black <diarmaede@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com<future-fuels-and-vehicles%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                        > "Forbes
                                        >
                                        > Bagatelle-Black" <diarmaede@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Actually, it will get longer and longer as you accelerate up to the
                                        > > speed of the earth's surface due to the earth's rotation, assuming
                                        > > your velocity vector is exactly opposite to the velocity vector of the
                                        > > earth's surface. At that point, the status of daylight/darkness will
                                        > > not change because you will stay at the same point on the earth
                                        > > relative to the sun's rays - if it is daylight, it will stay daylight
                                        > > as long as you maintain that velocity.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Oops! I forgot to take seasonal changes in day length into account.
                                        > Quick! Someone do the math...
                                        >
                                        > Yours,
                                        >
                                        > Forbes "How Many Angels Can Dance...?" B-Black
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >



                                        --
                                        Dave Cline
                                        www.davecline.com/
                                        davecline@...


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Forbes Bagatelle-Black
                                        ... Get the Chinese involved, eh? Brilliant! And we can use them to our advantage so s we don t have to install the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Wings. Here s
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Cline"
                                          <davecline@...> wrote:
                                          > I figure that if we could get the
                                          > Chinese to do this - we could easily add at least an hour a month.

                                          Get the Chinese involved, eh? Brilliant! And we can use them to our
                                          advantage so's we don't have to install the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
                                          Wings. Here's how.

                                          1. Give all one billion Chinese people powerful magnets.
                                          2. Get in our cars and accelerate really fast such that we cause the
                                          days to lengthen by changing the rotational velocity of the earth.
                                          3. Now, when it come time to stop our cars, have all the Chinese
                                          people get close to really large pieces of iron.
                                          4. As we applied our brakes, have all the Chinese people point their
                                          magnets at the large pieces of iron and jump in the air. We will have
                                          to line them up such that the force of their magnets pulling at the
                                          iron is opposite to the force of our braking.
                                          4.5 As soon as their feet leave the ground, the "steady-state"
                                          equilibrium of the magnets versus the iron will be broken. The force
                                          of the magnets on the pieces of iron will counter the force of our
                                          automobile brakes, thus negating the effect of our braking. The earth
                                          will continue to rotate at the new velocity, giving us longer days.

                                          IT'S SO SIMPLE!!!

                                          - Forbes B-Black
                                        • Lee Dekker
                                          It really is brilliant. Child s play in fact. Anyone who can come up with ideas like this should be eligible for release into the general population very soon.
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            It really is brilliant. Child's play in fact. Anyone who can come up with ideas like this should be eligible for release into the general population very soon.

                                            Forbes Bagatelle-Black <diarmaede@...> wrote: --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Cline"
                                            <davecline@...> wrote:
                                            > I figure that if we could get the
                                            > Chinese to do this - we could easily add at least an hour a month.

                                            Get the Chinese involved, eh? Brilliant! And we can use them to our
                                            advantage so's we don't have to install the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
                                            Wings. Here's how.

                                            1. Give all one billion Chinese people powerful magnets.
                                            2. Get in our cars and accelerate really fast such that we cause the
                                            days to lengthen by changing the rotational velocity of the earth.
                                            3. Now, when it come time to stop our cars, have all the Chinese
                                            people get close to really large pieces of iron.
                                            4. As we applied our brakes, have all the Chinese people point their
                                            magnets at the large pieces of iron and jump in the air. We will have
                                            to line them up such that the force of their magnets pulling at the
                                            iron is opposite to the force of our braking.
                                            4.5 As soon as their feet leave the ground, the "steady-state"
                                            equilibrium of the magnets versus the iron will be broken. The force
                                            of the magnets on the pieces of iron will counter the force of our
                                            automobile brakes, thus negating the effect of our braking. The earth
                                            will continue to rotate at the new velocity, giving us longer days.

                                            IT'S SO SIMPLE!!!

                                            - Forbes B-Black






                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • murdoch
                                            ... I think they made a partial verification of this critical issue in one of the Star Trek films. If you accelerate and reach an orbital velocity level of the
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Jun 19, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:05:31 -0000, you wrote:

                                              >--- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, Arcologic@... wrote:
                                              >
                                              >> Take a car that is parked, pointing east,
                                              >> and drive off in that direction. As long
                                              >> as you are accelerating, Earth's day is getting shorter. LONGER
                                              >> When you reach a fast enough speed and keep it constant,
                                              >> the Earth's day length stops changing, stays somewhat
                                              >> shortened.
                                              >> NO, GETS LONGER WITH TIME. EARTH ROTATION IS CONSTANT, SLOWER.
                                              >>
                                              >> Then, when you slow down and stop,
                                              >> it lengthens again, to exactly what it was before you
                                              >> began.
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              >> NO, STAYS LONGER, LENGTH STOPS CHANGING. THE NEXT DAY WILL BE
                                              >NORMAL LENGTH
                                              >> BUT SHIFTED IN TIME. IF THE CAR RETURNS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
                                              >THINGS
                                              >> WILL BE AS BEFORE.
                                              >>
                                              >Actually, it will get longer and longer as you accelerate up to the
                                              >speed of the earth's surface due to the earth's rotation, assuming
                                              >your velocity vector is exactly opposite to the velocity vector of the
                                              >earth's surface. At that point, the status of daylight/darkness will
                                              >not change because you will stay at the same point on the earth
                                              >relative to the sun's rays - if it is daylight, it will stay daylight
                                              >as long as you maintain that velocity.
                                              >
                                              >Now, if you continue to accelerate past that velocity, the day will
                                              >start to shorten again as your velocity relative to the the velocity
                                              >of the earth's surface once again brings you out-of-sync with the
                                              >sun's appearance and disappearance on the two horizons. If you keep
                                              >accelerating, days will get shorter and shorter. Once you get to a
                                              >very high velocity, days and nights will whip by so fast, it will all
                                              >be a blur.
                                              >
                                              >Of course, as Superman showed us way back in the 70s, if you keep
                                              >accelerating past the speed of light, you will start going back in
                                              >time, so the day/night cycle will get all kinda' messed up. But at
                                              >least you will be able to fish Lois Lane out of that nasty fissure
                                              >full of molten magna and foil Lex Luther's fiendish plot.

                                              I think they made a partial verification of this critical
                                              issue in one of the Star Trek films.

                                              If you accelerate and reach an orbital velocity level of the
                                              sort you indicate, I'm not sure at what point you would
                                              have difficulty staying close to the Earth's surface. At
                                              some point I think you might "overcome gravity whether you
                                              like it not" and just fly off.

                                              >I hope this clears everything up.

                                              Oh, absolutely.

                                              >
                                              >Snuggles,
                                              >
                                              >Forbes
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                            • Arcologic@aol.com
                                              Hey, G.R.L, I was wrong too. I thought about it afterwards-- Whether the day gets shorter or longer depends on the frame of reference. It gets shorter for
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Jun 20, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hey, G.R.L,

                                                I was wrong too. I thought about it afterwards--

                                                Whether the day gets shorter or longer depends on the frame of reference.
                                                It gets shorter for the person in the car.

                                                Ernie Rogers


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.