does anyone know if there has been any research into using a tightly wound coil to store kinetic energy which can then be used to maintain a cars speed on long trips. a purely electric car would require an enormous amount of battery power to keep it running, but what if you were to leave the internal combustion engine intact for the purpose of accelerating, then switch it off and use the energy in this coil to maintain its speed?

energy in the coil??? you mean while it is unwinding?

precisely.

precisely.

well forgive me for being inquisitive...but how exactly is that going to be enough?

thats why im asking. has it ever been tried before, and if so what were the results?

well give me energy calculations for the spring you are trying to use

How would you wind the spring to begin with? How big is this spring going to have to be in order to go say 100 miles? How much does it weigh? I really don't think this would be such a good idea by just asking those questions because the spring would be HUGE, it would weigh a ton or more and it would take a great deal of electricity to wind it up to begin with. :rolleyes:

It would be too heavy. One idea that might be practical for stationary energy storage is a carbon fiber disk, spun at tremendous speeds.

For automotive energy storage, compressed air (http://www.engineair.com.au/) is a more easily-constructed (and lighter) "spring" to employ.

Kinetic batteries are practical now, but waiting (like so many practical, economically-scalable alternatives to centralized and monopolized utilities are) for the overcoming of that infinitely-greater inertia... herd mentality.

In a more independent age still ahead, many of us will likely have flywheels buried in our back yards for storing the energy we all can harvest from sun, wind, water, and earth, and from right where we live.
[link with pop-up removed]

A flywheel rim having: Height = 1-foot OD = 1-foot ID/OD = .75
Max Tensile Stress = 500,000 psi (conservative design best for now)
Specific Gravity = 1.1

will store 3-kwh, weigh 23 pounds, spin up to 100,000 rpm, and incur precession torque from earth rotation of 0.12 foot-pound (causing a nominal 0.6 degree tilt). Motor/generator, bearings, a vacuum enclosure, and controller electronics will have comparable weight, with RPM's proposed siting.

Lead-acid batteries, to store 3-kwh, weigh over 250 pounds [each] and 5 would need to be interconnected.

-flywheel basics (http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/basics.htm)

Flywheels?
Aren't flywheels extraordinarily inefficient? I remember doing some flywheel problems in physics class and something like a three story high wheel spinning around a frictionless axis at great speed didn't even hold enough energy to use a stove for a few minutes...

It's fairly straightforward- a motor-generator/flywheel combination can be considerably simpler, more energy-dense, longer lived, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly than chemical batteries.

http://www.beaconpower.com/_img/ProductPhoto_Flywheel.gif
Beacon Power: About flywheels (http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/flywheels.htm)

Wikipedia: Flywheel Energy Storage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage)

NewsOfInterest: Summary of Flywheel Battery Technologies (http://www.newsofinterest.tv/flywheels/index.php)

RPM Flywheel Info (http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/homepage.htm)

I have long advocated super-flywheel buses and urban delivery trucks that have the mobility to go anywhere in the city, as not tied to trolley lines etc.
(In part because 25 years ago I worked with Dan Rabenhorst of APL's space department, who was earlier developer of super fly wheels - testing various design to destruction. He tended to favor the "spinning brush" design, with glass or carbon fibers leaving radially form the hub, but did also work on some wound filament disks types. They all turn to dust when they fail and the production of a lot of surface area consumes much of the energy. You really do not want solid metal chuncks flying into heavy containment walls for mobile power.)

One thing, quite obvious, regardless of the Hype some of Hypewader's links provide, is that the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys.

In addition to perhaps an order of magnitude, certainly a factor of 5, greater energy / pound storage capacity compared to modern batteries the more important aspect is the extremely low dissipation of energy in charging or discharging of the supper-flywheel compared to ALL batteries. This means for example that the supper flywheel bus can have relatively few "power poles" thru-out the city. Typically buses try to maintain a schedule (let the driver have a "bathroom break" cup of coffee, etc.) There is so little heat produced in recharge that it can be 100 times faster than batteries. In a 30 second stop while passengers get off and on at one of the power pole stops, the bus can recharge more than enough to go many miles of the level, especially if regenerative braking is used.

For the high energy cost era, the US badly needs to get away from traffic jams, pollution, private cars in cities make. The super-fly wheel bus is how. I have posted on it more than a year ago, but do not easily find where.

Since 2007, all IRL IndyCar series racers run on low environmental impact 100% ethanol fuel. Scheduled for release in the U.S. in the summer and in Japan in the autumn of this year, the FCX Clarity runs on hydrogen and emits no CO2 or other environmentally harmful emissions in operation, making it an ideal vehicle for the event. The fuel cell vehicle emits only water and is regarded as the ultimate environmentally responsible vehicle.

The FCX Clarity is powered by the highly compact, efficient and powerful Honda V Flow fuel cell stack. Boasting a low-slung, dynamic and sophisticated appearance made possible by the innovative layout of the fuel cell power plant, the FCX Clarity offers superior design and driving performance as well as environmental responsibility.

Among other duties, the FCX Clarity official car will act as a pace car at the start, leading the 18 race cars participating in the Indy Japan event, and will be on display inside the Twin Ring Motegi paddock.

FCX Clarity: Principal Specifications (U.S. Model)
Number of occupants 4
Motor Max. output 100kW
Max. torque 256N·m
Type AC synchronous electric motor
(permanent magnet)
Fuel cell stack Type PEMFC
(Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell)
Max. output 100kW
Fuel Type Compressed hydrogen gas
Storage High-pressure hydrogen tank(35MPa)
Tank capacity 171 liters
Dimensions(L×W×H) 4,835×1,845×1,470mm
Vehicle weight 1,625kg
Maximum speed 160km/h
Energy storage Lithium ion battery


http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/8572/fcxhydrogenfuelcellhondas5.jpg



Note: All values Honda calculations

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080416FCX-Clarity/

...The fuel cell vehicle emits only water and is regarded as the ultimate environmentally responsible vehicle....No it increases the total CO2 release in the US for at least a couple of decades.*

Very many non fossil fuel power plants need to be built just to get the fixed location loads off the fossil fuel tit. Until there is more non-fossil fuel power available to met these fixed loads it is silly to think of using hydrogen fuel cell cars. -this is just a great diversion by the oil companies** in their TV ads to keep attention from the "here and now" available fuel (alcohol for non-food crops) that is more powerful and about half the cost. Sugar cane alcohol is now more than half the car fuel used in Brazil and that scares the S--- out of the oil companies.

Note here I have not said anything about how impossibly costly the delivery of H2 to your car would be or the fact that storage tank for it would at least increase the weight of the car 50%, lowering its efficiency

DO NOT BE DISTRACTED BY THE OIL COMPANIES – THINK.

Demand the right to cut your cost of driving IN HALF, LOWER the CO2 in the air instead of increasing it by burning fossil fuels,*** and reduce the funding of the Saudi "religious" schools that teach students to hate the US so much that they flew planes into US building on 9/11.

*Almost three units of fossil energy burned at power plant for every unit of energy the H2 fuel cell can produce, even if it were 100% efficient, which is far from being.

** Often in partnership with a car company as neither wants there to be any change from the gas powered car one makes and the other fuels. Both need to divert your attention from the real threat - tropical alcohol. It appears they have 100% succeeded in fooling you.
Coal industry is more diversified - not just 7 global companies, and does not appear to be as dishonest (perhaps just dumber). They are just now starting to do PR about "how secure US would be with liquids from coal plants," but do not tell that they too will be inefficient, more costly fuel, and increase the pollution as the conversion is energy intensive. Not to mention that they will probably increase the pollution of streams and acid rain they already make with greater mining.

***Oil companies do NOT “produce oil” – They “de-sequester” it. It was carbon “safely sequestered” deep in the Earth until they sold it for you to pollute the air, add (who know how much, but something) to global warming. - But what the hell - with current prices it is the most profitable business that exist- but please do not consider taking away their tax breaks, such as the "depletion allowance," etc. :rolleyes:

yeah people...about fuell cell cars only releasing water...it's a darn lie. I went to the exposition of this hydrogen car technology and these things require lots of oil or some sort of chemicals to lubricate it or to cool it down...so it still releases NOX and other harmfull chemicals.

At Billy T.......

One often hears that powering vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells will eliminate pollution; that their only emission is water. In this situation water may be a very dangerous pollutant.

When hydrogen combines with oxygen to produce water in a fuel cell the hydrogen is taken from a tank carried in the vehicle and the oxygen is taken from the air (as it is in gasoline-combustion vehicles). The reaction is 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O . So, for every 2 hydrogen atoms taken from the fuel tank, 1 oxygen atom is taken from the air. An oxygen atom is about 16 times more massive than a hydrogen atom, so the water molecule is 9 times [(16 + 2) / 2] more massive than the 2 hydrogen atoms used to make it.

Where is that water going to go when it is produce by the engine of a vehicle? It will come out as liquid or steam, depending on the "exhaust" temperture.

Depending on the weather conditions produced steam may rise and form clouds around the road, or it may form fog at the road surface, or it may condense and drop on the road. Even in warm weather water on the road will be dangerous. In freezing weather it will make the road downright treacherous, especially if most or all vehicles on the road are powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

The steam could be condensed and stored as very hot water in a tank in the vehicle. Then the vehicle will eventually have to carry 9 times as much mass as the hydrogen fuel tank carried when full, and the tank will be dangerously hot. Carrying the water around in the vehicle will greatly reduce the energy efficiency of the vehicle. The water tank would have to be emptied when the hydrogen tank is filled, or more often if it is not large enough to hold all the water produced by the total amount of hydrogen in the fuel tank. Pure water is good to have, but it sounds like something with which most vehicle drivers will not want to bother.


Don't forget that water vapor is a better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, don't forget the pollution that occurs in the process of producing the hydrogen to be used as fuel; that needs to be studied very carefully.

http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm


The main point is that we are trying to use another type of fuel besides oil, that is why hydrogen will be , for the time being, the best of solutions until something better comes along.

yeah and you dont forget that water is part of a natural Earth cycle and it takes more water molecules to create same sort of greenhouse effect than the number of CO2 molecules

....The main point is that we are trying to use another type of fuel besides oil, that is why hydrogen will be , for the time being, the best of solutions until something better comes along.NONSENSE
Tropical alcohol "came along" in large scale as a car fuel 30 years ago in Brazil. About 100 years ago it was used in small scale (I think the Ford's model A (or T?) often ran on it as back when it first came out, alcohol was more available than gasoline.) The first diesel engines used bio fuel (various oils, but peanut oil was preferred, I think)

Either you work for Oil Company or Auto Company or cannot read with understanding my prior post or are brain dead. Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future and never will be as it is hard to store, inefficiently produced, and not even a fuel in truth - it is an energy storage agent. That gives back only fraction of the energy it took to make it.

I was not speaking of the weight of the hydrogen, but of the sturdy walled tank that can hold it at 200 or more atmospheres pressure or the very heavy metal hydrides than can absorb it on nearly a 1 to 1 atomic ratio. (These hydrides do not cycle well - worse than some batteries - i.e. they soon turn to useless dust and goo, so like batteries, they need to be replaced several times during a 10 year car life. They tend to be costly metals also.)

As far as water in the exhaust being dangerous that too is nonsense. Gasoline car make a lot of H2O. Thus as gas power auto releases H2O, this nonsense of yours eliminates either of the "working for oil or auto company" alternatives above. You seem to be able to read and write. - What does that leave? :shrug: :rolleyes:

There is nothing man can do to increase the H2O in the air significantly by releasing it so long as the sun shines on the oceans and rain falls. Get Real.

***Oil companies do NOT “produce oil” – They “de-sequester” it. It was carbon “safely sequestered” deep in the Earth until they sold it for you to pollute the air, add (who know how much, but something) to global warming. - But what the hell - with current prices it is the most profitable business that exist- but please do not consider taking away their tax breaks, such as the "depletion allowance," etc. :rolleyes:

And if we leave it in the ground, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will continually decrease.

Billy T, you seem to consider forces of precession as prohibitive for stationary flywheel batteries (http://www.vyconenergy.com/apps_other.asp), while curiously advocating flywheels in mobile vehicles (http://members.shaw.ca/sema/Gyrobus_photos.htm) as the more promising application.

I think you have the magnitude of the challenges reversed: The slow, steady precession of planetary rotation is easily managed through the supporting bearings, whether mechanical or magnetic. In mobile applications, heavier and more failure-prone bearings and even gimbals are required for customary power/vehicle weight ratios. Stationary flywheel batteries are more straightforward to implement than mobile ones, because precession due to Earth's rotation is much smaller and more constant than what a moving vehicle induces.

Billy T: "the most practical Earth bound applications are for short term storage. Certainly not for solar and wind energy to power your home thru the night as they suggest. This is because the flywheel axis of rotation is a fixed orientation in space, but the trees in your back yard rotate thru 90 degrees every 6 hours. Get real guys."

The flywheel batteries under development are all about converting intermittent power input into sustained, steady output, without grid dependency. You're overblowing the challenge of slow, constant precession, while hastily dismissing some promising flywheel battery developments.

Didn't Noddy have a windup car?

Billy T, you seem to consider forces of precession as prohibitive for while curiously advocating flywheels in mobile vehicles as the more promising application. ... I think you have the magnitude of the challenges reversed: The slow, steady precession of planetary rotation is easily managed through the supporting bearings, whether mechanical or magnetic. No, not so. - You must have misunderstood my POV. Certainly one can gimbal a stationary flywheel storage system to accommodate a few hours of Earth's rotations, and they will be used, instead of peaking gas turbines in the not too distant future to "shave peaks" - this is a natural development very compatible with nuclear power as those capital-intensive fuel-cheap units need to be "base loaded" 100% of the time if possible.

What I said was that storing in buried backyard flywheel over night energy from your homes solar panels is not attractive because that would require 180 degree gimbals for the first Earth's12 hour of Earth rotation and it gets worse as time passes. I.e. The gimbals must rotate 270 degrees for 18 hours, 360 degrees for a night followed by cloudy day, etc. Pretty soon the wires from the generator are wrapped up tight and at best break, but may short out and destructively dump energy. Now one can use part of the stored energy to torque the angular momentum constantly so that it remains with the local vertical, but that too gets complex and adds expense and some constant energy drain.

I my years ago post recommending the flywheel bus, I did note that there would be some hills too steep for the bus, even if the electric motors, which would be DC for the low speed or stalled bus's torque requirements, could generate the necessary torque. As I recall, I thought the gimbals should allow at least 30 degrees up and down for the bus on hills. The fact that the energy storage is nearly exhausted at least once per hour (Use only few Power Poles along the route, which is fixed and scheduled to assure this. Then little energy or capital is wasted in the low capacity "torque vertical" alignment system.* - Obviously the "power poles" are not on the hillsides, but where it is level.)

On first thought, I do not think it is an attractive idea, but probably it is possible to have two counter rotating flywheels in the same gimbals system - no net angular momentum. Perhaps one should think a little more about this, as there is some redundancy and less energy to dissipate safely in case of failure also.

I do admit that the bus dropping wheel into a pot hole etc is an extra concern for the magnetic bearing designers that is not present in the backyard buried unit. (Unless there is a minor earthquake - then the massive bus on its regular springs has the advantage.)


In mobile applications, heavier and more failure-prone bearings and even gimbals are required for customary power/vehicle weight ratios. Stationary flywheel batteries are more straightforward to implement than mobile ones, because precession due to Earth's rotation is much smaller and more constant than what a moving vehicle induces. I disagree. It is the total accumulation of rotation during the storage period, not the rate of rotation (with in the gimbals limits) that is important. As bus goes up and then down a 25 degree hill, there is no problem even if it has 60 miles per hour speed. (With 30 degree gimbals.) In contrast, even if the day were 30 hours long for slower rotation, the wires still will wrap up and break in the same number of days. - of course you can take the power out thru slip rings - I am just trying to drive home the point that the Earth's rotation ACCUMULATES and the backyard units gimbals must be able to turn fully around more than 1000 times in three years. The bus unit gimbals never accumulate 30 degrees of rotation in the 10 year life of the bus. BTW, the flywheel storage system may need the electric motors periodically repaired, but the basic storage system is so "wear free" that it should be transferred thru about a half dozen busses in turn as they wear out. Contrast that with the electric battery bus: It will need a half dozen sets of batteries before the bus wears out.
-----------
* Because there is so little loss with power transfer and power can be quickly transfered (60 times faster than battery so what battery needs an hour for, flywheel can do in a minute) it is not unreaonable to fully drain the remaining stored energy from the flywheel into the power pole. Then let the weight of th non spining flywheel make it vertical and re charge. - No expense for vertical torquing system etc. The backyard storage flywheel could do somewhat the same thing with the power grid, but the electic company would not like that as on sunny afternoon all would want to do so and recharge later from the power line as nite comes. - I.e. make their load less diversified and exagerate the peaks etc. - They will not let the capital cost of the accumulating Earth's rotation be transfer back to them in form of more peaking units required. etc. Power companies do not like to talk about it as it sounds "anti-green" but they already see the problem with simple solar cells that "run the meter backwards." Every home in the sun at same time with no lights on wants the power company to pay for the energy storage system. Eat the cost of a worse peaking system, but it not serious yet as so few meters do "run backwards" on sunny days.

In contrast, even if the day were 30 hours long for slower rotation, the wires still will wrap up and break in the same number of days. - of course you can take the power out thru slip rings
Or rotary transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_transformer), which don't wear down with friction, and can handle higher rotating speeds.

BillyT- There's no need to gimbal stationary flywheel batteries. If you take a closer look at the ones in development, or even at the growing number of them entering service today, you'll discover that a fixed vertical axis is commonplace. The force of precession being diverted 90 degrees in the direction of rotation is not rotational velocity of the flywheel- it's the prodigious rotational inertia of our planet. There's negligible kinetic storage loss due to precession, because these tall cylindrical flywheels use tidal force to counter precession. Additionally, magnetic bearings are very efficient at handling large forces with minimal friction from one (upper) end.

The RPM website (http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/basics.htm) explains inherent verticality, achieved by exploiting gravity and magnetic bearings thusly:
Precession torque (tending to tilt the flywheel spin axis), for a stationary flywheel battery application (subjected to earth rotation of one revolution per day), does not present serious problems, but is not negligible. It can be computed from:

Precession Torque = (Moment of Inertia) (Spin Rate) (Precession Rate)

For a vertical spin axis, at the earth's equator, the precession rate is due to earth rotation, and is 0.00069 rpm. Before we proceed to some practical flywheels, let's combine the above moment-of-inertia, energy, and precession torque equations. This yields the interesting result:

Precession Torque = 2(Energy)(Precession Rate)/(Spin Rate)

It indicates that high spin-rate flywheels should have less precession torque for the energy they can store.

Gravity can effectively counter this precession torque, to maintain a vertical spin axis, of a flywheel assembly having a levitation force (from its magnetic bearings) at its top. The torque which maintains verticality is:

Tilt restoration torque = (Flywheel rotor weight)(Distance from top to CG) sin(tilt angle)

Normally, the distance from the top to the center-of-gravity (CG) is about half the rotor assembly height. And clearly, for practical maintenance of spin-axis verticality, a long rotor assembly with relatively small diameter is best.

Back to large mobile kinetic batteries, tall cantilevered spindles are not so practical for crash-safety reasons. But in the stationary application, the potential for superior economics and reliability (compared to chemical batteries) is very exciting.

Power (http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/index.htm) and Telephone (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel3/4202/12369/00573406.pdf?temp=x) companies are now purchasing flywheel battery banks for smoothing out their grid service. Kinetic batteries may be simpler to implement than you first thought. Rejoice! Invest!

Next year, Formula One cars will finally be allowed to use regenerative braking, specifically using a flywheel.
http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1160.cfm

to Hypewaders:

Thanks. I did not investigate much yet, but understand now that the spinning flywheel does not need any constructed troquing device if "hung from the top" as then small tilt will allow gravity to apply the torque needed to keep the spin axis nearly aligned with the local vertical.

I was of course well aware the there is no energy required, in principle to change the orientation of the spin axis. (The torque force is orthogonal to the (angular) motion it produces so no work is done.) This is well illustrated in a low friction gyroscope sitting on a table and precessing with essentially no lowering (none if there were no friction losses) of its center of mass. Any energy loss that I spoke of was, like the extra cost, associated with the losses in the torquing mechanism itself, which I falsely assumed would be required, but now I see that clever design can eliminate the need for any such mechanism.

My initial thought about this problem were more along the lines of making the total angular momentum zero by having two co-axial counter-rotating spinning masses. I am glad to learn there is a simpler solution.

Thus I now agree that even over night storage is feasible, but it is interesting that the power companies are also thinking of shorter term load leveling or smoothing applications first. This is no doubt due to the not well appreciated fact that most (typically 80% or more) of your electric bill is not the fuel cost, but mainly the capital cost. Thus, reducing the peak demand (by returning to the grid some stored energy) is very cost effective compared to building larger generation capacity that can handle the peak load.

Many, probably most, power companies that have access to natural gas use gas turbines to service the peaks, even though they are not as efficient, because they are low capital cost per KW of generation capacity. They only run a few hours on a few days each month, so fuel efficiency is not so important.

All of this does not dampen my enthusiasm for the flywheel bus - it increases it as now there will the stationary market for longer term storage in super flywheel to support their production in larger quantities. Thanks again. As they say: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" - I am better informed now. Thanks again - it is even better to learn than to teach. When I have time I will investigate this more.

PS Sorry this was double posted over night – I did not know it got posted at all – computer had some loop so bad even Control-Alt- Delete was ignored and only removing power turned it off. I thought post was lost. There was no virus, unless it removed itself.

What we need is a plug-in hybrid that has a 60 to 100 mile range. Then perhaps we could use a solar panel to charge it if the Utility raises price too high....

Assuming 60 mile range and a midsize car that uses 300 WH/mile, we need 18 KWH of energy to refill. We can use a 3000 Watt solar panel. Then your carbon foot print would be zero.....

What we need is a plug-in hybrid that has a 60 to 100 mile range. Then perhaps we could use a solar panel to charge it ...
Assuming 60 mile range and a midsize car that uses 300 WH/mile, we need 18 KWH of energy to refill. We can use a 3000 Watt solar panel. Then your carbon foot print would be zero. To be simple and reasonable, let’s run car at a mile/minute. (60mph & one hour of driving each day to go your assumed range.) Then that midsize car is using 300WH/minute or 300x60Wminutes /minute or 18,000W or 24.14 horse power, since 745.7 watts is one horse power. That seems a little low to me, especially if the air conditioning on, but is reasonable.

I am more concerned with getting 18KWH from only a 3000W panel.

There is the “size problem.” - It is hard to get 0.1KW of electric power per square meter of panel even from noonday sun in most of US. That alone requires about 30 square meters of Panel. You certainly need more than 30 square meters of panels as charge and discharge cycle of battery is about 50% efficient. The Panels will at least cover the entire “sun side” of the roof of most houses (assuming no shade trees, etc.).

Also it is very rare, where most live in US, that a 3000W peak power solar panel can give average of 18KWH on a mid-winter day. (That is 6 hours of no-clouds noon-day sun.) You could buy larger panel but it would not be required on summer day with clear sky. Thus, I expect your really are planning to get at least half of the energy needed from the local power company.

Why not get it all and avoid the cost of the solar panels (and cleaning the snow off them etc.)? If solar panels were necessary to burn less fossil fuel (they are not) because of CO2 production from the “de-sequestered” oil, coal and natural gas, then would it not be better for the power company to install the solar panels? They would get a better price, cost less to install and total area needed would be less and better used because of the “diversity factor” – you might not drive your 60 miles on the day your neighbor dose.

There is a reason why the power companies are not installing solar cell panel even though they can more cheaply than individuals can. – Guess what it I$. If you want to be kind to the environment, (stop de-sequestering oil) and drive cheaper, import tropical alcohol, duty free. That is solar energy too, and much cheaper way to drive on “sun power.”

Some commercial solar projects:

In its efforts to create a more sustainable community, the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) built solar power generating systems at six facilities.

The 3.1 megawatt photovoltaic solar energy project is one of the largest ever built by a public agency in the United States.

The LVVWD Distributed Solar Array systems generates approximately 5.3 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity per year. The electricity generated by the solar arrays supports onsite operations, including pumping operations and water-treatment processes.

The solar project was developed in partnership with Nevada Power Company and PowerLight Corporation.

--------------------------------

Other large scale projects: http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=43192

http://www.siemenssolar.co.uk/residential.html

http://www.solarhome.org/solarhomegridtiesystems.html

Some commercial solar projects:

In its efforts to create a more sustainable community, the Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) built solar power generating systems at six facilities.

The 3.1 megawatt photovoltaic solar energy project is one of the largest ever built by a public agency in the United States.

The LVVWD Distributed Solar Array systems generates approximately 5.3 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity per year. The electricity generated by the solar arrays supports onsite operations, including pumping operations and water-treatment processes.

The solar project was developed in partnership with Nevada Power Company and PowerLight Corporation. ...As you probably know, states regulate the profit margins of power companies. (Most of what they collect from customers goes to finance the capital loaned them and for operating expenses.) They get to collect a ROI (return on investment) as a slightly greater than unity factor applied to their fixed base on line. Thus, by installing solar cells they can get more profit quickly as the people pay more for their electric power - that is the way the system works. All tax payers pay more also in the subsides given to solar power industry.

It certainly does not show solar cells are the best / most economical power, but that may be the case in sunny Nevada with the various government subsidies allowed for solar power. (I am not sure but think that “thermal coal” delivered to Nevada by rail is costly and that helps solar cells too.) In Germany, the "greens" have not only blocked new nuclear plants but passed laws for the existing ones to be shut down. Germany is currently world's biggest exporter and may for a few year more be able to import the power it needs from France's nuclear generators but they are building on a sand foundation as they are also one of the leading installers of solar cell power. People need to stop distorting the economics of solar power and get realistic.

PS your last ref ( http://www.solarhome.org/solarhomegridtiesystems.html ) by chance is a 3000W peak system and priced at $17,000 when written. That capital invested at 6% gives income of $1,020 annually which at $4/ gallon gas is 255 gallons, which at 30, miles /gallon is 7650 miles. So intially it would look like the solar powered hybrid car, if not too much more expensive than a regular one, is econonomically feasible, (assuming the tax payers continue to heavily subsidize the solar cell industry), but just not as economical as one running on tropical alcohol. (Also solar powered car in fact with very proven ICE and without the need to buy new battery or fuel cells systems a few times during the 10 years of car life.)

Seveal years ago, I priced a 3000W system from Siemens at $9950. The 120W panels themselves do not cost much. It is the inverter etc. One can have a do-it-yourself system cheaper I think by getting those commercial emergency power units and modifying them. Also since Honda runs its Hybrid at 144 Volts, I wonder if we can put 10 or 12 Lead-acid sealed marine batteries in the back which will be a lot cheaper than buying extra Li-ion batteries at $9000 a piece.

Also, if you want to use solar cells to charge the Hybrid, you do not need to convert it to AC and then DC....just buy the solar panels , store the energy in a battery bank, and connect your car to it....may need some votage regulation circuit....

More on do-it-yourself power : http://www.aceguru.com/ITRC/solar1.htm

NONSENSEThe first diesel engines used bio fuel (various oils, but peanut oil was preferred, I think)
I was at a continuing education meeting the other day and sat next to a guy who says he drives a diesel volkswagon and makes his own biodiesel using waste oil from restaurants. He says he gets the waste oil for free from the restaurants that used to have to pay someone to dispose of it.

...a guy who says he drives a diesel volkswagon and makes his own biodiesel using waste oil from restaurants. He says he gets the waste oil for free from the restaurants that used to have to pay someone to dispose of it.That is surprising to me. If it is the old air cooled version the engine must have had considerable modification to get the compression ratio up for no spark ignition. (I had a couple of VW during my time. First was one of the old 36HPs and it had very low compression with big cylinders - It could burn almost anything liquid and exothermic - kerosene was fine (mixed with gas for adequate vaporization), for example and untaxed as a motor fuel. Manual listed benezine, but hard to find in US, perhaps was available in Gremany?) Perhaps the modern water cooled VW are with High compression?

That is surprising to me. If it is the old air cooled version the engine must have had considerable modification to get the compression ratio up for no spark ignition. (I had a couple of VW during my time. First was one of the old 36HPs and it had very low compression with big cylinders - It could burn almost anything liquid and exothermic - kerosene was fine (mixed with gas for adequate vaporization), for example and untaxed as a motor fuel. Manual listed benezine, but hard to find in US, perhaps was available in Gremany?) Perhaps the modern water cooled VW are with High compression?

Some Volkswagen models have diesel engines. That is what he probably used.

Seveal years ago, I priced a 3000W system from Siemens at $9950. The 120W panels themselves do not cost much. It is the inverter etc. One can have a do-it-yourself system cheaper I think by getting those commercial emergency power units and modifying them. Also since Honda runs its Hybrid at 144 Volts, I wonder if we can put 10 or 12 Lead-acid sealed marine batteries in the back which will be a lot cheaper than buying extra Li-ion batteries at $9000 a piece.

Also, if you want to use solar cells to charge the Hybrid, you do not need to convert it to AC and then DC....just buy the solar panels , store the energy in a battery bank, and connect your car to it....may need some votage regulation circuit....

This reminds me of something I was wondering this week. Your high-voltage hybrids are built like you need storage for quite a number of miles, and even so, a lot of them are not plug-ins. If they do not recharge from the wall socket, then their need for energy storage is a lot shorter term than the 50 to 200 miles, "if the engine fails or I run out of gas I can get home", type of capacity. Of course, you and I can't take a Prius and easily convert it to run on a couple of lead-acid batteries the way that some of the earlier hybrids did.

The original theory of a hybrid is that the fuel-based engine runs at maximum efficiency and the electric motor puts that energy on the ground with maximum efficiency. This included the fact that the fuel-based engine can be shut off when not needed to keep the batteries topped off and you spend no fuel while waiting at lights, which is a huge percentage of the fuel wasted on driving in town. The batteries level the load on the gasoline engine. How fancy does that have to be?

-As fancy as we'll put up with, without building our own.

Some Volkswagen models have diesel engines. That is what he probably used.

Huh ? Some ?
Pretty much all models are available with diesel engines..

Huh ? Some ?
Pretty much all models are available with diesel engines..
Not in the US. Thanks to the eco 'tards and their obsession with only exhaust emissions that are smog precursors (SO2/NOX) versus CO and CO2, all the low-displacement tubodiesels that have been sold all across Europe for years have barely been let in the door here. Thankfully that is starting to change.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/16/8390259/index.htm

-As fancy as we'll put up with, without building our own.

It's really hard to build or service any sort of vehicle if the parts aren't standardized and available at your local parts store. Those who build their own have a daunting uphill struggle to face. Where do you even get a suitable electric motor? How do you attach it to the transmission? We are just barely reaching the stage where someone can send the right data file to a manufacturer and get a custom part made without spending thousands of dollars in setup fees, and who has those data files? That's just a machined block of metal, too, not all the tiny subassemblies that some automotive parts have.

Not in the US. Thanks to the eco 'tards and their obsession with only exhaust emissions that are smog precursors (SO2/NOX) versus CO and CO2, all the low-displacement tubodiesels that have been sold all across Europe for years have barely been let in the door here. Thankfully that is starting to change.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/16/8390259/index.htm

They're screwing us over royally.

"Where do you even get a suitable electric motor?"

Surplus military aircraft starter-generators.

"How do you attach it to the transmission?"

There is none: 4 starter-generators get mated directly to the wheel hubs.

I have access to more than enough tooling and brains to integrate and build these. All electrical gear is off-the-shelf stuff. Chassis/cabin/comforts are part of any good vehicle for transplant. I'm starting with a 1968 VW bug.

Hype, there is prior art on this and I suppose that you have actually done this research. It still looks like a lot of unslung weight, taking the long way around, and very hard to do right. How do you get the front two right for steering? I would take the lazy way out and hook the motor to the driveshaft of a rear-drive car, hopefully with a posi-trak differential. Either that or I would find a way to use the transmission of a front-wheel drive car, and yes, there is also prior art for doing that.

Reducing unsprung weight is an axiomatically good thing, as it benefits a wheel's bump-following ability over road surface irregularities as well as the transient response time on turn-in (especially important in performace driving). As a general rule of thumb, a pound of unsprung mass equates to ten times that of sprung mass as far as its effects on handling, acceleration, and braking are concerned.

Of course, I sort of doubt people who are in the market for an economy vehicle care much about such things.

Well, a 6 volt 1000 amp motor costs a huge amount of money and for good reasons. I thought that a three phase motor could be run using solid state controllers and moderately high voltages. It would be cheaper because a lower amperage motor uses a lot less copper. It would also weigh less. Even the $9,000 conversion kit is a lot cheaper than the crap hybrids that sell for $29,000 also.

I just learned that you can strip hydrogen from Steam cheaply using a catalyst. Perhaps that would be another way for a zero carbon footprint....

If we take the carbon dioxide out of the air the plant life will die off.

If we put too much than plants can consume (like breathing pure oxygen for humans) that would not help either....

I suspect that the plants are already consuming as much as we can put out.

Metachron: "How do you get the front two right for steering?"

It's all Amps, and all easy. You can program an inverter to provide constant even power and/or braking to all 4 wheels as required within microseconds. Power and braking are even mixed slightly in sharp turns.

Forget everything you know about cars with (heavy energy-robbing) transmissions.

Hypewaders, if the inside wheel on a turn pulls with as much force as the outside wheel, the car will skitter all over the place. Ever drive a four-wheel drive vehicle on pavement in the wrong setting?

I'm sure it could be done. Ever drive a Mitsubishi Evo? The electronic AWD uses Active Yaw Control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Yaw_Control) to stabilize the vehicle during hard cornering by modulating the clutches between the diffs and each halfshaft. The result is a very precise amount of torque arriving at each tire, exactly when it is needed, in order to keep the car on the tarmac and pointed in the right direction.

You can see AYC in action here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=L69Qxy6OFvs

I certainly wouldn't want to try something like this on a homebrew EV unless I could use someone else's modules and programming, because the effort to DIY would be simply heroic not to mention requiring encyclopedic knowledge of controller design. And again, if the traction motors are mounted directly to the hubs (unsprung weight) then the car is going to handle like a 5,000lb boulevard queen SUV, negating any possible handling benefit. It is a neat idea though.

...
You can see AYC in action here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=L69Qxy6OFvs...I am not into racing etc. but that car is amazing.

Controlling AC motor/generators is easy to do smoothly and reliably through a wide range of RPM and torque, with active compensation for traction and cornering challenges. Mostly vestigial disc brakes take over in emergency or parking. All other braking goes back to the inverter for processing and storage. Energy is becoming transferable just like memory, people. Wake up.

I'm talking homebuilt car here- Because of the corporate structure of design/engineering, they are years behind implementing off-the-shelf solid-state, bullet-proof industrial controls that are already certified and reliable in equipment very similar, and equally as critical in terms of safety.

Military surplus AC starter-generators, programmable controllers, and lotsa batteries (lead acid will do for up to 80 miles at 75 mph). Want more performance? Buy more expensive batteries, or a Honda Generator on a lightweight trailer that plugs into the car and gets 60 mpg.

Off the shelf is now off the charts in terms of value.


I wouldn't lie to you- All of this is off the shelf now.

Did I mention that in the case of a US plug-in car, the average residential power customer gets his transportation energy for the equivalent of around 30 cents/gallon. Which many typical contemporary roof or yard-mounted PV arrays can provide even off grid.

Ponder that.

To hypewader:

I don't doubt what you say about making your own car, but let me warn you:

One summer I worked directly under a man who did. He bought the steel chasic from Ford and perhaps parts of motor and transmission - I forget the details. When he went to register it (in an office, car not visible to the clerk) the clerk asked: "What make is it?" My boss replied: "It's a McCulla." as that was my boss's name.

Big mistake. - The correct response was: "It is a customized Ford." That McCulla needed everything your can think of, but they did wave the crash test data requirements, after a year or so. etc. and several years later it was legally on the road.

Put 3 wheels on it, 2 front, 1 rear.

Not only is it lighter and more stable, there are no crash tests or standards required in any US State. None.

Put 3 wheels on it, 2 front, 1 rear.
Not only is it lighter and more stable, there are no crash tests or standards required in any US State. None.Good idea. Where should the motor be, if there is only one, instead of three? In rear wheel, or near CoG, over the front wheels? - you thoughts - just courious, not about to make a three wheeler (or any car).

3-wheeler...

http://www.ccpc.net/~jaho/images/trimag_sm.jpg

Actually they got a mass produced 3-wheeler called T-rex

If I get the money I am going to do a lot of research before building an electric or a hybrid, but I think that the best bet for the money is to buy your choice of used vehicle. The first hybrid that I read of was a small Subaru pickup truck. It got about 75 mph but only did about 45 mph. Who knows what someone could have done?

What I still haven't worked out is whether there is a viable scheme using three-phase 10 horsepower motors, and I don't even know if 10 hp three-phase is the same as 10 hp DC. Someone out there is putting 6v, 1000 amps through a DC motor and getting 90 mph on a VW Rabbit. That kit is something like $10,000 and most of that is the motor. A three-phase 10 hp motor is about $500. This might also make a good case for keeping the old transmission, which would make a lower torque motor more usable. You can replace half a dozen transmissions for $10,000.

90mph in a Rabbit with only 8bhp? That seems a bit optimistic.

A polyphase motor in theory should be more efficient than a DC brushless design of the same specific output, but ultimately it will probably come down to which controller is more efficient. Synthesizing the three phases and regulating the phase angle from a DC supply would probably need a more complex controller. Something resembling three BLDC controllers, one for each phase, with each referencing the other to keep the right angle of seperation might work. Although the efficiency hit in the controller could be counteracted by having a motor with a much higher power/weight ratio.

Horsepower isn't an easy thing to measure correctly. There is somehow a huge difference between electric motor horsepower and gasoline motor horsepower, and I think that it has something to do with the compressibility of the gases. Yes, you're transferring a certain measurable amount of momentum and all that, but exactly how that works is a riddle that I don't think the mathematicians have solved yet. There is no direct relationship between energy expended and momentum generated.

Horsepower isn't an easy thing to measure correctly. There is somehow a huge difference between electric motor horsepower and gasoline motor horsepower, and I think that it has something to do with the compressibility of the gases. Yes, you're transferring a certain measurable amount of momentum and all that, but exactly how that works is a riddle that I don't think the mathematicians have solved yet. There is no direct relationship between energy expended and momentum generated.Slow down - take time to think a little bit before posting.

Of course there is no direct relationship between momentum MV and even KE or 0.5MV^2.* Any high school physic student knows that.
For example a river barge full of coal has lots of MV but relatively little MV^2 whereas a bullet has relatively less MV but compared to its MV^2.

Certainly that is no "riddle" even to Mathematicians.

Horsepower is easy to measure. I worked one summer for Lion oil company.** They had a dynamometer - machine for measuring HP, torque etc at any speed the motor ran. (My only connection with it was to get free spark plugs, that had 100 or less hours of use, every Friday afternoon for my week-end trip home - very standardize drive, stopping at the one red light even it was green as I made very precise study of fuel economy vs. speed. (Filling tank to line scratched inside the filler tube always at same two pumps, at start and end of 100+ mile trip, parked in same position for air free tank etc.)

SUMMARY: Except for the spelling, there is absolutely nothing correct in this post of yours. - A new record even for you. Were you drunk?
------------
*even less relationship between MV and horsepower ass then with horsePOWER there is the time or rate of KE factor. I.e. even if there were a relationship between KE and MV there still would be none between MV and HP as the same KE in different interval is different HP.

**My summer job was to evaluate a new metal "packing" for a distillation tower they were building. First day on job I mixed 55gal each of benzene and toluene and spent remainer of the summer separating them again, several times. - That perforated metal chip packing was able to make 22 "theoretical plates" in the lab tower (about 3 meters tall) I was using. I wrote my report and went back to school - never did learn if they trusted my work enough buy that costly, but good, packing for the new tower.

Horsepower is easy to measure. I worked one summer for Lion oil company.** They had a dynamometer - machine for measuring HP, torque etc at any speed the motor ran.
Yes, exactly.

Horsepower is very easy to quantify. Using the horsepower equation (http://www.engineersedge.com/motors/rotating_horsepower_equation.htm) we can see that it is a relationship of torque and RPM. HP is an expression of energy in the same way that wattage is a relationship of current and voltage. In that vein, one horsepower is an instantaneous energy measurement equivalent to 746 watts.

So the 6V/1000A motor previously mentioned is dissipating, via Ohm's Law, 6kW (or eight horsepower (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=convert+6000+watts+to+horsepower)) but in reality the brake horsepower at the output shaft would be less than that. More like 6.5bhp assuming an average of 80% efficiency for an induction motor.

Billy, you seem unaware of something that I learned just recently. OK, maybe not, but the thing is, to push the piston and to get the piston to push the car through the drivetrain you have to develop momentum. Developing momentum favors moving larger masses using less energy, which is actually permissible in the momentum and kinetic energy equations.

Induction Motor efficiencies

5 HP standard 84%
5 HP Premium 89.6%

25 HP Standard 90.2%
25 HP Premium 93.0%

100 HP Standard 91.7%
100 HP Premium 95.0%

Here's the deal about momentum versus kinetic energy: A 100 kilogram object travelling at 100 meters per second has a momentum of 10,000 (I don't know what unit) and a kinetic energy of 500,000 joules. A 1000 kilogram object moving at 10 meters per second has a momentum of 10,000 and a kinetic energy of 50,000 joules, the same momentum and 10 times less energy. Spinning up a small object to use to drive a large object is a very energy wasteful procedure. Now maybe someone has already written some really good papers on this subject, but it looks weird. Maybe the methods of transferring momentum do things that we aren't aware of.

The riddle is, how do we efficiently convert a certain amount of energy to momentum and get it to the wheels? Experiments with light and heavy flywheels would demonstrate that we can actually create these situations in the real world, where we have a flywheel with a lot of energy and little momentum, or one with a lot of momentum and little energy. I think that electric motors may show the way to optimum solutions of this riddle.

Then may be use a flywheel....to store that KE....

I'm trying to understand what happens to the kinetic energy that we are trying to convert to momentum.

In my example I was taking a lot of energy and converting it to much less energy at the same momentum. There must be a kinematic model that allows less energy input to produce the same momentum.

... There must be a kinematic model that allows less energy input to produce the same momentum.I gave you the barge vs bullet example earlier. Perhaps if I give another example with the same KE but different momentum (and conversely) you will understand this better:


With the same KE throw a golf ball vs roll a bowling ball. The bowling ball has much more momentum. MV and MV^2 are different functions, stop tying to find the proportionality between them. Or if you prefer you can give the same momentum to the bowling ball with less expendature of energy.

Work on the equation giving the relationship between apples and oranges instead. :D

Hey. Smart guy. Your sugar-cane alcohol produces a certain amount of energy, exactly measurable and predictable. When you use it in an engine that engine converts it to a certain amount of momentum, but that amount of momentum is, AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID YOU TWIT, not going to be the same amount of momentum from every engine or even the same engine in a different car or different gearing system. I am not trying to find the kind of proportionality that I already spend a lot of time explaining doesn't exist, and its non-existence is basic to my thesis. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT CHANGES THE PROPORTION OF ENERGY TO MOMENTUM AND HOW TO EXPLOIT IT. Answer when sober.

...WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT CHANGES THE PROPORTION OF ENERGY TO MOMENTUM AND HOW TO EXPLOIT IT. Answer when sober.For the third time:
Monemtum is mv, which to help you, I will call "M" but keep in mind "m" is for mass
Kinetic energyis mv^2, which to help you, I will call "K" (To keep it simple for you, I have omitted the customary factor of 0.5 - this is just a scale change, like then number of ounces vs number of Kilograms etc.)

Thus one can state: K =vM or in words, what changes the proportion of energy to momentum is v, the speed.

Recall from first post example: river barge has much less v than the bullet, (if both have the same M).
Recall from second post example: bowling ball has much less v than the golf ball, (if both have the same M).

You can not "exploit" it. The monemtum and kinetic energy are two differnt aspect of any moving object. Their functional relationship in this case is that K is a linear function of M and that function is very simple: just multiply M by v to get K. (or v/2 if you wish to return to the more conventional energy scale.)

This is exactly like surface area, A, and volume, V, are two different aspect of any object. In this case the relationship will depend upon the shape but the functional relationship is more complex that just multiplying A by a shape dependent constant to get V in the general case.

For example if the object is a cube, then A = 6L^2 and V=L^3 so V = (1/6)LA which is quite like K = vM case with (6/L) playing the role of v. In general the relationship between V and A is always of the form V = kLA where k is a different constant for each different shape, L is some characteristic linear dimension of the object, and A is still the surface area. In the special case of the cube, k=(1/6) and L is the edge length. (If I made no algebra mistake, interestingly for the sphere, k=(1/6) also as the "characteristic linear dimension of the object, L" is obviously the diameter,D. Or again, V = (1/6)LA = (1/6)DA. )

Your question is of the same mature as:

How can I exploit the surface area to change the volume? Answer is you can not unless you change the shape.

How can I exploit the momentum to change the Kinetic energy? Answer: you can not unless you change the mass (or the speed).*
Or if you prefer:
How can I exploit the Kinetic energy to change the momentum? Answer: you can not unless you change the mass (or the speed).*

If you still do not understand - I quit. you can re-read my three posts some more.
---------------
*Normally one of these two is held constant. Or one of M vs K is held constant to make comparisions.

Billy, I understand that you took the long way around to tell me something that I already knew.

Billy, I understand that you took the long way around to tell me something that I already knew.No - Your confusion is evident in your post 68 where you say:

"The riddle is, how do we efficiently convert a certain amount of {knietic} energy to momentum and get it to the wheels? Experiments with light and heavy flywheels would demonstrate that we can actually create these situations in the real world, where we have a flywheel with a lot of energy and little momentum, or one with a lot of momentum and little energy."

One does not convert energy to momentum as they are not the sort of thing as I explained to you three times. One kilojoule of energy can be assoicaited with a very large momentum (in massive object, like a river barge barely moving) or very tiny monentum in a fast moving grain of sand. Thus, to speak of converting energy to momentum just reflect lack of understanding that they are not at all related. One can equally well and equally stupidly speak of converting {electrical} energy into watts. Fact that your pair are both associated with motion is exactly paralleled in this example where both are quanties associated with electricy.

I.e. to speak of converting “energy to momentum” or to speak of converting “energy into watts” are equally silly and only reflect the ignorance of the speaker.

More to the subject:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0616/074.html?partner=globalnews_newsletter

Forbes gives some data on the new* Litium-ion battery designed for a car soon to be on the market at the lowest cost yet for full size car:

700 pound batter gives 120 mile range and currently costs, even made in China, $25,000 but they hope to bring price down to $6000 in five years with greater production etc. The maker, Tianjin Lishen Battery Joint-Stock, claims to have created a battery that won't overheat by replacing heat-generating cobalt oxide electrodes with cooler-running iron phosphate.*

Testers in China are driving the cars around the clock. Rubin aims to have 30 prototypes on the road in the U.S. and China this summer so contract testing companies can pinpoint problems. Rubin plans to warrant the battery, which is supposed to last ten years, for at least 125,000 miles to ease buyer doubts.
----------
*Not the earlier standard cobalt oxide type that catches fire, exploids, etc.

No - Your confusion is evident in your post 68 where you say:

"The riddle is, how do we efficiently convert a certain amount of {knietic} energy to momentum and get it to the wheels? Experiments with light and heavy flywheels would demonstrate that we can actually create these situations in the real world, where we have a flywheel with a lot of energy and little momentum, or one with a lot of momentum and little energy."

One does not convert energy to momentum as they are not the sort of thing as I explained to you three times. One kilojoule of energy can be assoicaited with a very large momentum (in massive object, like a river barge barely moving) or very tiny monentum in a fast moving grain of sand. Thus, to speak of converting energy to momentum just reflect lack of understanding that they are not at all related. One can equally well and equally stupidly speak of converting {electrical} energy into watts. Fact that your pair are both associated with motion is exactly paralleled in this example where both are quanties associated with electricy.

I.e. to speak of converting “energy to momentum” or to speak of converting “energy into watts” are equally silly and only reflect the ignorance of the speaker.

You truly cannot be serious. What you claim to have explained to me three times is what I explained to you first. It's exactly the same thing. I am the one who told you that there is no direct relationship between momentum and kinetic energy. The actual mathematical relationship is that the formula for kinetic energy is the first integral of the formula for the momentum.

If an object has a kinetic energy of 100 joules that implies that somehow or another 100 joules plus something to make up for inefficiencies can be used to make that object go at that particular speed. We know that an elastic collision with an object of just the right weight carrying that many joules of energy will actually do this, and I'm not going to open Maxwell's book right now, I have to get to bed (yes I have the book). A much lighter object will have to carry far more joules of energy to have the same effect, and a much heavier object will need far fewer joules of energy. If you use a lever, a weight that you drop on one side of the see-saw will flip the weight on the other side up into the air with the amount of kinetic energy that you choose. If the second weight is ten times lighter, it will have ten times the kinetic energy, assuming for convenient math that the see-saw weighs nothing.

If you efficiently transfer the momentum from a heavy weight to a light weight, and the see-saw lever is the easiest way, you actually multiply the kinetic energy that you start with.

Yes, whatever, you convert momentum to momentum, no shit, but we have systems that transform the equivalent of kinetic energy (measured in watt seconds which come 4.19 to the calorie of heat) to the equivalent of kinetic energy. One example that might tell you what I am talking about is the idea of converting fifty watts (as in joules per second) of energy to light to try to drive a motor. That will only turn the vanes of a radiometer. Use the same fifty watts to heat a working fluid for a Stirling engine and you will see a lot more action. The same amount of input energy, by known technology, produces a highly variable amount of momentum when you turn it into light,or moving fluids, or moving weights. You literally get more momentum, up to some point, the more you push with the energy. You have choices that can produce a little bit of momentum or a lot of momentum from the same energy input, and that is what I mean by converting kinetic energy (or equivalent) to momentum.

...If you use a lever, a weight that you drop on one side of the see-saw will flip the weight on the other side up into the air with the amount of kinetic energy that you choose. If the second weight is ten times lighter, it will have ten times the kinetic energy, assuming for convenient math that the see-saw weighs nothing.

If you efficiently transfer the momentum from a heavy weight to a light weight, and the see-saw lever is the easiest way, you actually multiply the kinetic energy that you start with. ...As this is both false and NONSENSE, I did not read further.

I will give you $1,000 for any machine, including a light weight see-saw, that can get more energy output that the energy input to the machine. Let me make it a more modest request:

Instead of your example of a 10 fold increase, just sell me a see-saw that only doubles my energy and the right to copy it. I will build more, hook them in series, and solve the world's energy problems forever. :rolleyes: LOL

PS You should have quit when you only appeared to be confused, instead of dumb (in the sense of totally ignorant of the most basic of physics laws: conservation of energy).

Billy, kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. Momentum is. This makes for a delightfully confusing universe, doesn't it?

Offer rejected about the money, though. If I come up with a practical device I know I can get a lot more money than that out of it.

Billy, kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. ...the law of conservation of energy does not state that kinetic energy is conserved, nor did I. You stated ever falsely and foolishly that your see-saw (if light etc.) could create 10 times more output kinetic energy than the input kinetic energy!!!!

Your example was a weight falling on one end of the "perfect see-saw" flipping a weight only one tenth as massive, sitting on the other end of the see-saw up into the air.

You were thinking that the smaller weight would need to be going 10 times faster to conserve momentum, so its KE would be mV^2 vs the original Mv^2 KE as to conserve momentum Mv = mV. (Where the capital letters, of course are for the bigger quantities. I.e. M = 10m and V= 10v in your example.)

That is simply all wrong and NONSENSE. The sooner you admit your error the less lasting is the impression the your are just very ignorant.

hey Billy_T...here is an awesome free energy everywhere idea...capturing neutrinos and converting them to energy. lolz. Now that you know it, just invent a good capturing device. =p

The thing is that a person might be able to take a heavy moving object and transfer its momentum in a way that increases the kinetic energy available in the system, but it might still not release more kinetic energy than it takes to accelerate the heavy object in the first place. I have an open mind, not a hole in my head.

The point is that it is really easy to inefficiently transfer momentum, and that means that inefficiencies may exist that can be cured.

the law of conservation of energy does not state that kinetic energy is conserved, nor did I. You stated ever falsely and foolishly that your see-saw (if light etc.) could create 10 times more output kinetic energy than the input kinetic energy!!!!

Your example was a weight falling on one end of the "perfect see-saw" flipping a weight only one tenth as massive, sitting on the other end of the see-saw up into the air.

You were thinking that the smaller weight would need to be going 10 times faster to conserve momentum, so its KE would be mV^2 vs the original Mv^2 KE as to conserve momentum Mv = mV. (Where the capital letters, of course are for the bigger quantities. I.e. M = 10m and V= 10v in your example.)

That is simply all wrong and NONSENSE. The sooner you admit your error the less lasting will be the impression the your are very ignorant will be.

The smaller weight does need to be going ten times faster to conserve momentum. M1 * V1 = M2 * V2

...and so the Bible read: 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

100% of the energy can not be transformed to work

&

Entropy can be produced but never destroyed

The smaller weight does need to be going ten times faster to conserve momentum. M1 * V1 = M2 * V2There appears to be no limit to your exhibiton of stupidity!!

If M1 is the weigh dropped on the see-saw and is ten times more massive than M2 sitting on the other end then you stated (an amazingly still do!) that:

M1 = 10*M2 so (10*M2) * V1 = M2*V2

or dividing out the M2 factor from both sides:

10V1 = V2
or in words that V2, the speed of the smaller weight, is ten times greater that the speed of the more massive weight.

then you applied the KE equation to get the input KE1 as M1 *V1^2 and the output KE2 as M2*V2^2 = (M1/10) * (10*V1^2) = 10*M1*V1^2 = 10*KE1

I am sure that is why you falsely think you have a 10 fold gain in KE, (i.e. KE2= 10*KE1). Also why you are now stating KE need not be conserved (that part is true)
---------------------

PS We can continue this if you like having your "nose rubbed in it," But to encourage you to finally admit how dumb you were, I ask you:

How did the end of the see-saw with the little weight sitting on it move upwards ten times faster than the end with the big weight was going down?

By asking, I am assuming your stupidity is not infinite.

yea guys...remember that you are forgetting about friction here...and transfer of energy to heat...as well as light sometimes...UV energy...

yea guys...remember that you are forgetting about friction here...and transfer of energy to heat...as well as light sometimes...UV energy...Yes, and the see-saw is sitting on a curved Earth. Hehehe.

I am sure that is why you falsely think you have a 10 fold gain in KE, (i.e. KE2= 10*KE1). Also why you are now stating KE need not be conserved (that part is true)
---------------------

PS We can continue this if you like having your "nose rubbed in it," But to encourage you to finally admit how dumb you were, I ask you:

How did the end of the see-saw with the little weight sitting on it move upwards ten times faster than the end with the big weight was going down?

By asking, I am assuming your stupidity is not infinite.

It is safe to assume that I know how a lever works to trade force for distance and that I meant a hypothetical seesaw with one leg ten times the length of the other. It is also hypothetically rigid. The smaller weight goes ten times as fast. It weighs ten times less. Add it all up you have ten times the kinetic energy on the lighter side. For the sake of the hypothetical model I have excluded friction and the weight of the seesaw. It's easy to see that a realworld model could have a 1 kg weight on the short side and a 50 g weight on the long side, and that the seesaw lever could be a little bit longer to compensate for weight and friction. The increase in speed depends on the ratio between the lengths of the two sides of the seesaw.

You haven't said why you think it is false that there is a tenfold increase in kinetic energy, even while admitting that formula shows that there is, in the hypothetical idealized model.

The fact that a given amount of energy could be converted to light which is incapable of transferring significant momentum proves that a lot of work can be lost in the conversion process. I am talking about minimizing the amount of work that is lost when using chemical or electrical energy to create momentum that is transfered to the wheels of the car.

...and so the Bible read: 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

100% of the energy can not be transformed to work

&

Entropy can be produced but never destroyed

And the first law, the law of conservation of energy, is false. Conservation of momentum is true.

One of the smart guys here told me about this a few months ago.

And the first law, the law of conservation of energy, is false. Conservation of momentum is true.

One of the smart guys here told me about this a few months ago.

yea well tell me his/her name so that I can label them as idiots :p

yea well tell me his/her name so that I can label them as idiots :p

You would be wrong. Look up the term "momentum" on Wikipedia and Google. Try to find three reliable sources.

... You haven't said why you think it is false that there is a tenfold increase in kinetic energy ...Yes, I have. I told you that energy is conserved so you can not increase if by a factor of 10 as you are suggesting.

I am sadistically enjoying your repeated and insistant statement that you can get more energy out of a system than the energy input into the system. It is seldom anyone is so publicly foolish. But as you often post NONSENSE, you deserves this public humiliation more than others who only occasionally post NONSENSE.

I will tell you now the nature of the two errors:

(1) You do not understand the system
(2) Even in the analysis of the poorly understood system, you make a false assumption to over simplified it.

... You haven't said why you think it is false that there is a tenfold increase in kinetic energy, even while admitting that formula shows that there is, in the hypothetical idealized model. ...NO, I did NOT admit "that formula shows that there is," {Energy gain} In my post 85, I told what I guessed was YOUR false reasoning that lead you to the false conclusion of a ten fold energy gain. In post 85, I did not bother to point out exactly where your mistake is. I do that in my next post, to keep this one shorter.

Yes, I have. I told you that energy is conserved so you can not increase if by a factor of 10 as you are suggesting.

I am sadistically enjoying your repeated and insistant statement that you can get more energy out of a system than the energy input into the system. It is seldom anyone is so publicly foolish. But as you often post NONSENSE, you deserves this public humiliation more than others who only occasionally post NONSENSE.

I will tell you now the nature of the two errors:

(1) You do not understand the system
(2) Even in the analysis of the poorly understood system, you make a false assumption to over simplified it.
NO, I did NOT admit "that formula shows that there is," {Energy gain} In my post 85, I told what I guessed was YOUR false reasoning that lead you to the false conclusion of a ten fold energy gain. In post 85, I did not bother to point out exactly where your mistake is. I do that in my next post, to keep this one shorter.

Not a factor of ten, a multiple of ten.

Didn't I just say that even knowing how much kinetic energy is in my hypothetical heavy object, I don't know how much energy it takes to get that much kinetic energy into it? And no, kinetic energy is not conserved so you can't use that rule. The way that kinetic energy and momentum work, you can conserve one or the other but not both.

m1*v1 = m2*v2 cannot coexist with the false equation 1/2m1v1^2 = 1/2m2v2^2

Billy, you're the one who told me that any high school physics student knows the law of conservation of momentum. It is nearly trivial to prove, as we have already in this thread, that this contradicts the law of conservation if we apply such a law to kinetic energy.

Not a factor of ten, a multiple of ten. ...The way that kinetic energy and momentum work, you can conserve one or the other but not both. ...I fail to see any difference between "a factor of" and "a multiple of" ten, but I will not argue symantics with you.

Instead, as you continue to stubbornly display your stupidity, I will now explicity show where the second of your two errors is. Because you have a false assumption, an "error of analysis," you computed 10, for the energy gain ("multiple") instead of 2.5, but that is still impossible and due to your lack of understanding of the system. (Which is your first, and more serious error. - I may explain that to you later.)

OK, Below I do the analysis of your FALSELY UNDERSTOOD system correctly for you. I have waited for you to correct your mistake, but doing this analysis correctly seems to be beyond your capabilities.

Like you, I will assume an idea see-saw, i.e. it has no mass and yet is completely rigid and does not absorb any energy.* My notation is easy to remember: All small letters refer to the small mass, m, even though its speed after contact, s, is ten times greater than the big mass’s speed, S, due to fact mass m is sitting initially on the see-saw's lever arm that is 10 times longer. I.e. s =10S and also by your assumption, M =10m gives the relationship between the two masses. Before contact the speed of m is zero, i.e. v = 0, and speed of the big mass is called V.

For notational convenience, I measure energy in “half Joule” units. (This avoids the usual 0.5 factor.)

Thus, T1, the Total energy input to the system is MV^2; and after M's contact with the see-saw:
The total energy, T2 = MS^2 + ms^2 = MS^2 + (M/10)(10S)^2 = 10MS^2.

You think that the energy gain, G = (T2 / T1) = 10(S / V)^2 is 10, because you falsely assume that S = V. This S = V error is but ONE of your errors. You cannot even analyze the wrong system correctly! S < V because the small mass has acquired kinetic energy. Conservation of energy implies that the velocity of the big mass must become less. But in post 89 you foolishly state:

... the law of conservation of energy, is false. Conservation of momentum is true....They are both true.


I will now do your false system's analysis correctly; i. e. without your false S = V assumption, but keep in mind the results are still NONSENSE, as you do not understand the system. That is your major error, but I may (or may not) explain it to you later. For now, I only provide a hint in the footnote. I.e. I am giving you time to correct your major conceptual error by yourself.

To find the relationship between S and V, you should have applied “conservation of momentum” correctly instead of assuming S = V (but still will get the wrong result due to your other, more important, conceptual error) .

The pre-contact total momentum, M1 = MV. The after contact the total momentum, M2, is:

M2 = MS + ms = MS +10mS = MS +10(M/10)S = MS + MS so: M2 = 2MS.
{I show each step as I realize your abilities are limited.}:D

Now you apply (incorrectly) “conservation of momentum” i.e. M1 = M2 or using the two bold equations just above, MV = 2MS and,
then dividing by 2M, conclude S = V/2, which is very different from your false assumption.

Then from the above, G = 10(S / V)^2 = 10(1/2)^2 = 10/4 = 2.5, not 10.

I.e. the impossible energy gain is not your 10, but a still NON-SENSICAL, 2.5.

-------------
*This implies an infinitely large force at the moment of contact, but as F = ma was not used in the analysis, that did not cause mathematical problems. This does provide a hint for understanding the problem correctly. (I.e. is a hint for seeing your major error.)

So, Billy, you calculate a different amount of gain in kinetic energy but simply refuse to believe it. Perhaps you distracted yourself with all of the digs that you were taking at me.

Also, you're such a mathematician and you don't know the difference between a factor of ten and a multiple of ten?

So, Billy, you calculate a different amount of gain in kinetic energy but simply refuse to believe it. ...My value is the correct one for your, conceptually-wrong, misunderstanding of the system. You need to think more cleary about the physics of the system to understand fully the system. That failure to understand the problem is your more important error, although your second error was bad - i.e. making a false, unjustified assumption.

Perhaps you most important error is your unfounded arrogance, which allows you to repeatedly contradict at least one of the two best founded laws of physics. Every intelligent high school student of physic accepts that BOTH energy and momentum (of any closed system) are constant or "conserved" under all possible processes.

I will give you a second hint now:

I have called the original (just before the big mass contacts the see-saw) momentum M1 and after its contact, M2 is the total momentum of the system.

As stated earlier, M1 = MV, and that is correct for both your misunderstood system and the correct system.

Howerer, only for your misunderstood model of the system is M2 = MS + ms, again with the symbols as defined in my prior post. When you correctly understand the system, you will understand that although momentum is conserved; i.e. M1 = M2, M2 < MS + ms, not equal to MS + ms.

It is this failure to understand the system and the false equating of M2 to the sum of MS + ms, which leads you to the obvious error (an energy gain of 2.5times). You should know that you NEVER can get more energy out of the system than you put into it.

Only you unfounded arrogance allows to accept this "free lunch" result and repeatedly contradict all physicists since Newton. If you were more humble, and you certainly should be, then you would not be stating that every physicist that has ever lived since Newton is wrong and only you are correct about the conservation of both momentum and energy.

I now have given you two hints about the nature of your conceptual error. If you still need more I will give you another one. I would prefer you understand what is your serious conceptual error in understanding the system, instead of me explaining it to you. Try to think about what is the system or ask me for a third hint.

I'm not interested. Too many personal attacks.

The truth is, Billy, that you are just a demented, sick, sad old man. You do not look better when you make all those putdowns, you just look sad. You couldn't make a positive contribution to the world if you tried.

I'm not interested. Too many personal attacks.OK, but for the benefit of other readers who do wish to learn, here is the third hint I would have given you - it essentially points directly at your mistake:

Imagine that the see-saw is not on earth but strapped to a tiny asteroid whose mass (for simplicity) is equal to M +m. Then consider what that "infinite force" of the first hint (the footnote in post 95) does in terms of the action / reaction force pair that slows the big mass down and flips the little mass up. Then you would understand that this is a three-body, not a two-body system.

I will call the momentum of the asteroid, after contact, Ma. Then the correct equation for M2, the after contact total momentum is:

M2 = MS + ms + Ma.

That is why I told you earlier, as a hint, that M2 < MS + ms.

The Earth is so massive that you do not accelerate it much, even with the infinite, but zero duration, force which the idealized (rigid, mass less etc.) see-saw requires exists. (More properly called, it is an “impulse,” not a “force.) But that infinite force impulse does make Ma very significant to the correct solution of the problem, even when acting on the massive Earth.

In the asteroid case I suggested, Ma = MS + ms. I.e. The momentum you neglected is half the original momentum and MS +ms is the other half. (This may be true even with the Earth, I would need to work the details to see if that is the case, but suspect it may be.)

When you do the problem correctly, you will find that the energy in the little mass plus the energy still in the big mass “is not even equal to the energy that was in the big mass before contact with the see-saw.

Certainly energy given to the little mass is not your gain of 10 nor even 2.5 times multiplied. Even non-physicists know “there is no free lunch.”

Too bad you did not want to get my last "give-it-away" hint and get the correct answer by yourself, but at least you may have learned to be a little more humble and not so arrogant as to tell all physicists since Newton that they are all wrong about conservation of both momentum and energy. It is now quite clear to all who have been reading along that you have a great deal to be humble about as displayed in your many NONSENSE posts.

I have not keep a record, but surely you are now the leader in making nonsense posts.

Like I said, Billy. Like I said. This is what has totally fucked up academia.