Guys i'm going to quote myself because you appear to have overlooked this.

>> ^dannym3141:
Also, i'll explain how this works:
The prop on the back of the cart has a large flat surface area. The wind blows the cart up to the windspeed by blowing on this surface like a sail. The prop is shaped so that the wind would turn the prop in the other direction if it wasn't geared to the wheels.
So the cart is blown up to 10mph with the prop acting as a sail. Once it reaches this speed, the prop's shape and position is such that the prop now exerts a force in the opposite direction to motion.
Because of the 10mph wind, the cart experiences no air resistance and is only experiencing the resistance of the wheels on the ground (and some from the gears).
While this seems counter intuitive, as though it's perpetual motion, it isn't because the prop can only power the cart if the wind is creating the environment of decreased air resistance!


The TREADMILL scenario is EXACTLY THE SAME as the scenario in which a cart is travelling at in a 10mph wind for the purposes of this experiment. If you cannot understand how that is true then you might as well give up trying to understand this cart right now.

The treadmill does NOT simulate the cart getting up to 10mph because that is done by the wind and is pretty much a moot point. Many people can make a cart that travels at wind speed. That's not the challenge. They are in fact using a treadmill to negate any external factors and conduct the experiment in a controlled environment.

So we all accept that the cart can REACH wind speed (10mph in our example), and now the question is can the cart accelerate PAST wind speed?

Consider a cart travelling at 10mph in a NO WIND environment. What are the forces acting on the cart excluding internal forces?
- A force to maintain the cart's 10mph speed.
- Friction from the road acting on the wheels.
- Drag worth 10mph (Air resistance equal to 10mph headwind on a stationary cart)

Consider a cart travelling at 10mph in a 10mph TAILWIND. What are the forces acting on the cart excluding internal forces?
- A force to maintain the cart's speed of 10mph (in this case the wind)
- Friction from the road acting on the wheels.
- No drag (air resistance)

Now consider a stationary cart on a treadmill going at 10mph. What are the forces acting on the cart?
- A force to maintain the cart's position on the treadmill.
- Friction from the treadmill acting on the wheels.
- No drag (air resistance) - because it is a still environment, no wind.

If the cart moves forward along the treadmill, it is now accelerating past the simulated speed of the wind. The question now is "What are the forces acting on a cart accelerating in either situation if it does indeed accelerate?" Now it is time to reconsider the forces acting on a cart accelerating past wind speed.

Consider a cart in a 10mph wind travelling at 12mph. What are the forces acting on the cart excluding internal forces?
- A force to maintain the cart's speed of 12mph.
- Friction of the road acting upon the wheels.
- Drag (air resistance) of 2mph.

Consider a cart on a 10mph treadmill travelling forward at 2mph. What are the forces acting on the cart excluding internal forces?
- A force to maintain the cart's 2mph speed (note that the wheels are travelling at 12mph, but because the treadmill is going at -10mph, the cart only MOVES at 2mph)
- Friction of the treadmill on the wheels.
- Drag (air resistance) of 2mph.

This is very basic mechanics. I have laid it out and spelt it out for you to demonstrate that the cart on a treadmill running at 10mph is the exact same for the purposes of this experiment as a cart travelling 10mph in a 10mph tailwind.

If you can't understand this, then you have no right to argue whether or not this cart can or can't work. This is the undeniable scenario you have to work with. From these premises you base your argument regarding whether or not the cart does or does not travel faster than the wind.

You can argue whether or not my explanation is correct, or indeed whether the cart works (despite that it has been shown to work), but you cannot argue about the treadmill vs. wind simulation.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
The whole treadmill thing is a cheat because it's doing the opposite of what they're claiming is possible. It's using the "ground" of the treadmill to overcome the air/ground friction, not using wind to go faster than the wind. Their one actual wind test just shows that the wind will blow it (well duh!) not that it goes faster than the wind.
Essentially what I think they've done is create a propeller/linkage that has less friction than the car's air resistence, this allows the treadmill to power the propeller with enough force to let the car climb the hill slowly.
It's a total cheat, these guys are hacks. Not worth Mythbuster's valuable time.


Sorry, but that is utter bollocks.

Your mistake is that you haven't realised that they are simulating the cart at full speed. This example doesn't demonstrate the cart getting to wind speed, it simply demonstrates how the cart acts AT and then BEYOND windspeed.

The treadmill is exactly the same as a road with a 10mph wind as newton and einstein et al tells us. For the purposes of this experiment there is no difference between a stationary road with a 10mph wind and a treadmill travelling at 10mph.

Just think about it, if you've even half the scientific knowledge you seem to display you'll understand it if you think carefully enough:
- The treadmill simulates motion at 10mph. The air is stationary relative to the cart.
- The wind blows the cart to 10mph, the cart experiences no wind for or against due to travelling at the speed of the wind. Ergo the air is stationary relative to the cart.

In both of these frames of reference all you are seeing is the road (or treadmill) rotating the wheels to a speed of 10mph.

It's like debating whether the universe moves around outside the earth and the earth is stationary, or whether the eart moves around inside the universe and the universe is stationary. Which is real? It depends on your perspective.

The treadmill is a good tool. Sure, relative to the handles there's no wind, but relative to the tread, there is wind. Think of standing on a moving sidwalk. If the sidewalk moves fast enough, even inside a building you'd feel wind blowing against you.

Also, this device doesn't break any laws of physics - it's not a perpetual motion device because when you take away its power source (the wind), it will slow down and stop on its own.

This is just an ingenious method from extracting more power from the wind than you could by friction alone. The sailboat link from above is another good example of this, one can sail almost directly into the wind and even against the current and still move forward relative to the shore.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^Fusionaut:
lol, after watching aspartams video you can see that the wheels rotating on the treadmill make the propeller spin which causes vehicle to move forward. Where's the wind?

They explained that. The wind is moving forward relative to the surface it is riding on. When he places the vehicle on the treadmill it is going the same speed as the wind but manages to propel itself forward faster than the air around it. If this was not the case it would never move forward on the treadmill.


So since there is no wind and it is moving forward it is going faster than the wind that isn't there?

The only way this would be cool at all is if the vehicle is being powered by wind but is going faster than wind that is powering it which is IMPOSSIBLE!

This vehicle is sitting on a treadmill, which is turning the wheels, which is turning a shaft, which is attached to a propeller, which is blowing wind away from the vehicle, which makes it go forward, relative to the "air" around, VERY slowly.

It is not going faster than the wind because THERE IS NO WIND.

its hard to judge their speed because of the crappy ass lens used through the entire video, which also makes this less impressive because they probably arnt going all THAT fast. 20mph? tops at 25? Also the camer man gtes a big FU for buying such a stupid lens yet cheaping out on no wind filter.

Looks like a damn fine ride though, beautiful down hill stretch good for any kind of riding.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:
My big clue that this is fake is an audio cue, not video.
There is absolutely no 'wind rush' sound. Are you trying to tell me they have a $1,000+ Audio set-up on their video camera for a sub $100 plane? I don't think so.
Yes I know technically you could make your own wind sock but with the technology of the plane is it likely they know how?


Maybe you need better speakers? I can hear the wind pretty clearly on mine, particularly when he's banking.

My big clue that this is fake is an audio cue, not video.

There is absolutely no 'wind rush' sound. Are you trying to tell me they have a $1,000+ Audio set-up on their video camera for a sub $100 plane? I don't think so.

Yes I know technically you could make your own wind sock but with the technology of the plane is it likely they know how?

When there is no wind, you can just use the fan!

I don't like this one as much as the one on Break where there was no wind, just a streamline of snow.

Here is the NTSB synopsis of the accident:

NTSB Identification: NYC05LA085.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 15, 2005 in Atlantic City, NJ
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/30/2006
Aircraft: Cessna 525A, registration: OY-JET
Injuries: 1 Minor, 3 Uninjured.

The pilot performed "a low pass" over the runway, and then touched down approximately 1,000 feet beyond the approach end of the 2,948-foot long runway, with a tailwind of approximately 10 knots. After touchdown, the airplane continued off the end of the runway, and subsequently impacted water. According to the Cessna 525A Landing Distance Chart, an airplane with a landing weight of 11,400 pounds required 3,000 feet of landing distance, in a no wind situation. With a 10 knot tailwind, the airplane required 3,570 feet of landing distance. The published airport diagram for the airport, was observed attached to the pilot's control column after the accident. A notation, which read, "airport closed to jet aircraft" was observed on the diagram. Additionally, the same notation, "Arpt CLOSED to jet traffic," was observed in the FAA Airport/Facility Directory. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical deficiencies.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's improper decision to plan a flight to a runway of insufficient length, his improper in-flight decision to land on that inadequate runway with a tailwind, and his failure to obtain the proper touchdown point. A factor in the accident was the tailwind condition.

Full narrative available at http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20050526X00676&ntsbno=NYC05LA085&akey=1

I know he was hurt. I had a similar experience. Was going to put a long trail of gas up to my burn pile, but there was no wind and it was evaporating so rapidly (Duh! It's the vapor that burns) and all I used was about a cup or so for a pile half that size. Took the skin right off my legs even though I was 6 feet away. Gotta stop smokin' that stuff!