>> ^jqpublick:

I think it's more likely that this system extends the drive time of whatever battery cells he has installed in the thing. It's not that he's getting free energy, it's just that at 40 the system is going fast enough that even though there's a net loss, the additional energy stored in the batteries gives a longer running time. I think that's just about all that there is here.
>> ^rkone:
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Agreed. I'd downvote the video if I could. People, if you're in doubt, think of it this way - if the fan could generate more power than the loss of pushing it, then you could just keep adding more fans until it becomes a perpetual motion machine..



Problem, nothing happens at 40 miles an hour in physics for a decrease wind resistance and drag. If anything, the faster you go, the more of a problem wind becomes. There is no possible way that this is extending his drive time. This is exactly equal to holding your hand out the window. If you could turn that blockage into electricity, it will always be less energy than the amount of momentum it sapped via drag. Or else ALL CARS WOULD ALREADY DO THIS! The reason you don't is because it doesn't work.

A simple instance where something like this IS used is the emergency ram air turbine for jumbo jets. When there is a complete loss of power, a ram air turbine drops down to generate emergency power for the hydraulic systems. This increases drag, but it is so small that it isn't a problem. But it is also why air planes don't have windmills on them, anything you use to block the wind is slowing you down more than any recoverable amount of energy via electric conservation of kinetic energy. This is physics 101, entropy, it's a bitch!

Now, if he compressed the incoming air, added a combustion chamber with kerosene or gasoline, then he would have himself a turbine engine for his car, but now, he just has a lesson in why physics is hard.

>> ^CaptainPlanet:

i want to be the kids
>> ^kulpims:
Ryan Air plane ticket SLO-UK-SLO = 60 €
getting rid off alien_concept's family = 300 €
going down on her while hubby and the kids spend my hard earned drug money down at ASDA's toy department = priceless



Really, this is sounding like a plan!

i want to be the kids
>> ^kulpims:

Ryan Air plane ticket SLO-UK-SLO = 60 €
getting rid off alien_concept's family = 300 €
going down on her while hubby and the kids spend my hard earned drug money down at ASDA's toy department = priceless

Ryan Air plane ticket SLO-UK-SLO = 60 €
getting rid off alien_concept's family = 300 €
going down on her while hubby and the kids spend my hard earned drug money down at ASDA's toy department = priceless

That....is......awesome!!!!

This is the culmination of ever air based animi, action air plane game ever! With the large, draconian mothership surrounded by smaller attack ships ready to destroy mankind!

>> ^joedirt:
LOL.. Here we have the example of someone pulling statistics out of their ass. Per mile and per hour a plane is safer... but also the same person says planes are three / ten / or order of magnitude more dangerous (as in deadly?).
Trust me, getting in a car is a lot more dangerous.

Um, no, I'll trust the correct statistics that I just quoted above.

Fatal may be a different matter, as most car crashes are not fatal, while most plane crashes are. (of course leaving out blood clots from flying)

From 1997 Newsweek, cars have .94 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, while trains have .04 deaths and planes and buses each came out the same with .01 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.


As I already said, I don't accept risk per mile as a valid statistic, unless you want to admit to me that walking is extremely dangerous and being an astronaut is very safe. No! These modes of transport are for inherently different spatial scales, and the fact that my plane is covering a lot of distance doesn't make me feel safe about it.

Even if you play some number games with hours spent on the road or in the air.. Planes are most dangerous take off or landing. So to compare to hours instead of miles, just rough ballpark assume a car averages 30 mph and planes average 300mph. Factor of 10 maybe. So deaths goes to cars. I would also say injuries go to car travel as well as financial risk.

I don't need your rough ballpark numbers, I already quoted the correct numbers. The AVERAGE car is 4 times more likely to be in a fatal accident, per hour, compared to the average commercial airliner. But I'm not average. 69% of road fatalities relate to drinking and speeding. I do neither. A huge amount of road fatalities are from rural, non-highway roads which I never travel on. I wear my seatbelt.

Here, maybe this will convince you:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OyuGJJ6rKQ0C&pg=PA362&lpg=PA362&dq=taxi+fatalities+per+mile&source=bl&ots=zqhhjfksFG&sig=U1LhoIUSpsUrji7RA25kyBaYjVA&
hl=en&ei=-DZfStbgFo7cNvOKgMAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6

To summarize, if you don't look at averages but take the demographics of people who actually fly, say a safe 40 year old, they are more likely to die on a 600 mile plane trip than if they had driven the same distance.

So yes, for very long flights the plane still comes out ahead. There are plenty of other situations where the car comes out ahead. And if you put a professional driver in the car, as in a bus (not like they're even that well trained) they'll beat the plane by any metric.

And you seem to THINK you have more control because of how you drive, but you don't.

Numerous experts on defensive driving would disagree with you. So would I. So would the analysis that I just quoted saying that the average, somewhat safe driver beats airplanes for trips of 600 miles.

>> ^rychan:
You're three times more likely to die on that plane trip than you are on your average car trip.

[for safe drivers] a plane trip is ten times as dangerous.

per mile, a commercial airliner is safer

Per hour, the average commercial airliner is four times as safe as the average car

The fact that it would be even more dangerous to spend two full days driving the distance [compared to flying]

They're stepping into a situation an order of magnitude more dangerous than when they step into their average car trip


LOL.. Here we have the example of someone pulling statistics out of their ass. Per mile and per hour a plane is safer... but also the same person says planes are three / ten / or order of magnitude more dangerous (as in deadly?).

Trust me, getting in a car is a lot more dangerous. Fatal may be a different matter, as most car crashes are not fatal, while most plane crashes are. (of course leaving out blood clots from flying)

From 1997 Newsweek, cars have .94 deaths per 100 million miles traveled, while trains have .04 deaths and planes and buses each came out the same with .01 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.

Even if you play some number games with hours spent on the road or in the air.. Planes are most dangerous take off or landing. So to compare to hours instead of miles, just rough ballpark assume a car averages 30 mph and planes average 300mph. Factor of 10 maybe. So deaths goes to cars. I would also say injuries go to car travel as well as financial risk.

And you seem to THINK you have more control because of how you drive, but you don't.