Greenbird article
21 June 2009
There's a great article about Greenbird and wind energy at:
http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Renewable_Energy/Record-breaking_wind-powered_car_gives_a_glimpse_of_the_future/21861/
While it's my understanding that most news and media articles are PR placements and this is probably no exception, it does provide us with a greater insight into Greenbird technically.
The first point about the land yacht that caught my attention is that it had a good front suspension system to soak up bumps. If you recall in an earlier post I had been suggesting suspension improvements to the iceboat when I read that the ice was too rough for high speed. I was sure that the land would be rougher than the ice so I guessed that the rubber tires had smoothed the bumps but this was not so, the suspension smoothed the bumps. So why does the iceboat not have a similar suspension?
I just checked Greenbird's website and it states that the tires did soak up the bumps but the rear crossbeam on the iceboat was designed to flex and minimize bumps. There's not enough data to tell exactly how they're set-up, but it is clear they need to improve (or provide) a good suspension for the iceboat.
I also seem to recall Richard saying something about active suspensions being disallowed but it seems to me that a normal spring/shock set-up is passive. There are a few bits and pieces here I can't account for yet. BTW the car that I designed and raced (mentioned in my post of 9 May 09 -- picture on my website) had no springs for the front suspension just air shocks; might be a good solution for the iceboat.
Greenbird's website and the above mentioned article also talk about wind powered cars. This is very misleading and I object. What they mean is they are developing electric powered cars (using a storage battery) and since they (Ecotricity) generate electricity from wind generators, they are advocating wind generated electricity to charge the batteries. This is fine, but let's say so up front. There is so much confusion being generated by misstatements, half truths, and down-right lies that most people (including a lot of technically trained) don't know what is going on.
The truth is most of the energy we are currently using on the planet is solar in origin. Most people think of solar energy as solar-electric or solar heating but it goes a lot farther than that. The winds are solar generated; hydroelectric is solar generated (water is transported upstream by evaporation/rain), even the tides which are primarily lunar powered are also partly solar powered. Plants use solar (photosynthesis) for their energy; they inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, so wood is carbon stored solar energy. Coal and oil are actually condensed solar energy (carbon that the plants stored long ago). Atomic and geothermal, of course, are not solar.
I have long been an advocate of "alternative" energy and I made a short film in 1980 called "No Gas? My Ass!" to show the possibilities. The real problem is that few people understand what is going on in the energy field and we often get the "Greenies" promoting the "Oilies" lies. Yes I've been watching this happen in some areas. If I were to invent a process to generate electricity directly from matter, providing unlimited power, everyone would be mad at me. I'd wipe out oil, coal, atomic, wind, solar, and every other form of generating power. There would be a huge social/economic upheaval, fortunes would be lost... you see the problem.
Bob