Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,911 Year: 4,168/9,624 Month: 1,039/974 Week: 366/286 Day: 9/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Reuse Design?
Nij
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 51 of 60 (583570)
09-28-2010 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Buzsaw
09-27-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Re Perhaps Too Extreme
Probably because making it "light and compact" means it is unable to regain the energy used to transport it?
The amount of elastic energy you can store in any material is directly proportional to the amount of material you use. This means that the amount you use sets a finite limit on the energy you might regain from it. If the energy regained from a given amount is less than the amount required to transport that material, you are actually making a loss. Try any size you like, and you find that nothing has the ability to make a gain, or if it does, that gain is so slight that by incorporating the design you end up negating it anyway, whether by the sheer effort of putting it in, or because it breaks down so often, or any of the myriad issues you create by sticking something new in.
That is another good reason why we don't use such devices.
You can have it lightweight or you can have it work efficiently or you can have it compact. But you can't have more than one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Buzsaw, posted 09-27-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 9:13 PM Nij has replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4919 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 60 of 60 (584612)
10-02-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
10-02-2010 9:13 PM


Trading one inefficiency for several others
You're underestimating the amount of energy you would gain when you factor all of the braking you do. Think of a clock. Manpower winds the little spring in the movement and runs the clock, in some cases eight days and others as 31 days
As crashfrog points out, there is a substantial physical difference between a few grams of plastic or metal and a tonne of it.
That tiny little spring is not moving much at all. It's only there to provide energy for a few grams of metal in total. And a few grams of metal moving very low speeds needs bugger-all energy.
I'm not underestimating the energy stored by using a spring or other elastic-energy mechanism at all. If anything, you're underestimating the energy contained in a tonne of car moving at dozens of metres per second.
For example, your car's suspension springs.
They weigh several kilograms each and can store enough energy to lift your car a few inches when fully compressed.
Now scale that upwards until you have a spring which is large enough to store the energy transferred when braking.
They would have to weigh several hundred kilograms in total, and that's only accounting for stopping at the traffic lights if you car is moving at the standard 35mph/50kph urban zone speed limit.
Increase the speed to double that -- the open road limit -- and you have increased the energy of your moving vehicle to 400%, because that's how kinetic energy works: double the speed or velocity means quadruple the energy (assuming the same mass).
That means you need 400% of your several hundred kilograms to stop a moving car at open road speed; let's not even discuss a large transport truck or a semi-unit.
Your car would need to carry a couple of tonnes more steel. There's simply no way to make that economically justifiable if you consider the force required to get it moving in the first place. A V6 in your new Toyota is now as useless as putting a four-stroke in the old one.
And okay then, try aluminium or even carbon fibre. Guess what? Your vehicle might only adding one or half a tonne instead of two now, but it also must be twice the size to fit that material in.
Sorry, Buz, people have thought about this before. They run into the problems described above. It just doesn't work.
{abe: you may have missed out half a sentence in your last paragraph, Buz. There's a single word following the comma, then just a space and a fullstop.}
Edited by Nij, : Noted in message.
Minor grammar changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2010 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024