anyone have cool vehicle ideas that would be awesome to see?

[rusty ol ranger]

Perpetual energy is absolutely -not- possible. Nobody has ever created it, and no reputable source has ever claimed otherwise. Friction happens. Energy is lost to heat, sound, etc.

Obviously as a -complete- system, energy is neither created nor destroyed. No machine in existence operates independently, however. Everything known to man slowly bleeds off the energy it begins with into the outside environment.

Youre obviously smarter then i am, but wouldnt you be able to do it if you accounted for friction/energy loss in the output of the compressor? Obviously a bigger compressor would need more energy, but i would think there would be an equallibreum (sp?) At some point.

 

[fastpakr]

Youre obviously smarter then i am, but wouldnt you be able to do it if you accounted for friction/energy loss in the output of the compressor? Obviously a bigger compressor would need more energy, but i would think there would be an equallibreum (sp?) At some point.

What do you mean by account for friction/energy loss?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

What do you mean by account for friction/energy loss?

For instance, say tire A causes X amount of friction with the road, figure in wind resistance at say, 70mph against a 50mph headwind (that way at 55 on a calm day yuu have excess), and the compressor/drivetrain loss is X. So now we need output of Y

Clear as mud?

 

[fastpakr]

That's all great, but it's missing the point that driving the compressor to match that output requires that amount of power. Let's randomly say it requires 50 hp to cover all of those forces combined. If you want to compress the air in the tank so that you can generate that 50hp from some sort of pneumatic drive train, it will require (at least) a 50hp power input to the compressor.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

That's all great, but it's missing the point that driving the compressor to match that output requires that amount of power. Let's randomly say it requires 50 hp to cover all of those forces combined. If you want to compress the air in the tank so that you can generate that 50hp from some sort of pneumatic drive train, it will require (at least) a 50hp power input to the compressor.

Thats true if you run it at 1:1 direct drive. But if you geared the compressor properly you would mutiply the torque supplied to the compressor.

So if you underdrove a large compressor to feed a smaller "engine" wouldnt it keep up?

Like say the compressor/wheel only needs to turn 500 rpm to feed the "engine" st 1000rpm? So through gearing and torque mutiplication wouldnt it (in theory) work?

EDIT

After reading this i realized i confused myself, and, once again, sound like an idiot

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

For instance, say tire A causes X amount of friction with the road, figure in wind resistance at say, 70mph against a 50mph headwind (that way at 55 on a calm day yuu have excess), and the compressor/drivetrain loss is X. So now we need output of Y

Clear as mud?

The problem is the compressor will take more effort to to compress than it will produce to pay for itself.

Just pulling #'s out of air if it takes 10hp to run the compressor the air from the compressor would only run a 5hp motor kind of a thing. You are still losing energy to heat, friction in the rings and bearings, all the plumbing... everything sucks power.

And then you get all the friction of the vehicle which is going to further run the whole thing into the ground.

Not sure how they would be in an automotive setting but compressors are heavy too. The two stage pump on our shop compressor weighs half of a 302.

You could have a gas engine run a compressor that runs everything and then be able to regen during stops... but they already do that with electric hybrids which are much more efficient. If it makes it sound more cool old submarines and battleships kind of a similar arrangement but with diesel/steam turbine over electric.

 

[fastpakr]

Thats true if you run it at 1:1 direct drive. But if you geared the compressor properly you would mutiply the torque supplied to the compressor.

So if you underdrove a large compressor to feed a smaller "engine" wouldnt it keep up?

Like say the compressor/wheel only needs to turn 500 rpm to feed the "engine" st 1000rpm? So through gearing and torque mutiplication wouldnt it (in theory) work?

That's not how gearing works. If you change the gearing to cut the input torque requirement in half, you need to turn it twice as fast to get the same work done. The total amount of power involved doesn't change at all.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

That's not how gearing works. If you change the gearing to cut the input torque requirement in half, you need to turn it twice as fast to get the same work done. The total amount of power involved doesn't change at all.

Yes, i understand that.

If it takes 100ftlb to turn something its going to take 100 ftlb.

But if theres no torque mutiplication thru gearing, then why cant you just take off in 5th from idle in a pickup? But you can in first. Since in either gear your spinning 650 or so rpm and the engine is making the same torque, then it should work right?

 

[adsm08]

Youre obviously smarter then i am, but wouldnt you be able to do it if you accounted for friction/energy loss in the output of the compressor? Obviously a bigger compressor would need more energy, but i would think there would be an equallibreum (sp?) At some point.

There can never be an equilibrium point in your formula.

Your model assumes no losses from a regeneration system that provides less than 100% efficiency. There is no such system, everything has inefficiencies, and so there must be some loss of total energy from the system at some point.

This is why is you use a battery to run an electric motor that spins a generator that charges the battery the battery will eventually discharge. That's why fully electric cars with regenerative braking still need charging stations.

 

[fastpakr]

Yes, i understand that.

If it takes 100ftlb to turn something its going to take 100 ftlb.

But if theres no torque mutiplication thru gearing, then why cant you just take off in 5th from idle in a pickup? But you can in first. Since in either gear your spinning 650 or so rpm and the engine is making the same torque, then it should work right?

There -is- torque multiplication through gearing. The gear ratios have a direct effect on the output torque. You trade engine speed for torque. But again, it has no effect on the total power requirement which is the fundamental problem in the whole system.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Well, like i said, i thought it would work, but i didnt think enough ahead on it. Which is why im not an engineer

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ok, think breaker bar vs typical 3/8 drive ratchet. Gearing is basically playing with different levers.

You have a lot of torque with a breaker bar but you have to move the thing a long ways to get a little bit of a turn. Like if you move the end of the handle a foot you only get like 20* of rotation. It turns easier but you have to swing it a long ways to get anywhere. Moving the tip of the ratchet handle a foot will get you almost 180* of rotation but you don't have as much torque.

With good clean threads the lugnuts off of one wheel with only a breaker bar and then break them loose with the breaker bar and take them off with a ratchet on another wheel. Which one takes less work?

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Ok, think breaker bar vs typical 3/8 drive ratchet. Gearing is basically playing with different levers.

You have a lot of torque with a breaker bar but you have to move the thing a long ways to get a little bit of a turn. Like if you move the end of the handle a foot you only get like 20* of rotation. It turns easier but you have to swing it a long ways to get anywhere. Moving the tip of the ratchet handle a foot will get you almost 180* of rotation but you don't have as much torque.

With good clean threads the lugnuts off of one wheel with only a breaker bar and then break them loose with the breaker bar and take them off with a ratchet on another wheel. Which one takes less work?

Both take the same amount of work but the ratchet is faster. Either way your moving the lugnut the same distance on the stud.

 

[fastpakr]

Both take the same amount of work but the ratchet is faster. Either way your moving the lugnut the same distance on the stud.

Right.

 

[91stranger]

For all who argue perpetual energy watch the video with the magnet wheels. Here is the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqG-TL0WnjE

You can see the magnets keep the wheel moving and the momentum of the moving wheel starts the process over. The way the magnets are aligned keeps this wheel moving. This wheel will not stop unless someone physically stops it.