Intake Valve and Feliks' ideas

[Feliks]

And how would you have to increase the power five times ... :tsk

https://www.new4stroke.com/piec3.jpg

this processor may initially take the form of an ordinary stick, which will turn the direction of the wing...

Andrew

Now you've got 80% overlap and your rear wings have stalled.

Well, if you use a few simple sticks instead of a head, everything will be fine ..



Andrew

[PhillipM]

Okay, but your wings fell over around that pivot at the bottom and now they're on the floor. Now you've got linkages in a parrelogram to hold them straight, linkages to change the AoA, pivots everywhere, shedloads of friction and your efficiency is so low you may as well have fitted a wind turbine like usual.

[Feliks]

Okay, but your wings fell over around that pivot at the bottom and now they're on the floor. Now you've got linkages in a parrelogram to hold them straight, linkages to change the AoA, pivots everywhere, shedloads of friction and your efficiency is so low you may as well have fitted a wind turbine like usual.

No, it's just your concrete head, it doesn't admit a new thought .. First, there is no friction what you are thinking about. Secondly, the lower wings are where they were, always, Thirdly, this childish windmill is much less sparse than my vehicle (with the same contour) fourth, the speed of the propeller's end is a lot of windmill, even after Mach 1 it comes up and kills the birds, So the aerodynamic resistances cannot be efficient at these speeds. Fifth, it is not subject to the idiotic law of Betz, which I refuted a few posts earlier, because this "physicist" Betz, in order to get any bills, introduced a new unit of mass - mass per second. Sixth, the change in the direction of the wing, it is enough that at the end of the movement it rests its front against a permanent obstacle that will prevent it from going any further, and thus it will reverse its direction as a result of further movement.
I think my air hammer crushes this concrete a bit ...
Well, how pleasant a trip can be, how the friction you think about really does not occur


Andrew

[PhillipM]

First, there is no friction what you are thinking about.

Andrew

Ah, magic, of course.

How about you actually build one of your contraptions one day and save these silly statements?

[Feliks]

First, there is no friction what you are thinking about.

Andrew

Ah, magic, of course.

How about you actually build one of your contraptions one day and save these silly statements?

Well, it just started with building such a device, which even exceeded the limits of my imagination as its constructor. And I had no choice but to believe that it is wonderful .. So I am not surprised, some people have doubts sometimes. because even I was surprised .. But it is still to be shown .. only by a strange coincidence, nobody wants to watch .. and about this magic, you probably thought about this kind of sawn timber, which is here and it causes a lot of losses. But the worst thing is if you do not distinguish between magic and reality ...
Will you vote for me ? https://contest.techbriefs.com/2021/ent ... oke-engine



Andrew

[Feliks]

Ah, magic, of course.

I have a misty ball staring at it and I already know what is magic and what is reality ..


Andrew

[PhillipM]

Yes, that's still just a theoretical model, where's the actual, physical model?

Because you benchmark it against a normal rotating turbine and you're going to find out how much of that 'no friction' happens in reality

[Feliks]

Yes, that's still just a theoretical model, where's the actual, physical model?

Einstein also had no physical model, only a theoretical one ..
Andrew

[PhillipM]

Yeah but he didn't wave his hands over all his models and go "No friction, because...magic!"

And his theoretical models contained proofs or ways to prove them. Which is the scientific definition of a theory

[Rodak]

Felliks, your 'linkages' seem a bit ..... confused. How is the wind motion transmitted to the crank system? And maybe you should reverse the gears on your drive system. And how are the wings kept at their AoA? And how are they reversed at the end of their cycle? No friction here for sure.......

[Just_a_fan]

No, it's just your concrete head, it doesn't admit a new thought .. First, there is no friction what you are thinking about.

I'd say that if you've figured out a way to avoid friction, that should be the thing you should concentrate on selling, not flappy wings.

Do your wings/blades suffer from drag or have you solved that problem too?

[Feliks]

Yeah but he didn't wave his hands over all his models and go "No friction, because...magic!"

How do you know? But while teaching physics at Winterthur High School in 1901, he taught with the physics law of the time that a machine heavier than air could not fly. If he had taught otherwise, he would have been fired and would have nothing to live on. Lord Kelvin likewise claimed, and many "physicists" at that time .. Both had eyes, but somehow did not notice that the bird, which is heavier than air, still flies. They surely thought it was "Divine matter and magic ,that flies" ... And it's not supposed to be magic ... but Science that you supposedly believe in.
You are trying to say that I do not recognize friction, not understanding that this device produces a minimum amount of it compared to the classic connecting rod background, because the piston does not rub against the cylinder, which friction has a significant effect on efficiency .. But with the help of magic, I did not distinguish however, these two disputes from each other. But this is how someone grew up on magic and cannot criticize others

Andrew

[PhillipM]

You have shedloads more friction than anything rotating, because almost every joint you have is in boundary layer, slow, reciprociating movement. But if if you ever actually built things instead of arguing with 10,000 people pointing out just how many flaws almost every one of your designs has had over the years, you'd find it out very quickly.

That's why we do experimental comparisons, for proof.

You see the difference between you and the figures from 150 years ago, was new technology came along and opened up the possibility of much greater power, etc. In your case, there's nothing new, you're just slapping basic parts together with linkages that are well known, well proven, well researched and are nothing nobody hasn't looked at already for the last millennia.
There's a reason we settled on wind mills and not wind seesaws.

Build your seesaw. Physically build it. And build a normal turbine at the side of it, with the same quality of bearings, and frontal area. And test it.
Because I'm 100% certain by the time all the friction in your transmission and AoA changing linkages has been accounted for, and the blockage caused by your multi-foil setup aerodynamically, you're going to see just how inefficient it is very, very quickly.

[Feliks]

You have shedloads more friction than anything rotating, because almost every joint you have is in boundary layer, slow, reciprociating movement. But if if you ever actually built things instead of arguing with 10,000 people pointing out just how many flaws almost every one of your designs has had over the years, you'd find it out very quickly.

That's why we do experimental comparisons, for proof.

You see the difference between you and the figures from 150 years ago, was new technology came along and opened up the possibility of much greater power, etc. In your case, there's nothing new, you're just slapping basic parts together with linkages that are well known, well proven, well researched and are nothing nobody hasn't looked at already for the last millennia.
There's a reason we settled on wind mills and not wind seesaws.

Build your seesaw. Physically build it. And build a normal turbine at the side of it, with the same quality of bearings, and frontal area. And test it.
Because I'm 100% certain by the time all the friction in your transmission and AoA changing linkages has been accounted for, and the blockage caused by your multi-foil setup aerodynamically, you're going to see just how inefficient it is very, very quickly.

it's just not true what you write .. Each gyroscope has several joints like this, and it works great .. but I see that you also have no eyes and the video I published did not make any impression on you and followed the path of the truth

you remember :

Andrew

[nzjrs]

This thread has really blown off course.

Or maybe it's gone off the rails.

Certainly there are a few screws loose.