3 ms·
The more important point is conservation of energy. Since the ground is moving backwards faster than the air, you can generate more thrust against the air for t
by ummonk 5y ago
The more important point is conservation of energy. Since the ground is moving backwards faster than the air, you can generate more thrust against the air for the same amount of power than the amount of backwards force exerted by the ground on your wheels (since power = force * velocity). For the same reason, if traveling upwind rather than downwind, you’d need it to use the opposite mode of operation - have a turbine driving the wheels rather than wheels driving a propeller.
Conservation of momentum is pretty irrelevant, since you have a giant immovable sink/source of momentum known as the Earth to push against
- strainer 5y agoI like your point about moving upwind, but think it rather relies on conservation of momentum as that insists the wheels must result in thrust in the opposite direction to the props thrust in order to change the momentum of the earth as much as the momentum of the atmosphere is changed. They must each be reduced, in order to transduce energy. If you have stored energy you can propel mass from rest, but forces can only be applied equal and opposite. It is extremely enigmatic and curious that the engine can work to synergistically blow air into the atmosphere in one direction and resist the inertia of the earth in the other direction with the same force, without expending any energy reserves in the engine. Ive not seen a model or comment or article which fully illuminates the situation, although it is well demonstrated. Perhaps there is not language or a familiar concept which yet suffices. A sane and experienced physicist lost 10k bet on its plausibility.