Slashdot Mirror


New Speed Record Set For Wind-Powered Vehicles

Hugh Pickens writes "Richard Jenkins reached 126.1mph in his Greenbird car on the dry plains of Ivanpah Lake in Nevada, setting a new world land speed record for a wind-powered vehicle. 'It's great; it's one of those things that you spend so long trying to do and when it actually happens, it's almost too easy,' says Jenkins. The Greenbird is a carbon fiber composite vehicle that uses wind (and nothing else) for power. The designers describe it as a 'very high performance sailboat,' but one that uses a solid wing, rather than a sail, to generate movement. Due to the shape of the craft, especially at such high speeds, the wings also provide lift; a useful trait for an aircraft, but very hazardous for a car. To compensate for this, the designers have added small wings to 'stick' the car to the ground, in the same way Formula 1 cars do. 'Greenbird weighs 600kg when it's standing still,' says Jenkins. 'But at speed, the effect of the wings make her weigh just over a ton.' Jenkins has also built a wind-powered craft that travels on ice, rather than land. 'Now that we've broken the record, I'm going back on to the ice craft. There's still some debate as to whether traveling on ice or land will be faster.'"

138 comments

  1. New speed record for wind-powered land vehicles? by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny

    Obviously, they've never seen Aunt Flo's old Desoto with the busted crankshaft flying down the street during hurricane season ...

  2. Can't wait for my own... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always thought that this sort of thing is pretty interesting. It would be nice to have a wind-powered car of my own!

    1. Re:Can't wait for my own... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And in Ontario, you'd be able to get your licence suspended for a week, and car impounded, all without burning a drop of gasoline.

      Yet, if you pay no attention, drift 10 feet out of your lane, roll your vehicle, and kill two people, you can legally drive away from the accident scene.

      Go figure......

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  3. Crap by conureman · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hate breaking out the calculator to compare 600kg to a ton. Relative increase, I guess.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:Crap by matt4077 · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 ton = 1000kg, welcome to the metric system.

    2. Re:Crap by conureman · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I really hate is when TFA is misquoted in the summary, now I see that Jenkins said "tonne" which IS metric. D-oh!

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    3. Re:Crap by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, so what's a megagram? Or is that 1024kg?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Crap by Ragzouken · · Score: 2, Informative

      A megagram is also 1000kg, of course.

    5. Re:Crap by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      I should have put a smiley :)

      But I do live in the US and so I really wonder why people use "ton" in supposedly metric-standardized countries? I mean, I know that 1000kg is sort-of close to the old 2000lbs, but it is really ambiguous and there is the perfectly good Mega. At the very least, it should be spelled "tonne", right?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Crap by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      Oh right. I've always wondered why we don't use Mega, too. I guess it's a relic of all the people who grew up using imperial measurements trying to connect the two. I was not aware that the different spellings of tonne had significance until now. Ton is already ambiguous (long/short) without metric tonnes though.

    7. Re:Crap by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, well I hate breaking out the calculator (or worse, actually reading TFA) to convert 126.1 mph to something non-archaic. (202.9 km/h)

      From wikipedia: "The name statute mile originates from a statute of the Parliament of England in 1592 during the reign of Elizabeth I. This defined the statute mile as 5,280 ft or 1,760 yards; or 63,360 inches. Both statute and international miles are divided into eight furlongs. In turn a furlong is ten chains; a chain is 22 yards and a yard is three feet, making up 5,280 ft."

      Seriously, WTF?

    8. Re:Crap by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's probably for dividing up plots and things. It's nice to be able to evenly divide things into other things. Without the "funny measurements" you end up with lots of fractions, which were much less easy to deal with in the days when a calculator was a person, and most normal people were lucky if they could read.

      Note also that an acre is 10 square chains, and 10 acres is a square furlong.

      What is a mile? It's a least-common-multiple(ish) of several smaller measurements which happens to be a convenient size for people traveling on foot. The km is also a convenient size for foot travel, but you can only divide it by 2s and 5s without resorting to fractions.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Crap by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 ton = 1000kg, welcome to the metric system.

      Not so fast. Do you mean a British ton, US ton, or metric ton(ne)? And, for more confusion, see that there is also a French ton.

      Okay. I should stop being facetious and get my 7 hours of sleep (relative to current Earth's rotation period - has to be said, because it is slowing down).

    10. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A ton (known as a "long ton" in the US) is 2240lb i.e. 1016kg.
      In Commonwealth countries, to make things easier to calculate, a ton is now generally taken as 1000kg.
      In America, to make things easier to calculate, a ton is now generally taken as 2000lb i.e. 907kg.

      The spelling is now largely irrelevant since nobody really remembers the old system that well. All official or scientific measurements are in kilograms anyway, ton and tonne are both just colloquial, it never needs to be precisely disambiguated in the contexts where it is used. For what it's worth, the metric approximation is far closer anyway.

    11. Re:Crap by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      s/ton/tonne/; # makes it right with the story.

      "Tonne" is, I believe, always metric: 1000 kg (aprox 2,200 lb, or 1.1 ton (or 1.0 long ton).

      This is almost the weight of half a cord of seasoned oak firewood, or half a cord of green fir. Which has only a chewbackan meaning in this context. But it does leaven the pedantry a bit.

      Need more coffee...

    12. Re:Crap by eltaco · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're thinking of the mebigram :-)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    13. Re:Crap by polar+red · · Score: 2, Informative

      it's the weight of 1 cubic metre of water.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    14. Re:Crap by T+Murphy · · Score: 3, Informative

      What is a mile?

      The word "mile" comes from mille, latin for thousand (just like the milli- prefix). A mile is 1000 paces of the Roman legions (a pace is 2 steps). At least that is the basis for the general distance- the exact amount depended on who decided to define what exactly it meant (such as the English defining it as the above post points out).

    15. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm,

      1km=1000m

      easy to divide by 2, 3, 4, 5 (and a bunch of larger numbers, but that's normal. Also, I know that 333*3 isn't 1000 but I doubt that people traveling by foot care that they're off by one per mille)

      Compared to that 8 furlongs can't be easily divided by 3 or 5 and 1760 yards or 5280ft are just a joke.

    16. Re:Crap by jo42 · · Score: 1

      How many stones is that?

    17. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably for dividing up plots and things. It's nice to be able to evenly divide things into other things. Without the "funny measurements" you end up with lots of fractions, which were much less easy to deal with in the days when a calculator was a person, and most normal people were lucky if they could read.

      So that's why it's still used in the US.

    18. Re:Crap by Fumus · · Score: 1

      That's why he said "non-archaic". Now we're past people unable to read, and dividing into fractions is more convenient than memorising ten different measurement units.

    19. Re:Crap by rschwa · · Score: 1

      Get over it.

    20. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1 ton = 1000kg, welcome to the metric system"

      actually 1 tonne = 1000kg
      1 short ton (American) = 907Kg
      1 long ton (Imperial) = 1016kg

    21. Re:Crap by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It's nice to be able to evenly divide things into other things.

      No! Everything must be multiples of ten!

      Long live METRIC TIME!

      "At the tone, the time will be 73 after 95... "
      "BEEP"

      Then, with time sorted out, we can start tackling the metric calendar... 10 months, with 100 days (10 weeks).

      Sure, you'll have fewer birthdays in your lifetime, but its well worth the benefits of a 1,000-days per year calendar.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    22. Re:Crap by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      But I do live in the US and so I really wonder why people use "ton" in supposedly metric-standardized countries? I mean, I know that 1000kg is sort-of close to the old 2000lbs, but it is really ambiguous and there is the perfectly good Mega.

      So what is the metric equivalent of a reggaeton?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    23. Re:Crap by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I thought it was your mom? zing!

    24. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, so now Americans only use inches, feet, yards and miles. Yards are a little redundant, and we could do away with them, only messing up our footrace lengths and (American) football games. But an object you can hold is usually measured in inches. Something about the size of a room is measured in feet. And overland distances are miles. Conversion between inches and feet is often necessary, but there really isn't much need to convert between feet and miles on a daily basis, so the fact that 5280 is a difficult number to work with isn't a big deal. When it is, you use calculators (or like the scientists, just switch to metric in those cases).

    25. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time is currently defined by the hyperfine transition frequency of cesium, and not by the Earth's rotational period.

    26. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the very least, it should be spelled "tonne", right?

      We use "ton" instead, without ambiguity, because none of us would ever use it to refer to the Imperial unit of measurement.

    27. Re:Crap by somersault · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that it's also a colloquialism for 100mph!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    28. Re:Crap by somersault · · Score: 1
      --
      which is totally what she said
    29. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's bullshit anyway. To get such a large increase in weight it has to go much faster according to relativity.

      What they probably where trying to say is that the downforce went from approximatly 5.8 MN (mega newton) to about 9.8 MN.

    30. Re:Crap by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Actually you are wrong, presuming you are British. The metric ton and the long ton are so close that you never had to transition. In the US we use the short ton, with exceptions like the Navy - I guess they are still hauling around wine? :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re:Crap by aqk · · Score: 0

      The spelling is now largely irrelevant since nobody really remembers the old system that well.

      Oh yeah? AMERICANS still do! Somebody has to keep the faith, baby, for the next 1000 years ('scuse- that should be 907 years)
      Or at least until the American rapture occurs, and everyone ( I.E. Americans) reverts back to real American measurements.

    32. Re:Crap by aqk · · Score: 0

      What's a "mph" ?
      And how fast - or heavy - is 126.1 of them? And how do they measure this so precisely, compared to the presumably rounded 600Kg?
      Ah, mysteries, mysteries!

    33. Re:Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British or US water?

    34. Re:Crap by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      Actually, 5280 feet is very easy to calculate with - it's evenly divisible by all sorts of things. 5280 = 2^5 x 3 x 5 x 11

      If only they'd picked 4,620 feet, we'd really be in the pink. 4620 = 2^2 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
  4. Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    Greenbird weighs 600kg when it's standing still,' says Jenkins. 'But at speed, the effect of the wings make her weigh just over a ton.'

    I doubt they're going fast enough for relativistic effects to increase their effective mass by 400 kg.

    1. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weight != mass

    2. Re:Near light speed? by Goaway · · Score: 2, Informative

      Weight and mass are different things. Their usage is correct.

    3. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Weight and mass are different things. Their usage is correct.

      Their usage is dead wrong. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass. The vehicle doesn't "weigh" more at speed - the effect of gravity on it hasn't changed. It just generates a down-force from the wing. To say that it weighs more is about as accurate as saying your weight changes as you jump up and down on a scale, or that an airplane weighs less than nothing when it's flying.

      Since energy can be converted to mass, they would have to be going at a large percentage of c to actually "weigh" more.

    4. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

      weight != mass

      Right - weight is the effect of gravity on an object of a specific mass. The effect of gravity doesn't suddenly change at speed. The vehicle dos NOT weigh more - gravity's effect on it is constant. What changes is the aerodynamic down-thrust. That doesn't change the vehicle's weight, just as an airplane doesn't suddenly weigh less than nothing when it takes off ... gravity still has the same effect on its mass.

    5. Re:Near light speed? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. The downward force when it is stationary is 600gN, the downward force when it is moving is 1000gN. The downward force due to gravity, also known as the weight, in both cases is 600gN. The mass in both cases is 600Kg. Neither the weight, not the mass, change. The mass could only change as a result of things being added to or removed from the vehicle, or as the result of relativistic effects (which are present at the recorded speed, but not significant enough to be measured). The weight could change if the mass changed, or if the vehicle climbed far enough from the centre of the Earth for the inverse-square attraction to be reduced (again, this is unlikely to happen unless it raced up a steep mountain; g varies a bit, but not enough to be worth bothering about, over the surface of the Earth). The downward force can change for a wide variety of reasons, but in this case due to a pressure differential caused by air moving more quickly over the underside of the stabilisers.

      Note: In this post, g is used as little-g, the acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Earth, while g is the SI unit gram. This is not quite standard notation; they should both be represented by the same symbol, which is just plain confusing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Near light speed? by Tweenk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since energy can be converted to mass, they would have to be going at a large percentage of c to actually "weigh" more.

      That's a non sequitur. Fast moving bodies do not have a higher "effective mass" because some of the energy is converted into mass. It's just an interpretation of the fact that as you approach c it takes more and more energy to accelerate. Another interpretation is that the mass is constant and the momentum does not depend linearly on velocity, but approaches infinity as the velocity approaches c.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    7. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The downward force on the surface it is sitting has increased, which is the point they are trying to get across.

      Stop being a pedantic ass.

    8. Re:Near light speed? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Funny, but doesn't the mass decrease due to relativistic effects?

    9. Re:Near light speed? by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Nevermind!

    10. Re:Near light speed? by Bolzano-Weierstrass · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that they're talking about the *effective* weight, ie. the total downward force, no need for excessive nitpicking

    11. Re:Near light speed? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Damn dude.

      They used weight to describe a force, which puts them lightyears worth of miles ahead of every other tech-writer that makes it into the popular press.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Near light speed? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      They never mentioned gravity. They said the down force makes it weigh more. Weight is measured with scales, and under sufficient down force the scales will read a higher value, thereby *weighing* more. The mass hasn't changed, gravity hasn't changed but the scales aren't lying. Large trucks have multiple axles to distribute the weight. Each axle measures less when *weighed* than if all the weight was on one axle. It is pedantic to claim the item doesn't effectively *weigh* less (or more). An items mass never changes, but how much it *weighs* changes under varying circumstances. If you got rid of the atmosphere the measured weight would change. Since air pressure is part of the definition of weight, increasing air pressure should changed the measured weight. Down force is effectively suck anyway.
      All they were doing was demonstrating the amount of extra force by using a common metric. All that extra force is doing is counteracting any lift and leaving you in the same position you would be if the lift did not exist. If you really had 400kg extra force then the vehicle would suffer higher friction. As it is, the lift cancels the friction - balance is restored.

    13. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Bullshit. The summary itself says that the downforce is generated by wings fixeed to the craft. The craft's weight does not change, you're just adding the force generated by the down-wing. Put a scale under the down-wing, get the 400 kg of force generated there, or are you going to argue that the wing now weighs 400 kg? Think of it -there's a difference between weight and force. We don't say a 10-pound bag of sugar has a force of 10 pounds, we say it has a weight of 10 pounds - if we throw it off a 10-story building, it doesn't weigh more when it crushes the car below, but it strikes with a force that's more than 10 pounds. It didn't suddenly magically weigh a half-ton. Stop mixing force and weight.

      Your arm might only weigh a few pounds, but it can generate a lot more than a few pounds of force. When doing so, does it miraculously increase in weight? No.

      Both you and the summary, and the original article, confuse mass, weight, and force.

    14. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The downward force on the surface it is sitting has increased, which is the point they are trying to get across.

      Stop being a pedantic ass.

      Stop being an anonymous coward. Gee, that worked well, didn't it?

      Look, it's very simple - for decades, race cars have used wings to generate downforce. Never have they said that it increases their vehicle's weight - to the contrary, they make it clear that it is because the vehicle is so light that they have to counteract the possibility of the vehicle going airborne by adding down-thrust (force - not weight) with a horizontal wing. Then we have slashdot, with its high standards of editorial journalism, repeating a really dumb idea - that the vehicle weighs 400kg more at speed. It doesn't.

    15. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Funny, but doesn't the mass decrease due to relativistic effects?

      (obligatory spaceballs references)

      It depends - did they go plaid yet?

      I'm still combing the desert looking for the answer to that one, and I ain't found shit yet!

      That will be answered in Spaceballs: The Lost Sequel - The Search For More Weight.

      Just use the schwartz to get this statue off my PAW!!!! I don't give a shit about mass, all I know is it weights a fr****ing ton!!!

      (closing scene) Related? To spaceballs? Oh shit, there goes the neighborhood!

    16. Re:Near light speed? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In practice people will hardly ever use your POV that weight is solely the effect of gravity on mass, since it's not that useful.

      For most people, weight means "apparent weight". The force that a weighing scale (theoretical or otherwise) would measure if you could put the object on it.

      Which in many circumstances will be something like:

      mass * acceleration due to gravity - bouyancy due to fluid/air the object is in - the force due to the earth spinning + "other stuff".

      "other stuff" could include downforce.

      This is more useful since the object could break stuff it goes over if the "practical weight" is too high even if the m*g is less than the limits.

      For example, for the speed record on ice attempt, they'll have to figure out whether the ice can take the max "apparent weight".

      IMO, weight= m*g is best left for high school physics. People dealing with stuff in the real world will use weight = "apparent weight".

      And they're not going to use two words where one word will do.

      --
    17. Re:Near light speed? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "weight = m * g" definition is not very useful.

      The only use for that definition I've had is in high school physics exams.

      The more useful definition is weight = "apparent weight".

      Where weight = the actual force the object would exert on the surface it's on.

      And that is not m * g.

      It's m * g + downforce - bouyancy - force due to the earth spinning, and all sorts of other stuff.

      --
    18. Re:Near light speed? by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      gg?

    19. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. Your weight changes throughout a rollercoaster ride, and is zero in orbit. Your mass doesn't change. The "effect of gravity on mass" is ill-defined as it is arbitrary to consider only the contribution of the Earth to the vector sum. To compute it properly we would need to know the mass and position of everything in the universe.

    20. Re:Near light speed? by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Parent post almost has it right. And is close enough for nearly any high school or undergraduate work.

      There is a difference between weight and mass. Mass is intrinsic to the object being measured; weight has to do with the forces acting upon the object, which is often just the force of gravity, but sometimes involves other forces. And that's the part that parent post misses. Weight has always been a matter of human perception, and most especially of the human capacity to imagine a perception that has not been directly experienced.

      Weight has to be defined as the effect an object would have upon the internal human scale at the moment in the question. This is a virtual scale constructed on input from the inner ears, stretch receptors in the skeletal muscles, and other elements of the proprioceptive sense. It has been refined by millions of years[1] of dealing with the very subtle sensations that you feel as the tree limb you are perched is just beginning to break, and other, similar, aspects of arboreal life. Most especially, it has been developed in considerations of whether the limb you are thinking about jumping to would support your weight. For a tree dweller, weight is very much a virtual thing used in thought experiments concerning critical decisions about taking the next step out on this limb, swinging on that vine, or jumping to a different tree. The concept of weight is strongly connected to the ability to perform thought experiments and other "what if" visualizations.

      Weight is a very important concept to get right, or you lose historical continuity and trans-cultural meaning. If you think of it only in terms of mass and force, you will not understand the reasoning that developed the first trebuchets, and you will have more difficulty in communicating with persons of foreign cultures than you otherwise would. Such as persons from non-literate cultures who are highly skilled in maintaining oral traditions. Or girls who are taking the History of Art sequence.

      We do weigh more when the elevator accelerates upward: we feel that. If you could lift the Greenbird off the ground when it was parked and again when it was moving at high speed, you would notice its increase in weight. And that kind of thought experiment is trans-cultural and easily done by any human of any time period. So weight is not only perfectly cromulent in this usage, its usage conveys more information to a wider audience (both across cultures and across time) than any talk of mass or forces would.

      Of course we need to make allowances for those who were raised in the metric system, which is deficient for having no distinct measure of weight. They have to make do with what they've got, and too frequently have to try to describe the mechanisms of perceptual psychology (like weight) with measurements developed for the narrow fields of chemistry and physics. Their loss.

      [1]Or if you prefer, we were designed 6,000 years ago and constructed with all the techniques of antique fakery so that it looks like we have been around for millions of years.

    21. Re:Near light speed? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Their usage is dead wrong. Weight is the effect of gravity on mass.

      This has been pointed out already, but bears repeating: That is not so. Weight is what a scale measures. Weight is quite literally the value you get when you weigh something.

    22. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insofar as the vehicle itself is concerned, it may as well weigh an additional 400kg.

      The actual 'weight' is largely immaterial for any practical purpose. What they're referring to here, yes, is the cumulative affect of the vehicles weight and the additional downforce. Sure, the vehicle may weigh only 600kg, but the actual components of the vehicle are 'feeling' 1000kg of strain due to the extra force.

      If you extend your arms and rest one on top of the other, you don't weigh any more or less than if you exert downward pressure from the top arm onto the bottom one, but you can certainly feel the pressure difference.

      In any situation where the weight of something matters, what really matters are the forces at work BECAUSE of said weight. In any other situation, mass is what matters, not weight.

    23. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Weight is what a scale measures. Weight is quite literally the value you get when you weigh something.

      So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.

      People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.

      Ditto with the claim that the vehicle gains 400 pounds of weight at speed - it gets additional down-force. Force != weight, or in this case, downforce != weight. Get over it. If I take a bag of flour, and throw it off the rooftop, it's going to hit with a force that is much higher than its' static weight, or it's weight when dropped only a foot. Again, weight != force.

    24. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, if the spacecraft were stationary instead of in orbit, you would be able to measure your weight on a scale, no problem. It would be sell, since your mass is further from the center of the earth, but it would still be the measurement of gravity on your mass. If you were at the center of the earth, your weight would be nothing (since there's an equal amount of the earth's mass pulling you in each direction), but your mass would still be the same.

      As for your roller-coaster ride, that's the same as claiming you caught a 10-pound fish because you put your 2-pound fish on a scale and bounced it up and down - and one second it "weighs" nothing, and an instant later, it "weighs" 10 pounds. Weight is a static measurement - the measurement of the effect of gravity on a static mass. Force is a dynamic measurement - a measurement of energy, not mass. As I've said before, weight != force. The vehicle still only "weighs" 600 kg, and it generates an additional downforce of 400 kg via a horizontal wing (though why they didn't just call it a spoiler is beyond me).

    25. Re:Near light speed? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Hold it.

      We all know the craft's mass does not change. The weight also does not change, if weight is defined as the total gravity force acting between the object and the Earth on average. Its apparent weight does increase however, where apparent weight is the total force pushing it towards the ground. "Weight" already contains far too many assumptions to be anything but a pretty nebulous measurement under any circumstance. Thus, in context, saying that the craft's weight increases is perfectly logical.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    26. Re:Near light speed? by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      You really are a tiresome pedant. Let it go already.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    27. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the spacecraft were stationary instead of in orbit, you would be able to measure your weight on a scale, no problem.

      You mean, if we were to hypothetically build a tower from the Earth to the spacecraft so that the spacecraft would rest on it? Then yes, a scale would give us a number, but wouldn't the number be different if you built a tower from the Moon instead of from the Earth? Why did you choose to do it from the Earth?

      that's the same as claiming you caught a 10-pound fish because you put your 2-pound fish on a scale and bounced it up and down - and one second it "weighs" nothing, and an instant later, it "weighs" 10 pounds.

      Yet you're fine with calling it a 10-pound fish because you weighed it on Jupiter? Both are just equally lame attempts at bending definitions in order to report an inflated weight.

      Weight is a static measurement - the measurement of the effect of gravity on a static mass

      You've yet to define what you mean by that. How do you calculate the "weight" of an object at an arbitrary position in the solar system? What's different if the mass is non-static (moving)?

    28. Re:Near light speed? by Goaway · · Score: 1

      So if I stand on a scale, but I'm also lifting up some of my weight on the doorframe, I suddenly weigh less? I don't think so, Clyde.

      People would quite accurately point out that I was cheating, that my "weight" did not change.

      Yes, you would weigh less. However, when people weigh themselves, they are actually interested in their mass and not their weight, even though casual English is not exact about the usage there. That is why people would point out that you are cheating - you are ruining the approximation of mass as weight.

    29. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      No, because we know that the force of gravity on the object doesn't change, and that the extra force is from the spoilers giving down-thrust. Now, if we didn't know that this down-thrust existed, and were just presented with two measurements (say from on-board sensors) that showed that the total load on the tires, for example, had changed, we might assume that someone just loaded several passengers into the vehicle, so that its' overall weight was more - but, lacking the missing information, we'd be wrong.

      Just like wee're wrong to say that the vehicle "weighs" more because of the effect of air providing down-thrust on the spoiler.

    30. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      You really are a tiresome pedant. Let it go already.

      Seems you can't take your own advice ... :-)

      Look, the article is wrong, and it perpetuates a common misunderstanding, one that, oddly enough, seems to be more common today than it was a few decades ago. This is probably more due to the dumbing down of the school curriculum, and people embracing the "don't wanna know" mind-set - the same mind-set, btw, that gives us creationists, Intelligent Design, "dinosaurs walked with humans," "houses never go down in price" - even though history says otherwise, "they have WMDs", etc.

    31. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Vis the fish: On Jupiter, it would weigh more, but its' mass would be the same. On the moon, it would weigh less, but it would still mass the same. Now, does the mass of the car change while it's in motion? No. The additional "weight" is not weight, it's down-force from air against the spoiler. The article even says as much, then makes the mistake of saying that the vehicle "weighs" 400kg more at speed, when clearly, the down-force is not from the vehicle's mass, but from the spoiler.

      If an elephant were to sit on the vehicle, would it weigh more? Nope. But, according to the standard you seem to want to back, it would. Both the elephant and the vehicle maintain their individual weights.

    32. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say that it weighs more is about as accurate as saying your weight changes as you jump up and down on a scale, or that an airplane weighs less than nothing when it's flying.

      I would consider these reasonably accurate - not common usage, but understandable.

      Try another example. Does a helium balloon have negative weight, or not? Gravity exerts a positive downward force on it - it's just buoyancy that forces it upwards.

    33. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On Jupiter, it would weigh more, but its' mass would be the same. On the moon, it would weigh less, but it would still mass the same.

      Sure. So, you're still unable to define "weight" for an arbitrary point in space, away from the surface of bodies? I thought so. It's the second time you dodge the question.

      The article even says as much, then makes the mistake of saying that the vehicle "weighs" 400kg more at speed

      So they should have said "has an apparent weight of" instead of "weighs". Fine. Apparent weight is still a more important concept. It dictates how strong the wheels have to be, for example. BTW it is usual to express a weight in mass equivalent on Earth (i.e. by kg they really mean kg*(9.8 m/s^2)), so no outrage is necessary about that.

    34. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'weight' is also a force, whether that force is from gravity or a wing is simply not important for friction with the tires or stress on the suspension.

    35. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're arguing this strenoulsy about a point, against a large number of people, and you're absolutely _positive_ that you're right, and everyone else is wrong, then maybe it's time you went and had a cup of tea or something and reflected over how much it actually _matters_ in the scheme of things.

      You may as well just go to bed, like your girlfriend wants you to, because the people that are wrong on the internet will still be just as wrong in the morning, and you can always carry on showing them how right you are then.

    36. Re:Near light speed? by conureman · · Score: 1

      AFAIK downforce is a very common term in F1 racing, which was mentioned early and often in TFA. On this planet the Greenbird weighs about 600kg. At any speed.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    37. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      I have no problem defining weight away from the surface of a body. Try a thought experiment - a body which is the only one in it's universe. It has mass, but not weight.

      Once you add a second body, you are now able to to actually measure the influence of the second body's mass on the first (in other words, get its' weight, as opposed to just its' mass).

      And no. they shouldn't have said "apparent weight" - they had already mentioned the down-force generated by the horizontal wings - they could have just said that wing generates up to 400 kg of down-force at speed, rather than the stupid "it weighs a ton" - which it doesn't.

      As for "apparent weight" - you already should have learned that is NOT a question you want to get in the habit of answering ... watch out the next time someone asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" :-)

    38. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      'weight' is also a force, whether that force is from gravity or a wing is simply not important for friction with the tires or stress on the suspension.

      Do you also say "mass is a force"?

      Also, you're wrong about it not being important - if the vehicle really DID "weigh a ton", instead of 600 kg, the suspension system, frame, and tires would have to be beefier to handle the extra lateral forces generated when not moving in a straight line. Think about it for a minute or two ...

    39. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several disciplines make different use of physical units and magnitudes. If the context is clear and there is no confusion nobody but fundamentalists complain about that.

      For instance, it is still perfectly correct to give weight in kg (mass unit) instead of N (force units). There is no possible confusion when units do not match and there is general understanding that they need to be correctly converted.

      If the units are ok (and even often when they are not as I said) it is also perfectly correct to call weight almost anything that can be measured in the same units.

      Weight is not always just the force due to gravity, which is by the way a not very good definition (for tides calculation, for instance)

      Depending on the context you can also talk about "apparent" weight when centrifugal forces, buoyancy in a air balloon or even underwater. Additional forces not necessarily external, like when saying each wheel in a car is experiencing different weights when turning.

      In fact if you try to go to far with a picky definition of weight, whenever you try to measure the weight of something you usually measure the gravitational weight (which may vary a little from place to place) minus the air lift (unless you measure in vacuum), and subject to local g variations.

      That should suggest that either you go for a real definition like mass, lenght or other fundamental units have, or you just keep with the derived unit definition (mass multiplied by acceleration) and just make a fair use of the magnitude.

      Appart from that, the modern use of the term mass in relativity since several years ago, is just for refer to invariant mass, or mass at rest, which as his own name states, do not change.Ã

      The idea of (relativistic) mass changing with speed is old, confusing, and nobody uses it no longer (a common Physics FAQ)

      If you still what to keep on the fundamentalistic approach: 600gN is not correct. 600g N is, 600 Kg too (when someone indicates weight in Kg instead of N it is common understanding that it means Kgf or Kilogram-force.

      There is no confusion in using g as unit and g as constant as long as you keep them separated and do not write 600gN but 600g N

      IAP

    40. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For most people, weight means "apparent weight".

      Exactly. And you can extend that to anything that you can measure in weight units (any force) and you would like to think in as a weight.

      Mass, lenght and time are fundamental and very well defined. Weight is not so. It is a derived unit (force), which is just to be useful.

      IMO, weight= m*g is best left for high school physics. People dealing with stuff in the real world will use weight = "apparent weight".

      You are right, only in high school those concepts are so fixed. If you know no physics you will not make that mistake. Neither if you know a bit more physics.

    41. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we need to make allowances for those who were raised in the metric system, which is deficient for having no distinct measure of weight.

      What?
      Almost every country raised in metric system had his own "custom" definitions of weight and in many places they still apply, of course, for some purposes.

      People can use pounds or kilograms (understanding, of course, mass-kilograms or kgf, as everybody does) or any other weight unit and have exactly the same understanding of the idea of weight.

      Pounds can and are often used to measure mass and there is no confusion at all.

      The difference is that in IS, mass is a well-defined fundamental unit.
      Weight it is not. It is instead a derived magnitude that is always defined indirectly.
      But that is exactly the same for both systems.

    42. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, it's very simple - for decades, race cars have used wings to generate downforce. Never have they said that it increases their vehicle's weight

      In fact, yes, they usually do:

      "Downforce

      The air pressure traveling over the surfaces of a race vehicle creates "downforce" or weight on that area."

      http://www.nascar.com/kyn/101/glossary/index.html

    43. Re:Near light speed? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      They didn't say it increased the vehicle's total weight.

      So, what physics allows a vehicle to increase in weight by 67% when it's going 120mph? Do the individual atoms become more dense, or do they just multiply out of the quantum foam? Or do the lighter elements transmute to lead, making the vehicle denser? Somehow, I don't think the vehicle gets denser, and I don't think that the atoms do an amoeba fission thing - and then miraculously reverse the process when the vehicle slows down. Or does the rapid passage through the "aether" cause the atoms to grab more "gravity" so that the vehicle weighs more? I doubt that as well.

      The simple fact is that the vehicle's weight doesn't change. Stop defending the indefensible.

    44. Re:Near light speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't say it increased the vehicle's total weight.

      For me, they did, but that is not really relevant.

      So, what physics allows a vehicle to increase in weight by 67% when it's going 120mph?

      No new physics is needed at all.

      You just need to consider the possibility that the definition of weight is not so fixed as you try to impose to others, and is greatly a matter of convention.

      Just take a look at (the whole) wikipedia article, for instance and you will find that it is useful to use the idea of weight for describing several forces and everybody will understand what do you mean (even definition fundamentalists).

      BTW (I am not the same Anonymous Coward)

  5. OK, where is the nerd part? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article is really light on the details. Where is the article that actually is news for nerds?

    At a minimum I want to know what kind of wind speed they needed to set the record.

    1. Re:OK, where is the nerd part? by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      30-40mph with gusts later in the day higher.

      though on land it is easier. on water the record is about 64mph in 24mph wind.

      okay so i am a sailing geek. I also say this yesterday.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:OK, where is the nerd part? by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at first I thought it said Windows powered, guess I come to slashdot expecting news for nerds so my brain saw "win" and filled in the rest.

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

  6. Water record broken too by jmike · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Water record broken too by fprintf · · Score: 1

      It is only a matter of time before the record is broken again, both for Class C (as the links says, probably soon to be held by this boat) and for overall, currently held by a kiteboarder. The difference between what happens on water and on land is really dramatic. The fastest boats are remarkably slower than the fastest cars.

      BTW, it wasn't *particularly* windy during the record breaking attempts. Too much wind usually means gusty conditions and overpowering. What they needed was the right wind direction relative to the course selected, typically a broad reach (over the back corner of the stern). In the case of the Macquarie, they were only seeing 22-24 knots, which many places in the country see on a daily basis!

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    2. Re:Water record broken too by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      I'm not a physicist, so there's a lot I don't understand. For something to go over 100mph powered only by wind, wouln't the wind itself have to be over 100mph as well?

      How do you go faster than the force that is propelling you?

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    3. Re:Water record broken too by M8e · · Score: 1

      How do you go faster than the force that is propelling you?

      By going in a different direction relative to the wind/force.

  7. The Ice Schooner by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This craft reminds me of the early Michael Moorcock SF story The Ice Schooner:

    Although part of the general repackaging of Moorcock's fantasy output around the Eternal Champion theme, The Ice Schooner is not really that closely linked to the other novels. Having a hero and a quest is not really enough; there are few novels in the genre by any author which would share these common elements.

    The much revised novel is set in a future Ice Age, so severe that oceans of ice cover almost the entire surface of the Earth. On these frozen wastes sail great ship-like wind powered sledges, hunting the land whales evolved from the sea creatures of our own time. Konrad Arflane is captain of such a vessel fallen on hard times until he rescues a dying man out on the remote ice. He turns out to be the ruler of an important city, but more relevantly to the plot, he gives Arflane a quest, to find the fabled lost city of New York, a vision, in his daughter, and a ship, a great ice schooner, to captain.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The Ice Schooner by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Much revised? What, are there multiple versions of the book?

      And FWIW, whoever wrote that isn't too clued into the eternal champion theme - among other things, New York was clearly Tanelorn, definitely making The Ice Schooner yet another version of the eternal champion theme.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:The Ice Schooner by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      If you click the link, you see that it was indeed revised.

      And I think their description was apt. TIS is indeed not that closely linked to the Eternal Champion cycle, except in some packaging, as that review says. I read most of all the other incarnation books (including Jerry Cornelius), and I agree with that description.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:The Ice Schooner by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      If you click the link, you see that it was indeed revised.

      I did click and didn't see it. If you are referring to the multiple dates listed with respect to publication, that's hardly enough to support the claim of "much" revised it could simply refer to different publishers and trivial changes like the addition of a forward or clean-ups to make the serialization flow as a single novel.

      I read most of all the other incarnation books (including Jerry Cornelius), and I agree with that description.

      Well, that's powerful supporting evidence there. If reading more of the books is all that matters, I'm pretty sure I've got you beat with a much bigger eternal champion dick, one might even say more cock. For example, Jesus Christ is another incarnation of the companion to the champion. But, I'll stop swinging my dick and get back to hard evidence. See "The Eternal Champion" where John Daker - the only incarnation to be internally aware of all the other incarnations - has one (of many) schizo moments:

      'Erekosë.'
      'I am not Erekose...'
      'Erekosë!'
      'I am John Daker!'
      'Erekosë!'
      'I am Jerry Cornelius,'
      'Erekosë!'
      'I am Konrad Arflane.'
      'Erekosë!'
      'What do you want?' I asked.
      'We want your help!'
      'You have my help!'
      'Erekosë!'
      'I am Karl Glogauer!'
      'Erekosë!'

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:The Ice Schooner by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks for offering me conclusive evidence that a nice chat about books we both liked is not going to happen in this thread.

      Goodbye.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:The Ice Schooner by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Lol. Just because I put a name to your rudeness doesn't excuse your original rudeness.
      You should be ashamed of trying to play the "my book dick is bigger than your book dick" card.
      Apparently you are, but just aren't willing to own up to it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  8. Recap of event by markov_chain · · Score: 1

    "Richaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!"

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    1. Re:Recap of event by heidaro · · Score: 1

      "Richaaaaaaaaaaaaaaard!"

      "Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeenkins!" Reporters also claim witnessing consumption of Gallus gallus.

  9. wow; impressive by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    growing up, we used to race a DN class iceboat. IceMice could do over 70 mph in a 30 mph wind. This is another 50 mph faster. Tip the craft on dirt, and you will know it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:wow; impressive by clockt · · Score: 1
      From the greenbird web site:

      The Greenbird is two vehicles: a land craft and an ice craft, powered only by the wind. ... The project's aim was to break both the land and ice world speed records. On March 26, 2009, the Ecotricity Greenbird set a new world land speed record for wind powered vehicles of 126.1 mph. The team hopes to both better that new record, and continue to work toward breaking the ice record in Winter 2009/10.

      Should be interesting to see how it goes on ice. Watch out, IceMice. The publicity should be good for the backer's wind turbine business; vertical urban wind turbines. I'd like some of them, if only to keep the pigeons on their toes.

    2. Re:wow; impressive by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I was just checking up on some of that. Lake Geneva (~15 miles north of where I grew up; wonder lake, ill) now has something called the skeeter that does 100 mph. I suspect that this vehicle may blow it away.

      as to the vertical wind turbines, I have always been amazed that they those did not catch on in the city. Struck me as the way to go for places like Chicago (not called the windy city for no reason) or Milwaukee (Summer fest is one of the best things about that town).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:wow; impressive by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      "Struck me as the way to go for places like Chicago (not called the windy city for no reason)"

      Actually, Chicago got the moniker "the windy city" not for the weather. It was to describe its politics.

    4. Re:wow; impressive by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  10. Here's the math question.. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting, but totally useless for cars. The wing is way too tall for traffic. But for ships, its a different story. Question is: If it takes a 40 foot high wing to move a 1 ton car, how big of a wing would you need to move a 50,000 ton container ship? The heaviest sailing vessel yet constructed is the Star Clipper: Star Clipper, which is 5000 tons and traditionally rigged with about 50,000 square feet of sail handled by 20 crewman.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Here's the math question.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I also wonder if a rigid wing would work well on smaller sailboats. It might help more people use sail for travel where they now use motor launches. I don't think it's going to take over waterskiing any time soon, but that would be cool too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Here's the math question.. by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      Question is: If it takes a 40 foot high wing to move a 1 ton car, how big of a wing would you need to move a 50,000 ton container ship?

      I think a better question is: Why do you need to move a ship that big on sail power alone? While it would be cool to do so, using wind power in conjunction with conventional engines improves efficiency reducing fuel consumption between 10 and 35 percent, which is a good start.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    3. Re:Here's the math question.. by Yacoby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A rigid wing would be lethal in a harbor, as you can't take it down easily, and if the wind changed, suddenly you have a boat that is attempting to move and a boom swinging about.

      Another large bonus of a fabric sail is that it will flap when my sail isn't set correctly or when I am sailing to much into the wind. A rigid sail wouldn't.

      Fabric is lighter, and I assure you, the last thing you want is a lot of weight high up. It makes the boat a lot more likely to roll, and you already have a large surface area that the wind can push.

    4. Re:Here's the math question.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      A rigid wing would be lethal in a harbor, as you can't take it down easily, and if the wind changed, suddenly you have a boat that is attempting to move and a boom swinging about.

      You're assuming that it can't be opened to let wind through or something.

      Another large bonus of a fabric sail is that it will flap when my sail isn't set correctly or when I am sailing to much into the wind. A rigid sail wouldn't.

      But strain gauges can let you know what's going on.

      Fabric is lighter, and I assure you, the last thing you want is a lot of weight high up. It makes the boat a lot more likely to roll, and you already have a large surface area that the wind can push.

      I hear you on the weight thing, I suppose it would only work for heavily keeled vessels (for their size anyway.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Here's the math question.. by Yacoby · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that it can't be opened to let wind through or something.

      You still have a large flat object longer than the width of the boat that will always orientate itself to the wind. A huge weather vane in effect. Take a look at a harbor and see how boats are tied up. Right next to each other. You are not going to make many friends if you keep smashing the adjacent boats shroud.

    6. Re:Here's the math question.. by jeti · · Score: 1

      A 160-square meter kite sail is expected to reduce the diesel consumption of a 10,000-tonne ship by 20%.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSL1548100520071217?sp=true

    7. Re:Here's the math question.. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      A rigid wing would be lethal in a harbor

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail
      The Cousteau folks seem to have survived it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:Here's the math question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In regards to shipping, the modern technology adaptation involves an automated system with a tractor parafoil. It may not completely propel the ship in most cases, but it can still economize operation by a lot when the wind is going the right way. And you reel it in and furl it up once near port, there's no mast or similar superstructures for the harbor pilot to worry about when navigating.

    9. Re:Here's the math question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what i need for my house-blimp though!

  11. Sailing faster than the wind by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The physics that allows one to sail faster than the wind aren't completely obvious. Terence Tao wrote a very good explanation of the basics http://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/sailing-into-the-wind-or-faster-than-the-wind/ where he also shows a nice theoretical construction that allows one to accelerate to any speedy (assuming that the universe is Newtonian).

    1. Re:Sailing faster than the wind by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      he also shows a nice theoretical construction that allows one to accelerate to any speedy (assuming that the universe is Newtonian).

      Even to a Gonzales?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  12. Two runs? by srussia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did they take the average of two timed runs in opposite directions in order to compensate for, you know... wind speed?

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Two runs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting? That's a big Whoosh! right there. Somebody needs to bitchslap the mods for that one. Speeds are ground referenced (it stays in contact with the ground), not airspeed referenced.

      (For those Saturday mods who are confused...the parent may be appropriately modded funny, if at all)

    2. Re:Two runs? by barzok · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I think you're the one who missed it.

      In all other "land speed record" runs, the driver is required to make 2 runs on the course, in opposite directions, typically within a 1-hour span. This is to negate any "wind at your back" assist which would taint the results unfairly.

    3. Re:Two runs? by BarefootClown · · Score: 1

      On most sailboats (and this car is an extension of the principle), the fastest point of sail is a beam reach--directly crosswind. Running the course in the opposite direction would just mean that the crosswind is from the other direction; there would be no advantage.

      Sailing downwind can't produce a speed greater than the wind speed. Unless he had a 125mph wind, he wasn't operating downwind.

      --

      "Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
      --Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

    4. Re:Two runs? by srussia · · Score: 1

      What about gradient then?

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
  13. Obligatory comment... by pig-power · · Score: 1

    Anyone else thinking how much this car blows??
    zing!

  14. Relative Speed by Starcub · · Score: 1

    There's still some debate as to whether traveling on ice or land will be faster.

    I think if it weighs a ton, I could probably answer this question...

  15. Simple math answer by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The exact same size of wing...

    After all, you said nothing about the speed. Wait long enough and the ship itself will move in the wind.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  16. 120 mph is nothing by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    I had an Arrow class iceboat and regularly got over 70 mph. These speeds are pedestrian for iceboats. The DN class and Arrow class really don't take aerodynamics very far having completely open cockpits. Now the Skeeter class takes aerodynamics quite seriously having an almost enclosed cockpit and many other aerodynamic features. Its drag is quite low.

    Actually, an iceboat was clocked at 143 mph and this was many years ago. The potential for impressive speeds on ice is pretty big.

    For more information go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_boat

    1. Re:120 mph is nothing by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the skeeters came out after I was done. Interestingly, was developed by a guy that we used to race against on the c-scows (buddy melges who also owns the melges boat works; also a gold medal winner). Never went on that, but, I did occasionally go on a Nite (developed by another guy that we used to sail scows against). Never cared for that boat. If a nite tipped, I always felt like the mast would be tore off(or just have a stay be snapped), and half of your body was exposed. At least with the DN, you still have the nasty fall, but typically did not have to worry about the boat landing on you. Though I did hear of one guy on neighboring lake had his neck snapped from the fall. Thankfully, he died quickly.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:120 mph is nothing by wfstanle · · Score: 1

      Yes the sport has a reputation for some spectacular accidents. Where I sailed, on Lake St. Claire (Michigan), there was this BIG old iceboat called "Buckaroo". It was so big that it got away with jumping small cracks in the ice. (A sure recipe for disaster.) The end for it was the skipper got complacent and tried to jump a crack that was too large. The result was predictable... 60 foot iceboat to matchsticks in one step. There were 4 people on it at the time and although there were no fatalities, the shortest stay for the group was 4 days and one person was in the hospital for 4 weeks.

  17. Re:First Post!! by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

    What, like land speed records for bigwheels?

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  18. Left! Left!, Left, right, Left! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a mile? Mille Passuum, one thousand double paces marched by the Roman army. In other words, each foot touches the ground 1,000 times per mile marched. btw, the wiki article neglected to include the rod: 5-1/2 yards per rod, four rods per chain. These units are named for the tools surveyors once used to measure them.

  19. Re:First Post!! by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because a supersonic land-sailing car is realistic.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  20. Windy city by wfstanle · · Score: 1

    Actually there is some debate on that one. While it could refer to the weather it is just as likely due to the politicians (all the hot air). I will refer you to wikipedia.

  21. Umm if they go out of their way to use metric by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't they use the metric unit of force for weight? (I mean give the weight in newtons, not kilograms. Yeah, I know just take KG and multiply by 9.8 to get newtons.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  22. Re:First Post!! by techprophet · · Score: 1

    Who cares if it's realistic? 200 years ago going faster than 60mph was unrealistic. As was going to the moon. Or breathing underwater.

  23. Video by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    Here's a link to the youtube video of the actual run. It's quite interesting to see the difference between the ice version and the land speed record version of the craft. Apparently there are some incredible downforces being generated as well.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  24. Re:First Post!! by somersault · · Score: 1

    The point is that yes sure we can do a lot of things, but when you put limits in place it precludes certain results. You still can't break 60mph or reach the moon if the only vehicle you allow is a horse..

    --
    which is totally what she said
  25. Re:First Post!! by conureman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The CHP clocked me @ 47mph on a Big Wheel. It was downhill, however, and definitely not the record. One of my friends was clocked @ 55 going down Corral Hollow road towards Carnegie. The guy in the car couldn't keep up once they got into the twisties. Its a miracle that we survived our childhoods.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  26. So Slashdot by giorgist · · Score: 1

    Such a great achievement. The boundaries are pushed in so many areas such that there is little left one can push as an individual and get the "fastest" mark.

    Most of Slashdot is discussing the relativistic merits of the added mass !!!

  27. Richard Jenkins? The undertaker? by aqk · · Score: 0

    Is this the Richard Jenkins that played the mortician in "Six Feet Under"?
    I thought his wind-powered car got hit by a bus.
    ???