|
Perreault Disappointed with Patterson's Declining a Demo of His Ram Implosion Wing at the EO Tech Conf.Patterson Response Included From: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 08:48:03 -0400 Good Day Everyone! Sadly, I don't have anything good to report back about Patterson's Wing that is supposed to increase his vehicles' MPG... Patterson did not prove a thing. I can't believe just how gullible people are. I was supposed to test his claim by documenting the MPG to Provo and back. While I was waiting for him to show up Friday morning I checked the front desk to see when he was going to arrive. I was told that he was not due to arrive until Saturday! When I got to speak to Patterson he gave me the story that the gas fell out of his vehicle and spilled all over the highway, telling me this is why he has "stood me up." The big hole in his story is that he arrived on time according to the front desk check in desk where he was lodging. I investigated his wing Saturday afternoon in the parking lot when everyone was inside. I took several close-up pictures for Eric Krieg to post on his website. These photos will reveal that the wing is not aerodynamically true. Its surfaces are uneven and bumpy. This is not like the pictures that have been posted on the internet showing a nicely machined wing. This shows that the photos on the internet are doctored. There is no way that the wing can increase the vehicles' MPG as claimed. In fact, it might even decrease it a tad because of the added weight but most of all, air drag. The flimsy brackets that secure the Wing to the vehicle are scary. I had been mulling over my mind what Patterson's motivation is and then I was
told that he offered a $300 discount for anyone ordering a wing from him at the
conference. He is said to be charging $600 through the internet. It appeared to
me that he constructed the wing with $100 of Plaster of Paris. This is a cool
$500 in his pockets. Sorry, I call it as I see it. Patterson Response
From: Robert A. Patterson
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: patterson
In Defense of my RIW Technology I didnt bring my van to the conference with the new wing on it because I lost mileage due to several reasons, 1) the FloScan fuel sensor caused excessive back pressure on the gas tank and caused the fuel to run out the overflow system. It took time to resolve this issue in part due to the stress of gearing up for the conference. Also I tried to cut corners concerning the fabrication of the wing and it backfired on me. The wing that was mounted on Dan MacBolens 4x4 truck was very rough but it was left in that condition for a specific reason, which was to cause the air not to stick to the wing in order to form vacuum cohesion vs. a laminar viscosity as applied in conventional aerodynamics which would have decreased the fuel enhancements that we were getting. The rough surface equates to the dimpled texture placed on the surface of a golf ball to decrees the wake signature of the ball on its flight through the air. In like manner the wing requires a selective texture so I just left it rough for test purposes. I apologized to Bruce Perreault just as soon as I was introduced to him and explained the reasons, which I cited above, explaining why I was forced to stand him up. He was upset because he had to rent a car to take himself to the University some 40-min distance from the conference site where he had intended to conduct some research. I never promised a demo to anyone other than Bruce. I assume Eric Krieg is the person with the photos as Bruce mentions he took photos on behalf of Eric Krieg. Ironically Eric Krieg has not allowed me to post on his f/e website ever sense I challenged him for the $10-K prize he offers for demonstrating an overunity technology. That technology being the Ram-Implo-Wing, one-gallon of gas using the wing tripled the mileage, and when I confronted Eric with this technology he claimed it was nothing more than a device that manipulates the aerodynamics of the vehicle and therefore did not qualify as an overunity technology. Riblets V shaped grooves V-shaped grooves called Riblets. These grooves inhibit the motion of eddies by preventing them from coming very close to the surface of a wing. By applying these V-shaped grooves to the surface of the wing the Riblets prevent eddies from transporting high-speed fluid close to the surface where it decelerates and saps the aircraft's momentum. These and other concepts are being applied by NASA at the Langley Research Center, which demonstrated that use of the V-shaped grooves leads to a 5 to 6 percent reduction of viscous drag. To be effective, the Riblets must be very closely spaced, like phonograph grooves on a record. It would seem that nature endorses this concept, the skin of a shark has tiny tooth-like denticles called "photomicrographs" that serve the same function as the Riblets, lessening the drag on the shark as it moves through the water. (Ref: Scientific American January 1997 Tackling Turbulence with Supercomputers by Parviz Moin and John Kim pp. 62-68) There are many reasons wings are shaped the way they are; in fact the only way through space-time is flight, that is flight with fixed wings. Some wings are swept back to control shock waves while others are swept forward to form shock waves actually taking advantage of riding on or in the shock waves. The compression lift rule, the idea is to arrange the aircraft and its surfaces so shock waves form and actually reinforce one another to provide lift and thrust. The flying "coke bottle" or the area rule design. The Pinched in waist of a supersonic aircraft is a hallmark of energy transference design reducing fuselage area it compensates for the increase in cross sectional area at the point where the wings are the thickest, and closes the energy transference between the atmosphere and the aircraft. In order to reduce supersonic wave drag further, engineers studied wings and fuselage as a unit presented to the on rushing air. It was important they found that the areas of consecutive cross-section of the plane increasing from the nose and decreasing towards the tail, should add up to the smallest possible curve, under this theory called the area rule design, the perfect shape would be an "egg". (Life Science Library "Flight" Strange Shapes and New Materials p. 183 Time Inc. 1965 Published simultaneously in Canada Library of Congress catalogue card number 65-24362 School and Library distribution by Silver Burdett Company) Robert A. Patterson * * * *
From: Robert A. Patterson
To: Sterling D. Allan
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: more feedback: response invited
PS. to Bruce Perreault's derogatory remarks concerning the money issue The only money that I have ever asked for thus far was the cost of the materials to build the prototype wing for who ever wanted to test one. And then suggested that I might charge $300 dollars total if and when the wing worked as described and improved their fuel mileage, otherwise I was being advised that the wing might sale for as much as $650 dollars after the independent test results started coming in. Robert A. Patterson Bruce Says Matter Was Amicably ResolvedFrom: "nuenergy_scientist" <bap@nuenergy.o*rg> * * * * The whole story
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: [pes_ee] Re: Patterson Responds to Perreault
Sterling!
Here is the complete story...
-Bruce P.
See also
Page posted by SDA,
Aug. 18, 2004 |
|
|