OT Sail downwind faster than the wind!

John Doe
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:16 am

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.

There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power. And you can
guess from that, that greater wind speed means you can move
faster.

Monty Python and a complete waste of time comes to mind.

The first place I stopped was
www.physicsforums.com
I figured there might be some good counter argument there.

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:42 pm

On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <jdoe_at_usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.

There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.

I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Quote:

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.

That can definitely be done.

John

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:54 pm

Richard Henry wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.

Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.

You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:39 pm

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.

Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.

You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:21 pm

John Larkin wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

John Larkin
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:39 pm

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:21:45 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

You can certainly make a cog railway engine, propeller-driven, that
moves into the wind. Just gear it down until it works. I'd imagine you
could do the same thing with a boat, maybe go into the wind at 1/5 of
the wind speed, something like that. Water is a lot denser than air,
so the underwater propeller might approach the cog railway for grip.

John

Jan Panteltje
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:40 pm

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:21:45 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
<4C52FC19.6060506_at_electrooptical.net>:

Quote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I think it is more basic, not just 'impedance matching'.
When the boat's speed increases, then, at some point,
it will move the same speed as the wind.
At that point no positive energy is transferred anymore to the 'windmill'.

The only way around it is to store energy in some device when going slow,
and then use that to drive a propulsion system so you can then for *short periods*
go faster than the wind.
Correct me if I am wrong Smile

Richard Henry
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:48 pm

On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Quote:

On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.

There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.

I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.

That can definitely be done.

Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:53 pm

John Larkin wrote:

Quote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:21:45 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John
It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

You can certainly make a cog railway engine, propeller-driven, that
moves into the wind. Just gear it down until it works. I'd imagine you
could do the same thing with a boat, maybe go into the wind at 1/5 of
the wind speed, something like that. Water is a lot denser than air,
so the underwater propeller might approach the cog railway for grip.

John

The difficulty is that the hull and the prop aren't orders of magnitude
different in performance, and there's a lot of drag. With a solid
substrate, like a pipe or a railway track, you just have to adjust the
gear ratio to accommodate any lift/drag ratio whatever--an arbitrarily
draggy windmill can be dragged along at a correspondingly slow speed.

For water, there will be a lower limit of efficiency to actually achieve
windward motion.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:55 pm

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Quote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:21:45 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
4C52FC19.6060506_at_electrooptical.net>:

John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John
It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I think it is more basic, not just 'impedance matching'.
When the boat's speed increases, then, at some point,
it will move the same speed as the wind.
At that point no positive energy is transferred anymore to the 'windmill'.

The only way around it is to store energy in some device when going slow,
and then use that to drive a propulsion system so you can then for *short periods*
go faster than the wind.
Correct me if I am wrong :-)

Going downwind faster than the wind is another issue, you're right--I
was talking about going directly upwind.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Jan Panteltje
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:14 pm

On a sunny day (Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:55:01 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote in
<4C5303E5.3000008_at_electrooptical.net>:

Quote:

It's not exactly the same as a motor->generator->motor type perpetual
motion machine, you're right. For instance, one can easily imagine
making a pipe-climbing machine that gripped the walls and used a
propeller to drive some gears and wheels. Whether that can be done in a
boat depends a lot on the achievable lift/drag ratio of that windmill
and the efficiency of the screw.

People have built wave-powered boats, so weird things can certainly be done.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I think it is more basic, not just 'impedance matching'.
When the boat's speed increases, then, at some point,
it will move the same speed as the wind.
At that point no positive energy is transferred anymore to the 'windmill'.

The only way around it is to store energy in some device when going slow,
and then use that to drive a propulsion system so you can then for *short periods*
go faster than the wind.
Correct me if I am wrong :-)

Going downwind faster than the wind is another issue, you're right--I
was talking about going directly upwind.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Sorry, just as I pressed 'send' I realized you were talking about the opposite as the topic says.
Then I wondered why.
And then it hit me: you are down under, and everything is upside down.
Even worse, all the water from all the oceans must flow down that way, so you are always against the stream too.
But relativity says I should look at if from your perspective, that is simple too,
the earth is round, you are on top, the ocean around you is always pointing down, so
you do not even need any wind, just glide down in any direction.
Anyways, J.L. is right in that case, against the wind should work, indeed 'impedance matching'.

John Doe
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:50 pm

John Larkin <jjlarkin highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

....

Quote:

You can certainly make a cog railway engine, propeller-driven,
that moves into the wind. Just gear it down until it works.

I am disappointed that even John Larkin would argue something like
that.
--

Quote:

I'd imagine you
could do the same thing with a boat, maybe go into the wind at 1/5 of
the wind speed, something like that. Water is a lot denser than air,
so the underwater propeller might approach the cog railway for grip.

John

Path: news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:38:00 -0500
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT Sail downwind faster than the wind!
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:39:55 -0700
Message-ID: <gpv556dt6tgdeghjh9c7nlr4cnp3fl7qbm 4ax.com
References: <4c529878$0$5476$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <tuo556dpklqbe27tmkhp12mvf23rd6gmh2 4ax.com> <3832c1d4-71f5-40c2-a33b-ac1eca446bc6 z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <4C52E7A1.1080904 electrooptical.net> <1ds556le32n3b3vhv7qa1jjgcm69dksds9 4ax.com> <4C52FC19.6060506 electrooptical.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 51
X-Trace: sv3-2HFk9XP5wQT+JypKsrMySudzEA3+UQ0l83Lk1ysscKi353U/KgUAbxMoZMG8+pNPk4hNwF5KIGO0taQ!0tGEwCMOAPzSPKo4EsPR3KPnWVEsZNbnPasydIqvzPDF/HKcbQKUBQuVS3gamnhZqS7FXJ9y4KY5!EqygDQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:08 pm

Richard Henry wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 30, 8:39 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs

pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.
Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. Wink

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

The first notch on the bullshit meter is conservation of energy.

It isn't a perpetual motion machine, it's a hydrodynamics problem.
Given a solid substrate, it isn't even difficult. No energy
conservation issues.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Jim Thompson
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:49 pm

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:08:21 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 8:39 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:54:25 -0400, Phil Hobbs

pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:
On Jul 30, 7:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On 30 Jul 2010 09:16:40 GMT, John Doe <j...@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth (especially
when you suspect that one side is full of it), and have not
already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct Downwind
Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going directly
downwind faster than the wind using only that wind power.
I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady motion.
Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you can
move directly into the wind using only the wind power.
That can definitely be done.
Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.
You do have to zigzag a bit. Wink

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel would
work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

John

The first notch on the bullshit meter is conservation of energy.

It isn't a perpetual motion machine, it's a hydrodynamics problem.
Given a solid substrate, it isn't even difficult. No energy
conservation issues.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

How can you sail _straight_ downwind _faster_ than the wind, and still
gain energy from the wind at your back?

You can certainly "tack" at a vector faster than the wind vector... I
think, I'm not a sailor.

But straight with the wind at your back I don't think so.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Friday is Wine and Cheeseburger Day

John Doe
Guest

Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:54 pm

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:

Richard Henry wrote:
John Larkin <jjlar... highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel... electrooptical.net
Richard Henry wrote:
John Larkin <jjlar... highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com
John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

If you enjoy reading technical argument back and forth
(especially when you suspect that one side is full of it),
and have not already done so, this one is for you.
There is much discussion about a concept called Direct
Downwind Faster Than the Wind (DDWFTTW). The idea of going
directly downwind faster than the wind using only that
wind power.

I think you can, as long as you don't insist on steady
motion.

Apparently they breed the silliness with the idea that you
can move directly into the wind using only the wind power.

That can definitely be done.

In a fantasy while lounging on an Arizonan beach.

Quote:

Heh! Only on lawyer's boats.

You do have to zigzag a bit. ;)

Not really. A windmill driving a propeller or a paddlewheel
would work. It's just an impedance matching problem.

The first notch on the bullshit meter is conservation of
energy.

It isn't a perpetual motion machine,

It is generating forward motion out of rearward thrust. A
perpetual motion machine generates motion out of no thrust.
The idea is worse than a perpetual motion machine.

Quote:

it's a hydrodynamics problem.

You ignore the fact that there is negative pressure on the
propeller (and the craft), that is what makes the propeller spin.
Your argument is that you can turn that rearward thrust into a
greater forward thrust. It is a prima facie failure.
--

Quote:

Given a solid substrate, it isn't even difficult. No energy
conservation issues.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Path: news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-02.inet.qwest.net!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:08:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4C531515.7030303 electrooptical.net
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:08:21 -0400
From: Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless electrooptical.net
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.basics,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT Sail downwind faster than the wind!
References: <4c529878$0$5476$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com> <tuo556dpklqbe27tmkhp12mvf23rd6gmh2 4ax.com> <3832c1d4-71f5-40c2-a33b-ac1eca446bc6 z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <4C52E7A1.1080904 electrooptical.net> <1ds556le32n3b3vhv7qa1jjgcm69dksds9 4ax.com> <e851a24a-4eca-46d1-b020-fb619863f140 k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <e851a24a-4eca-46d1-b020-fb619863f140 k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 48
X-Trace: sv3-tgE2lgX4SRNw9RheQZaXHz5rVGKDEZ3mtpBeiXA4ou1AJpG96gQxvmiDi4FFRz9aZqFaqSGvm/y1cWh!PaPWSgYO54K912dGxuHNbVMALSdf8qKg/LNGlFYiqKZ1KW0N7WLIVmVa0yaB/Zt5kLmyFQ==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40