Wind-Powered Car Travels At Twice the Speed of the Wind

It took a while for me to wrap my brain around this.
*
The key is that the blades are mechanically linked to the wheels. The wheels push the blades, not the other way around.
*
When faster than wind speed is achieved, the blades are providing propulsion. Generally speaking, it gets its energy from the speed differential between the ground and the wind, even though it is traveling faster than the wind.
*
Here is a video.
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5CcgmpBGSCI

> The wheels push the blades, not the other way around.

That is true in the downwind configuration, but in the upwind configuration the torque that turns the wheels is delivered via the chain, which is turned by the turbine blades. The propeller blades of the downwind vehicle were replace by turbine blades to make this vehicle go directly upwind (other changes were required as well).

Incidentally, credit for the above photo goes to Richard Jenkins (wind powered land speed record holder at 126 mph in the Greenbird). I'm the one in the cart in the photo.

I did not read all the comments but I believe that it works similar to reversing thrust in a moving aircraft to slow it down. In this case they start immobile and the wind behind them. So they reverse the prop angle of attack to make it turn with the wind. As they reach wind speed they change the pitch angle to produce a void in front of the prop and therefore start to produce forward thrust. With acceleration increasing they keep changing angle until max speed is reached and cannot be improved.

It will be interesting to see how the various Aeolus teams in Europe react to the news that ziploc has achieved 2.1 times wind speed when after 4 years of conducting wind turbine powered vehicle races they have yet to equal wind speed. Then there's turbine car pioneer Gustav Winkler, who made one with his physics class at the University of Applied Sciences in Flensburg, Germany in 1981. He believes going wind speed isn't possible.

Winkler previously argued .50 times ws wasn't doable, but was proven wrong at the first Aeolus race in 2008. Whether or not ziploc has proven he is dramatically wrong in his current belief will hopefully become known after the NALSA data and testing procedures are reviewed by Winkler and other key Aeolus 2012 participants in Den Helder next month.

Physicist:

Against the wind, 2x wind speed makes perfect sense. Sailboats do this all the time due to the force vector resulting from the relative difference in boat's velocity against the incoming wind. You will continue to accelerate until the friction forces (boat and sail) balance the wind force vector in the direction of the boat's travel. Travel with the wind is a different story. No sailboat has ever gone faster than wind speed. Actually, much slower. An interesting viewpoint is in the wind car going exactly the same speed as the wind results in zero relative velocity. So going faster than wind speed with the wind would be equivalent to moving with zero wind. Clearly, there's no start because there is no force. Now suppose someone pushes the car at 5 miles per hour. This will create a head wind of 5 miles per hour. In order to travel as fast as this artificial wind speed it would be necessary to have sufficient energy from the prop to create the work required to maintain geared force to the wheels to support the 5 mph velocity (people stop pushing now). So if you really could go faster than the wind speed it would mean that you could generate the force at the wheels required to do this and more so as to accelerate faster than this artificial wind speed. That is simply not possible from a conservation of energy standpoint. There will always be losses (mechanical, aerodynamic, etc). Therefore, under the pure conditions described it will not be possible to maintain speed nor accelerate. The only way you could maintain speed or accelerate is if the wind speed were different at the top of the prop compared to the ground, i.e. you could have a reverse wind at the top of the prop and that could explain your results. But for a purely uniform laminar flow going faster than wind speed with the wind would be like going faster than zero with no wind whatsoever. This not possible in the purest sense.

Physicist:

Against the wind, 2x wind speed makes perfect sense. Sailboats do this (or some different ratio of speed greater than 1) all the time due to the force vector resulting from the relative difference in boat's velocity against the incoming wind. You will continue to accelerate until the friction forces (boat and sail) balance the wind force vector in the direction of the boat's travel. Travel with the wind is a different story. No sailboat has ever gone faster than wind speed. Actually, much slower. An interesting viewpoint is the wind car going exactly the same speed as the wind results in zero relative velocity. So going faster than wind speed with the wind would be equivalent to moving with zero wind. Clearly, in this equivalent analogy there's no start because there is no force. Now suppose someone pushes the car at 5 miles per hour. This will create an artifical head wind of 5 miles per hour. In order to travel as fast as this artificial head speed it would be necessary to have sufficient energy from the prop to create the work required to maintain geared force to the wheels to support the 5 mph velocity (assuming the people stop pushing). So if you really could go faster than the wind speed it would mean in this equivalent case that you could generate the force at the wheels required to do this and more so as to accelerate faster than this artificial wind speed. That is simply not possible from a conservation of energy standpoint. There will always be losses (mechanical, aerodynamic, etc). Therefore, under the pure conditions described it will not be possible to maintain speed nor accelerate in zero wind (with a push or not). The only way in your case that you could maintain speed or accelerate, as observed, is if the wind speed were different at the top of the prop compared to the ground, i.e. you could have a reverse wind (head wind) at the top of the prop and a tail wind on the ground. It's a large prop so this may be possible and is the only way I can see to explain your observations.

> "Against the wind, 2x wind speed makes perfect sense. Sailboats do this..."

Yes, but they don't do it directly into the wind.

> "Travel with the wind is a different story. No sailboat has ever gone faster than wind speed. Actually, much slower."

Sorry, but that simply is not the case. High performance sailboats can tack downwind such that they reach a direct downwind point well before a free-floating balloon.

> "going faster than wind speed with the wind would be equivalent to moving with zero wind."

Actually, going at exactly wind speed with the wind would resulte in zero RELATIVE wind speed. Fortunately, we're not exploiting the energy of the relative wind speed with this vehicle.

> "Now suppose someone pushes the car at 5 miles per hour. This will create an artifical head wind of 5 miles per hour."

This is a wind powered vehicle. It requires "true" wind (i.e. air moving relative to the ground) to operate. What you're suggesting would in fact be impossible. This is not.

> " That is simply not possible from a conservation of energy standpoint."

What you're suggesting would not be possible. What we did (i.e. travel DDWFTTW) is possible - as evidenced by the fact that we did it.

> "The only way in your case that you could maintain speed or accelerate, as observed, is if the wind speed were different at the top of the prop compared to the ground..."

Nope - it works just fine going directly downwind at exactly wind speed all day long - with no gradient.

> "for a purely uniform laminar flow going faster than wind speed with the wind would be like going faster than zero with no wind whatsoever."

Nope - it wouldn't be like that.

> "This not possible in the purest sense."

I can see your mind is made up. If you end up getting curious as to how we DID do it, and achieved a world record going downwind at 2.8X wind speed, feel free to ask.

Roto is quite correct. It is not possible to reach, let alone exceed the wind, directly downwind.

Less than direct travel,exploitation of wind gradients and shears can make it look like it is. That is what happened during the downwind record, where the wind was so variable, that a purely ddw trial was not possible.

To quote Ziploc, the claimant to the record:

"At the dry lake all parties were frustrated with the variable wind. We got some runs in on day one, and I went back to the hotel and spent a few hours looking at the data. You just couldn't possibly steer the cart to follow the wind-shifts (never mind the noise resulting from the dynamics of the wind vane swinging around). On day two the observers agreed to a new approach. They would set a course with one of them on the upwind end and the other on the downwind end. They would coordinate by radio and give me the "go" when both agreed the wind was aligned with them and the course. My job at that point was NOT to follow the local wind, but to maintain a straight line course toward the downwind observer. Those were the instructions. So that's what I did."

Recordings from a fixed vane show the the wind changes direction by up to 2 degrees per second, and does so continuously.

Even if started ddw, it would not be long before the cart and wind went their separate ways. The wind changed direction around the cart, as it maintained a fixed heading. By sheer chance, and near the end of the run, the wind and cart travelled in approximately the same direction for less than 10 seconds, and that is the basis of the ddw claim. At that same time, the windspeed fell from 15mph to 10mph, and the 2.8WS ratio is based on the 10mph wind, and not the 15mph wind that drove it there.

The record is invalid, and the result of allowing the contestant to define the trials, perform all calculations on the acquired data, calibrate the instruments, and select from the entire day of data, a 10 second record window of his choice.
The contestant had full access to the data, and is responsible for all calculations used to determine the record.

> This is a wind powered vehicle. It requires "true" wind
>(i.e. air moving relative to the ground) to operate.)

That is a Wiley Coyote explanation, which can't possibly work.

Below windspeed,the wind can transfer momentum to the cart, but at windspeed, the relative speed of cart and wind is zero, and momentum transfer must cease. As Roto has said, to go beyond that point, the cart creates and artificial wind: a headwind, that is purely drag.

Under that condition, the cart transfers momentum to the wind, and can gain none from it. To support the role of the geared wheels, the ground must transfer momentum to the cart to replace what is lost to the wind, and any additional demands of unavoidable losses. That is; the ground powers the cart, and that is not possible.

The trial was conducted in winds where a rotating airfoil may extract energy from the indirect winds, gradients and sheer, to cover for the failure of the cart in principle.

See the facts here: http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html

Really solar energy and wind energy are the non-conventional and never ending source of energy.
harley for sale

The facts, which will never be directly addressed because of the obvious and damaging consequences, are;

1) The contestant had full access to all of the data, performed all calculations on that data, and selected the record window himself. The discarded data, has many examples of the cart totally failing, and showing the worst performance when ddw - contrary to the contestant's claim.Runs that did not hold promise of a favourable wind, were terminated.

It is a fact that cannot be refuted, that the contestant processed the data that determined his own record.

2)As you can see from the contestant's own words in an earlier post, the wind conditions were so variable, that a ddw trial of the type that most would expect, and one that at least be an approximation to supporting the original claim of behaviour in a wind tunnel, could not be conducted at all.

In its place, an ad-hoc test was patched together, where the cart was allowed to run off-wind. Cavallaro was aware of what the cart would do under those conditions, because he had previously tried the cart under those conditions.

3) The chart in the NALSA link, fully supports the above. The cart starts around 7 degrees off the wind, as it is pushed to be above WS. It stalls, until the wind changes at 588990, and the cart accelerates.
The wind then changes direction in a serpentine pattern around the cart, ( average rate of 1 degree/second), and so very similar to taking and jibbing, and certainly not "ddw".

Eventually, the path of the wind and cart coincide at
589060. Again, by chance, the windspeed (omitted from the chart) falls from 15mph to 10mph in 3 seconds, and a 2.8WS ratio is claimed against the 10mph wind, and not 1.8WS against the 15mph wind that drove it to speed.

There have been other wild claims, all taken at face value by NALSA, and reported as fact. For example, the cart has the "torque of a Corvette", which is about 4000N at the wheel, and a power output of 26kW. From the chart, it can be calculated that the net force is 32N, and power is 300-400W.

The cart is driven by the changing (time varying) wind, and not just that the cart is not ddw. All prior demonstrations, have used those effects, and it was a matter of getting that under NALSA's radar.

NASA's Dr Steve Smith, a witness of the contestant's choice, wrote:

"One other possibility is worth discussing — that it could be the time-variation of the wind direction, rather than simply the fact that the wind is not DDW. There are examples of similar effects in nature that would give some reason to consider this. For example, what is called “dynamic soaring” -- the maneuvering in a wind gradient field (regions where there is a consistent pattern of different wind speed) that allows birds (and gliders) to soar by extracting energy out of the wind gradient field. This is the life-blood of the albatross, and to some extent, the frigate bird. The world record for a radio-controlled glider in dynamic soaring is something close to 400 mph! In the case of the DWFTTW cart, it might be possible to extract a very slight amount of extra energy from the time variation of the wind – I will at least give it additional thought. But it is certainly not the dominant effect, which is much more simple and, (dare I say...) obvious"

The effects of the accelerating winds can't simply be ignored, and the instruments are not fast enough to record them accurately, and even then, do so only in one plane, so do not record sheer or gradients.

Dr Smith may opine that there is another "obvious" explanation, but calculations from the record data, do not support that claim, so it can't be correct. The recorded low power and forces, are in keeping with the first explanation, but not with the calculations said to be the theoretical support for the cart.

As the Observer's report shows, NALSA did note with some doubt, that the cart accelerated, when the wind speed fell from 15mph to 10mph.
As with earlier arguments over the treadmill, stored energy was introduced as a means of misdirection from other possible explanations. Satisfied that the cart had no means of storing energy, they stopped looking.

The real facts can be found here: http://www.nalsa.org/DownWind.html

The facts, which the contestant still avoids confirming or attempting to deny, remain. He was involved in the formation of the rules, provided and calibrated instruments, and performed all calculations on the acquired data.

NALSA are being used as a defensive shield, but it is their authority, and the consequences of Cavallaro's direct influence upon the trials, that is being questioned.

NALSA are a sailing club, and not physicists or meteorologists, and may well have accepted Cavallaro's "Wiley Coyote" explanations, just as any randomly-selected sailor may.

The cart was tested in winds that are in no way representative of the conditions of the original claim. The winds are very energetic, changing speed by 7.5mph in 4 seconds, and 35 degrees in a second, even during the record period. The instruments are barely suitable to the task, and stressed beyond that by the extraordinary wind conditions

Does Cavallaro deny that the record claim of 2.8WS, is based upon the above-mentioned wind change, and selected by him from the data, when 5 seconds prior to that, the ratio with respect to the present 15mph wind, was only 1.68WS?

The forum does not permit non-linked url's, but here are some charts that I doubt many will have seen.
Please replace xxxx with htpp
xxxx://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1262/speedpublic.png
xxxx://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7742/directionpublic.png

that should be http....

The facts and official reports can be found at the NALSA website.

The contestant has not denied that he had access to the data, and performed all calculations upon it; that is because it is a fact that he does not want to confirm, but his silence, has.

It should be noted that at no other time during the day of trials, does the cart better 1.8WS, and the record is the result of the dishonest exploitation of chance.

The original claim was for steady-state >WS performance in a constant wind, directly down wind. That claim violates the conservation of energy, but Cavallaro claimed that was not the case, and the solution was a "brainteaser"

Several physics professors have stated that claim would be contrary to known laws, yet none have recanted that statement, supported the record, or Cavallaro's ideas.

NASA's Dr Steve Smith wrote:
"One other possibility is worth discussing — that it could be the time-variation of the wind direction, rather than simply the fact that the wind is not DDW. In the case of the DWFTTW cart, it might be possible to extract a very slight amount of extra energy from the time variation of the wind – I will at least give it additional thought. But it is certainly not the dominant effect, which is much more simple and, (dare I say...) obvious."

"One other observation on the wind data — I am not familiar with the instrumentation used to measure the wind speed in the plots that are presented. The high frequency ( 5hz) oscillations in the wind direction look to me to be partly due to an artifact of the instrumentation. Several possible ways that this would happen occur to me, but each is dependent on assumptions of how the measurements were made, so until I know that, I would not elaborate further on those effects"

The cart was tested in those rapidly time-changing winds, using instruments that would surely produce errors. Dr Smith's "obvious" explanation, contradicts known physical laws, but the conditions for the alternative explanation are more than present. Despite the visual effect, and claims of " the torque of a Corvette" the cart is slow, and needs only ~300W (1/2HP), and ~30N ( 7lbs) net force.

Trials were repeatedly run, until chance and error combined to produce one bogus claim; calculated and selected by Cavallaro.

Lax procedure, and the contestant's direct influence upon the measurement tools and data, are a more likely explanation than the pseudo-science.

Roto : "An interesting viewpoint is the wind car going exactly the same speed as the wind results in zero relative velocity. So going faster than wind speed with the wind would be equivalent to moving with zero wind"

No, it would be not equivalent. The relative velocity to the ground would be different. In the case with true wind the groundspeed is higher than airspeed. Therefore the propeller thrust can be higher than the braking force at the wheels.

If you are interested in details, search for this paper:

Gaunaa, Mac; Øye, Stig; Mikkelsen, Robert (2009). "Theory and Design of Flow Driven Vehicles Using Rotors for Energy Conversion". Marseille, France: Proceedings EWEC 2009.

The cart was tested in winds and conditions that were not representative of the "brainteaser" claim, and can explain the cart's behaviour without the Voodoo Science.
All of that was hidden from public view, to enforce one rather peculiar view of the physical world.

The cart can no more benefit from the difference of "ground speed" and "air speed". The ground is not a source of energy, but produces drag forces that oppose the cart.
Despite the apparent success, none of the physics professors, who also stated the the claim would contradict known laws, have endorsed the theory, let alone the result.

Dr Camp of Spelman College echoes Roto's viewpoint regarding behaviour in still air.

xxxx://blog.makezine.com/2010/11/05/what-ive-learned-about-wind-cart
"I wondered what a physics professor would make of all this, so I emailed Dr. Paul J. Camp, a professor in the physics department at Spelman College in Atlanta, Ga. Camp had helped me with other physics brain-teasers in the past and I appreciated his clear explanations. I asked him to take a look at Goodman’s video, as well as Charles Platt’s article, and the treadmill cart videos. “What do you say?” I asked.

“Impossible,” replied Camp. “Would violate conservation of momentum and conservation of energy … In fact, we can state this in pretty bare terms — for a car moving downwind at wind speed to go a little faster is physically indistinguishable from a car at rest on the ground in stationary air to suddenly leap into motion. What can be done in one inertial frame can be done in any other inertial frame with the same physical circumstances.”

The cited paper is not peer-reviewed, incomplete, and offers no proof; much like the cart and its claims.

@ theengineerovert

You should learn to read your own references to the end. From the MAKE article "What I've Learned About Wind Carts" by Mark Frauenfelder:

---
I was even more convinced that DDWFTTW was real when I learned that Mark Drela, a world-renowned aerodynamicist at MIT, says it’s possible. Drela is the designer and maker of a variety of amazing human-powered, propeller-driven vehicles. In 1998, Drela designed a human-powered airplane called the Daedalus, which set a world record when it island-hopped more than 72 miles from Crete to Santorini.

Drela is also the developer of a computational aerodynamic analysis system called XFOIL, which allows aircraft designs to be tested before they’re built. An article in MIT’s Aero-Astro magazine reports that Drela has “engineered aircraft for Boeing, the wing for the Predator UAV, the keel of America’s Cup yachts, and experimental aircraft used by NASA. In addition to XFOIL, he has written design programs for rotorcraft, machinery blading, and axisymmetric bodies such as zeppelins.”

In other words, Drela knows his stuff. And so what does his analysis conclude?

“Although DDWFTTW seems like it violates physics, it really does not,” Drela explained to me via email. “The various analyses show this, and the cart experiments on YouTube are definitive proof. In my view, the most closely controlled and unambiguous DDWFTTW demo is the cart climbing up the tilted treadmill. The main problem is then convincing some people that this is equivalent to DDWFFTW. But whoever tries to argue against that equivalence is really arguing against Galilean relativity, which is unassailable. So that secondary argument is a complete waste of time.”

So Goodman, Andrews, and Cavallaro have been vindicated. DDWFTTW is possible.
---

Mac Guanaa and Mark Drela hold similar views on the possibilities of ddw travel, but neither has produced a complete mathematical treatment, peer-reviewed paper, or a working cart that has exceeded wind speed. Their one-and-only papers on the topic are informal, incomplete, and know no support from any recognised authors or bodies.

In addition, there are many differences between their ideas, and those of Cavallaro; neither subscribe to the idiosyncratic notions that a propeller is like two tethered ice-boats, tack, or are anything other than a conventional transducer. Their ideas are unproven speculations upon established aerodynamic theory, which may or may not come to pass, and not contrary to established physical laws.

Mac Guanaa is an Aeolus (upwind cart races) team member. Despite the claim that there is no theoretical limit to upwind travel, the races have yet to produce a cart that can exceed wind speed. The Aeolus races represent the best controlled and regulated upwind trials to date. The sudden appearance of a cart which can triple the current record, would be remarkable, and subject to scrutiny and analysis.

That situation contrasts with a lone claimant, who conducts his trials in private, according to his standards and rules, based upon ideas that lack any cohesive theoretical support.

As such, the existence of two general and speculative papers, do nothing to support Cavallaro's specific claims, nor to deny the highly plausible explanation that rapidly changing winds, and ad-hoc test methods are responsible for the apparently extraordinary result. The one peer-reviewed paper on this topic by Blackford (1978),concludes that outside of the hypothetical, >WS travel is not possible.

Cavallaro's claims, carry only NALSA's authority; an all but unknown organisation, who unlike Aelous, are not comprised of academics who respect the scientific method, but amateur sailors, who twice let Cavallaro process the data, and select from that a few seconds of what he thinks represents fact.

"Mac Guanaa and Mark Drela hold similar views on the possibilities of ddw travel,"

In other words: The world's leading aerodynamics and wind-vehicle experts say that 'directly downwind faster than the wind' IS POSSIBLE.

No, they speculate that if certain conditions are met,then >WS may be achieved. However, they do not provide any proof. The only peer-reviewed paper on this topic, by Dr Blackford, also mentions the same hypothetical case, but rules that out, if only because the necessary conditions can't be met.

The ideas expressed by Drs Guanaa and Drela, say nothing about Cavallaro's cart. The design aims, and methods proposed by Mac Guanaa for a >WS cart, are not in the least met by the cart's design, so don't apply to that cart, even if Guanna were correct.
Drela's ideas concern only a downwind boat, and are again not at all like those of Cavallaro, and not reflected in the downwind cart's design.

The theories proposed in the NALSA submissions, do not agree with the reported measurements, especially in terms of power and net force; and that applies to both the upwind and downwind cases. The upwind cart has several major parameters, widely contrary to efficient turbine operation.

The cart must therefore, have anther explanation, that is neither that proposed by Cavallaro, Guanaa or Drela.

The recorded results are consistent with the opinion of NALSA's Steve Smith.

"One other possibility is worth discussing — that it could be the time-variation of the wind direction, rather than simply the fact that the wind is not DDW. In the case of the DWFTTW cart, it might be possible to extract a very slight amount of extra energy from the time variation of the wind – I will at least give it additional thought. But it is certainly not the dominant effect, which is much more simple and, (dare I say...) obvious."

The recorded wind conditions are conducive to the first explanation, whereas the "obvious" explanation, which is similar to the "air lever" claim, does not agree with the recorded results.

The upwind cart, which has tripled the record held by Mac Guanaa's cart, is better explained by the volatile wind conditions, lax experimental control, contestant influence, and the naivety of the sailing club, overseeing what is a difficult technical matter.

Further, it is patently dishonest to claim to have run a ddw trial in winds that are constantly changing to the point were following that wind, became impossible.

Some physicists think cold fusion is possible. That does not mean that if I construct a device from two shoe boxes, I can claim it works on the back of their authority. What matters, is the evidence provided by the trials, and how well it supports the claimed theory specific to that cart. The evidence is not what it is claimed to be, and I think that should be investigated by the media publishing the records, as if it were fact.

"No, they speculate that if certain conditions are met,then >WS may be achieved. However, they do not provide any proof."

You either can't read or are a liar. The Wikipedia article on "Sailing_faster_than_the_wind" has several mathematical treatments proving that it is possible with realistic loses.

For example aerodynamics prof Mark Drela from MIT says:
"This confirms that the DDWFTTW condition V/W > 1 is achievable with a wheeled vehicle without too much difficulty."

theengineerover: "....dishonest..."

You have already demonstrated you intellectual dishonesty by selectively quoting from the article by Frauenfelder: You re-quoted some college teacher, but ignored a contrary opinion from a world-renowned aerodynamicist at MIT.

It' quite obvious that you have an agenda, and it's save to assume that all your other claims about the records are equally inaccurate.

Well, we wouldn't want any disingenuity or intellectual dishonesty; that would be wholly wrong.

There are even more "proofs" to be found than listed by Wiki, each peddling a pet theory or interpretation.

Dr Drela's paper did not meet wholesale approval when posted at boatdesign.net, and many points were left answered, including requests for a complete energy analysis; only a partial analysis was presented.

One means of verifying which of the many theories may be correct, would be to see how well each theory matches the recorded experimental data. Cavallaro's calculations are well wide of the measured results, which predict large net forces and high power, whereas the data suggests 32N net force, 300W, and not the 4000N and 26KW of the "torque of a Corvette" claim. To give some scale to that, the average acceleration during the record run is ~0.11ms-2, whereas the initial push, which resulted in the cart reaching wind speed, the acceleration peaked at ~0.4ms-2. Four times what the cart achieved on its own.

Dr Camp is not the only sceptic. There are Drs Rhett Allain and Dan Kammen for example.
Perhaps one means of determining who is correct, would be to present those gentlemen, and Drs Drela and Guanaa, with the source trial data, and then revisit them for their current opinions.
NALSA should be able to supply the data.

Keep in mind that direct fttw travel is a minority subject, with no published support other than coming from the claimants themselves.
It is not reasonable to expect that NALSA would have the technical know-how to deny what any competitor may claim as his theory, and in this specific case, the internet provides ample evidence of what may occur should Cavallaro be contradicted.

Perhaps this magazine would care to undertake that task, and see that the results are reviewed by more appropriate authority?
I understand that Wired's Adam Fischer was present at the upwind trial, so perhaps he may like to follow up on earlier articles.

It simply fantastic and we should believe on it. It has been proved and the team is doing great job. Holiday Inn Club Vacations at Lake Geneva Resort

Toys. Geez. Toys that can't exist. They are against the Law.