Searching \ for '[OT] Almost Free Energy (or not)' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=almost+free+energy
Search entire site for: 'Almost Free Energy (or not)'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Almost Free Energy (or not)'
2011\02\14@192737 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
Hi everyone,

A friend of mine introduced me to one of her friends who was claiming
that he is able to go up to 95km/hr with an electric vehicle that he
designed from scratch (which is not extraordinary).First I thought
it's just one of those electric vehicles that he wanted to build but
sooner I realized that this is something bigger.

He said his vehicle has  500km driving range with 4 standart car
accumulators (12V) connected in serial as power source. At first
glance I said this is simply not possible  because I had been in a
Tesla and I know the very specs of it and I made a reasonable initial
assumption that he can't come up with a better product than those
engineers did because this guy has no education in ANY topic, his
academic career ended after elementary school when he was 8 or so
(seriously).

Before saying anything he wanted me to test his vehicle. He started
the engine and told me to do anything I want. Torque it exerted was in
the range of the classes of motors he is using (550 W x 4 engines) but
(as a car fan and a good driver) acceleration felt very much different
than any other vehicle I had been in. I tested his vehicle and it is
VERY good both in acceleration also in climbing hills compared to
engine it is using. I entered to a 30 degree 10km uphill road at
90km/hr and completed the road at 70km/hr. All these can be done with
precise engineering, nothing wrong till here (relative to the driver
at that moment - which is me).

Interesting this is that after 110-115kms of tripping I stopped at his
workshop to measure battery levels which were suprisingly still around
%60.This is something I couldn't explain. Even before doing any
calculations, I knew that the moves I made while testing his prototype
had to draw way too much than %40 of those batteries, in fact after
80kms machine started amazing me. I had driving experience with lots
of cars (some were even 400hp+) driving this vehicle feels very very
solid and acceleration characteristic is unique I suppose, again it is
different but not in a way that I can express so I asked him what's
the trick and he replied "I honestly don't know". This guy has no
background in anything, he just makes his living repairing cars.

For a yettosecond I considered if there could exist  any possibility
that -this guy- exploited some undiscovered or forgotten phenomenon in
nature that could make transportation easier (I have tendency to
believe) because what was standing front of me didn't fit any movement
system I was aware of. What I can tell from my observations is  that
motion is not created turning the wheels by exerting force on them -
like current cars in market ; instead changing the cars center of
gravity, the body is forced to move forward so energy is used to
change center of gravity and this internal change results origination
of motion in wheels. Wheels are mostly used for directioning, no
constant electrical force exerted on them. I realized it could be a 4
wheel interpreted version of segway's around. I decided to make a
simple test and loaded the car with 800kgs of people (10ppl) also note
that vehicle weights around 1100kg = 1900kg. I was able to turn the
wheel (parallel to ground in +x direction)  with my index finger and
vehicle started moving like it has no friction and 10 people on it.
When vehicle moves lets say 10cm, from my understanding point of view,
I move 2 tons with a push of my finger. The energy I get from this
system is way much bigger than the energy I applied from my
observations. In other words, efficiency is observed to be greater
than 1.

I know that this simply violates conservation of energy thus I wanted
to share with you so if one can spot the missing piece and explain how
come this is possible.

Cheers

2011\02\14@195233 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:27 +0200, "Yigit Turgut" wrote:

> A friend of mine introduced me to one of her friends who was claiming
> that he is able to go up to 95km/hr with an electric vehicle that he

> He said his vehicle has  500km driving range with 4 standart car
> accumulators (12V) connected in serial as power source.
> the range of the classes of motors he is using (550 W x 4 engines) but

> wheel interpreted version of segway's around. I decided to make a
> simple test and loaded the car with 800kgs of people (10ppl) also note
> that vehicle weights around 1100kg = 1900kg.
I don't see how that combination is even remotely possible. 2200 Watts
doesn't get you to 95 km/hr even on a motorcycle, unless it's got an
amazing fairing.

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                         love email again

2011\02\14@195947 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
On 2011-02-14 18:27, Yigit Turgut wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Before saying anything he wanted me to test his vehicle. He started
> the engine and told me to do anything I want. Torque it exerted was in

What does "started the engine"  mean?  In my mind an EV has no engine to start, just electronics that must be turned on before the accelerator pedal is pushed.


Joe Kober

2011\02\14@204615 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 15/02/2011 00:27, Yigit Turgut wrote:
> I know that this simply violates conservation of energy thus I wanted
> to share with you so if one can spot the missing piece and explain how
> come this is possible.
>

Sorry, none of that makes much sense without some proper information i.e. numbers/workings, diagrams, video etc.
For instance - what type/rating are the batteries? How do you *know* that more than 40% of them should have been used during the testing? Were you actually monitoring power draw/levels during testing?
How do you come to the conclusion that "efficiency is greater than 1"?
If motion is not produced by the wheels turning, where do you think it is coming from? How *exactly* does it differ from any other car? You say "even before doing any calculations.." - did you actually do any?
I'm sure there is a reasonably simple explanation for whatever you think is "missing", but you need to take a methodical, scientific approach to working it out (or provide enough reliable data for others to do so)


2011\02\14@224019 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 14/2/2011 23:46, Oli Glaser escreveu:
> On 15/02/2011 00:27, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> I know that this simply violates conservation of energy thus I wanted
>> to share with you so if one can spot the missing piece and explain how
>> come this is possible.
>>
> Sorry, none of that makes much sense without some proper information
> i.e. numbers/workings, diagrams, video etc.
> For instance - what type/rating are the batteries? How do you *know*
> that more than 40% of them should have been used during the testing?
> Were you actually monitoring power draw/levels during testing?
> How do you come to the conclusion that "efficiency is greater than 1"?
> If motion is not produced by the wheels turning, where do you think it
> is coming from? How *exactly* does it differ from any other car? You say
> "even before doing any calculations.." - did you actually do any?
> I'm sure there is a reasonably simple explanation for whatever you think
> is "missing", but you need to take a methodical, scientific approach to
> working it out (or provide enough reliable data for others to do so)


This guy seems to be just trolling around, like those fake testimonials
about the quality of special audiophile power cords.

2011\02\15@100757 by RussellMc

face picon face
The original post does seem to have enough data to support many of the
writer's observations, other comments notwithstanding. This doesn't mean
that they make sense, as he says. The uphill slowing description is
incalculable as the distance is not given. Over 1 metre its very easy. Over
10 km it's not etc.

Method 1:

A motorcycle  with fairing takes about 30 HP to ton *(100 mph)
Power needed is proportional to V^3.

So power needed to do 95 kph ~~~~=
   (95/160)^3 x 30 =

Method 2

Energy due to drag = 1.3 x Cd x A x V^3

    Cd = drag coefficient
    A = area m^2
    V = velocity m/s

At 95 kph V = 26.4 m/s

To get 2200 Watt [[watt]] you need a Cd x A product of 0.15
eg 1 m^2 area and Cd=0.15 (about impossible)
or A - 0.5 m^2 and Cd=0.3 etc.

A picture would be good, but I'd say  a reclining seated position would
allow under 0.5 m^2 frontal area. Add wheels to that and some body drag.
Body drag gets significant as length to area grows. Idf you can add some
"base bleed - air fed out tail to reduce base drag (maybe it stops the
airflow separating prior to the base  but that's getting speculative.

So - I'd say that the very very very best designs going MIGHT approach that
speed.

I haven't tried to look at the rolling while loaded with N people stuff. You
can easily enough decide whether the laws of physics and perfect bearings
allow what you are seeing. If not

Quick glance. If the motors are off ypou can decide. If the motors are on
it's called throttle up :-).


       Russel

2011\02\15@111545 by Kerry Wentworth

flavicon
face
Actually, he specified it as a 30 degree slope 10Km long.  To my knowledge, no such road exists anywhere in the world. He also said that it holds 10 people.  And that it has almost 3 hp.  And weighs about what my Miata does.
None of it adds up in my book.

Kerry


RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.11.13 - Release Date: 10/6/05

2011\02\15@111804 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> He said his vehicle has  500km driving range with 4 standart car
> accumulators (12V) connected in serial as power source.
>
> ...
>
> Before saying anything he wanted me to test his vehicle. He started
> the engine ...

So it's not running totally from 4 car batteries.

> For a yettosecond I considered if there could exist  any possibility
> that -this guy- exploited some undiscovered or forgotten phenomenon in
> nature

Very very very unlikely.  The basic physics of conservation of energy has
been well trodden.  It takes energy to move the car.  That energy has to
come from somehwere.  From your description, too much energy was used so
that it couldn't have come from 4 car batteries alone.  The obvious answer
is additional energy came from somewhere else.  This "engine" thing sounds
like a good suspect.

> (I have tendency to believe)

There's the real problem.  Try physics instead of faith if you want to do
real engineering.

> What I can tell from my observations is  that
> motion is not created turning the wheels by exerting force on them -
> like current cars in market

You've now completely impeached what little credibility you might have had.
Reading anything else you wrote is therefore pointless.  I can't tell if
you're a deliberate fraud or just a gullable person that didn't pay
attention in physics class.  Either way, you're now just a waste of time.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@113222 by John Gardner

picon face
The back of the envelope claims that a 1000 lb. vehicle with a constant
deceleration of .01 g (essentially rolling resistance at 10 mph on level
ground displaces ~200 Watts.

>  500km driving range with 4 standard car accumulators (12V)...In series....

So a bit over 4 AH draw, for 30 hours...

Given new 100 AH "standard car accumulators" it's not possible. And that's
at 16 Km/Hr, under perfect conditions, with a 100% efficient motor.

Real "standard car accumulators" are quickly ruined by deep discharge,
but maybe your friend is getting a good deal on them... :)

Note that my assumptions are pretty optimistic - Your friends' car, loaded as
specified, is surely heavier, has much higher rolling resistance, & operates in
uneven terrain at higher speeds than 16 Km/Hr.

Seems unlikely. Sorry about the gringo units.

Jac

2011\02\15@113839 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Olin Lathrop <spam_OUTolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

He is the one (guy who invented) who already did the engineering part
eventhough without control, I am trying to build a reasonable
theoretical model for this VERY REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. Which means THERE
EXISTS such a system and beside that I am telling that I drove it.
Which part of your 3-piece techo-brain doesn't get the scheme ?
>
>> What I can tell from my observations is  that
>> motion is not created turning the wheels by exerting force on them -
>> like current cars in market
>
> You've now completely impeached what little credibility you might have had.
> Reading anything else you wrote is therefore pointless.  I can't tell if
> you're a deliberate fraud or just a gullable person that didn't pay
> attention in physics class.  Either way, you're now just a waste of time.

I was hoping this [OT] tag wouldn't get specifically to your inbox but
it did ((: Please don't respond to any of my posts and keep on playing
trampOline with your pic's I don't want you to even read my posts ((:

2011\02\15@114532 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Kerry Wentworth wrote:
> Actually, he specified it as a 30 degree slope 10Km long.

Basic high school trig says the road would have had a elevation gain of 5km,
or 16,400 feet.  I think the OP is in Turkey, where the highest mountain is
Mt Ararat, which is 5165m (17,000 feet) above sea level at the top.  Even if
there was a road to the top (which I don't think there is), this would still
be quite a feat.

Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
just a ordinary liar.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@115150 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> He is the one (guy who invented) who already did the engineering part
> eventhough without control, I am trying to build a reasonable
> theoretical model for this VERY REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. Which means THERE
> EXISTS such a system and beside that I am telling that I drove it.
> Which part of your 3-piece techo-brain doesn't get the scheme ?

The part that has weighed the evidence and concluded that at best you are a
gullable person not so good with physics, or a outright liar at worst.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@121938 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
There are some links at my second post on this topic.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote:
> The part that has weighed the evidence and concluded that at best you are a
> gullable person not so good with physics, or a outright liar at worst.

So you assumed the road is linear ? What kind of a perception is that
(((: have you heard the word "helical" ? Don't think with the part of
your brain that has weighed the evidence and concluded that at best I
am a gullable person not so good with physics, or a outright liar at
worst, because that part obviously rotted decades ago ((: You have
issues and everyone knows about them don't pretend like you don't. If
there is a time to open yourself it's now, we are your friends, we can
help you get through this but you have to admit it first ((:


On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Yigit Turgut <y.turgutspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam.....embedinc.com> wrote:
> Yigit Turgut wrote:
> I was hoping this [OT] tag wouldn't get specifically to your inbox but
> it did ((: Please don't respond to any of my posts and keep on playing
> trampOline with your pic's I don't want you to even read my posts ((:

Look it's easy it's just a pattern recognition process. Don't is the
negative sign reading is the operator and my posts is the data all you
have to do is to read and it will automatically be encoded from your
rones and cones as an electrical signal to your occipital lobe and the
rest will be very quick, it won't hurt, we all do it

2011\02\15@121953 by John Gardner

picon face
Mr. Turgut -

Please don't associate my comments with the ad hominem attacks
being posted on this thread.

I guess it"s that time of the month again.

best regards,

Jac

2011\02\15@122503 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 15/02/2011 16:38, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> There's the real problem.  Try physics instead of faith if you want to do
>> >  real engineering.
> He is the one (guy who invented) who already did the engineering part
> eventhough without control, I am trying to build a reasonable
> theoretical model for this VERY REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. Which means THERE
> EXISTS such a system and beside that I am telling that I drove it.
> Which part of your 3-piece techo-brain doesn't get the scheme ?

I don't get the "scheme" either, as there does not seem to be any "scheme" to get..
I generally try to keep an open mind, not get too cynical etc, (prior to a proper scientific investigation) but from the outside I'm afraid this looks like utter nonsense. I would love to be proven wrong though. If this is a "very real world example", then to gather some *real* data, post a video or pictures should be no problem (unless it's top secret of course, but it's unlikely you would be discussing it here if that was the case)
If it's simply something you are trying to understand, then with the requested information I'm sure most folk will be happy to help. If it's something else, well...


2011\02\15@123535 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> So you assumed the road is linear ? What kind of a perception is that
> (((: have you heard the word "helical" ?

If the road is not linear, but involves curves then even more energy will be required to replace the energy scrubbed off by turning.

Even if that wasn't the case, the helix would still need to be as high as the linear road previously mentioned.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\02\15@124212 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> So you assumed the road is linear ?

There is no need to.  A 10km long road that goes up at 30 degree slope will
rise 5km, whether it goes in a straight line or not.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@125124 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM, John Gardner <EraseMEgoflo3spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Turgut -
>
> Please don't associate my comments with the ad hominem attacks
> being posted on this thread.
>
> I guess it"s that time of the month again.
>
> best regards,
>
>  Jack

Dear Jack,

I know your intention is nothing but to help thus feel free to comment
because I posted this topic to clear question marks - thanks for your
constructive reply. I am not  getting the math of this fully either
and I believe there is someone who can explain the phenomena or we can
get to a reasonable solution by discussing as well, doesn't matter one
way or another.


On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Oli Glaser <oli.glaserspamspam_OUTtalktalk.net> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I justify you by your approach because mine was approximately the same
before actually using the vehicle.
There are some links at my second post in this topic feel free to
check them out.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 7:34 PM,  <@spam@alan.b.pearceKILLspamspamstfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> So you assumed the road is linear ? What kind of a perception is that
>> (((: have you heard the word "helical" ?
>
> If the road is not linear, but involves curves then even more energy will be required to replace the energy scrubbed off by turning.
>
> Even if that wasn't the case, the helix would still need to be as high as the linear road previously mentioned.

That's also correct.

2011\02\15@125926 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
> Basic high school trig says the road would have had a elevation gain of 5km,
> or 16,400 feet.  I think the OP is in Turkey, where the highest mountain is
> Mt Ararat, which is 5165m (17,000 feet) above sea level at the top.  Even if
> there was a road to the top (which I don't think there is), this would still
> be quite a feat.
>
> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
> just a ordinary liar.

Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
everywhere ((:

2011\02\15@130838 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 15/02/2011 17:51, Yigit Turgut wrote:
> There are some links at my second post in this topic feel free to
> check them out.

Sorry, I can't find them - do you mean in another thread or something?
Could you repost them here?

2011\02\15@130931 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
On 2011-02-15 11:59, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
>> just a ordinary liar.
> Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
> other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
> everywhere ((:

The very essence of "science" is to find weaknesses in explanations.  It is the best way of "knowing things" humanity has ever come up with.

It would be a simple task to post a Google Maps link showing the road in question.

Joe

2011\02\15@132920 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion
>> is he's just a ordinary liar.
>
> Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
> other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
> everywhere ((:

Pointing out inconsistancies in stated "facts" is important.

So where is this road so that we can all look it up on Google Earth?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  If you in fact drove such
a road and are not embellishing facts (at best), then it should be easy to
show us the proof.  At this point I have concluded you are just making stuff
up.  Go ahead, prove me wrong if you're not.  Yes, this is basically a "put
up or shut up" challenge.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@132957 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 15/02/2011 17:59, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> Basic high school trig says the road would have had a elevation gain of 5km,
>> or 16,400 feet.  I think the OP is in Turkey, where the highest mountain is
>> Mt Ararat, which is 5165m (17,000 feet) above sea level at the top.  Even if
>> there was a road to the top (which I don't think there is), this would still
>> be quite a feat.
>>
>> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
>> just a ordinary liar.
> Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
> other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
> everywhere ((:
>

I think you must expect some heavy scepticism here - as is often said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".
So far none has been forthcoming, so (IMHO) it's looking increasingly like there is none available.
To start the ball rolling, a few direct questions:
Which road were you driving on?
What type of batteries does the car use?
Does the car only use electric motors?
What transmission system is being used?
Can you take a picture of the car?
Can you provide a schematic/diagram of the relevant parts?

2011\02\15@133011 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Joe Koberg <KILLspamjoeKILLspamspamosoft.us> wrote:
> On 2011-02-15 11:59, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>>> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
>>> just a ordinary liar.
>> Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
>> other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
>> everywhere ((:
>
> The very essence of "science" is to find weaknesses in explanations.  It
> is the best way of "knowing things" humanity has ever come up with.

That would be correct if we were discussing an idea instead of a
working device. Anything humanity achieved so far is originated from
observations. You have ears and eyes there is no other vector to put
stuff in your brain.
>
> It would be a simple task to post a Google Maps link showing the road in
> question.

http://www.yenicelebi.com/anaindex-en.html   > there are videos about
the vehicle here also some specifications as well.

video of the road is on their facebook group page >>
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56526331964

2011\02\15@135913 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:29 -0500, "Olin Lathrop" wrote:

> So where is this road so that we can all look it up on Google Earth?
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  If you in fact drove
> such
> a road and are not embellishing facts (at best), then it should be easy
> to
> show us the proof.  At this point I have concluded you are just making
> stuff
> up.  Go ahead, prove me wrong if you're not.  Yes, this is basically a
> "put
> up or shut up" challenge.

Hi Olin,

There is no challenge. In his original post he was saying he witnessed
something that was remarkable and asking if it was possible. He was
finding it unbelievable himself.

There is no need for you to shoot flames. At this point you should just
stop posting in this thread.

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                         wherever you are

2011\02\15@141212 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> That would be correct if we were discussing an idea instead of a
> working device.

But we only have your word on the working device.  To put it bluntly, your
credibility is in question.

For example, let's put the 10km 30 degree road into perspective.  One of the
longest climbs of a road over a relatively short distance I'm familiar with
is US 34 as it climbs west from the plains over the continental divide in
Rocky Mountain Natitional Park in Colorado.  The highest section is locally
known as Trail Ridge Road.  It used to be the highest continuous paved road
in the world.  I don't know if it still is, but it must be near the top of
the list.

Out of curiosity, I checked it with Google Maps to get the elevation and
DeLorme street atlas to get driving distance.  I took the section from about
where the plains end and the mountains begin (that happens quite abruptly
there) to the Trail Ridge Road high point.  According to the two sources I
cited above, the length is 43.6 miles.  It starts out at 5078 feet and ends
at 12150 feet for a total rise of 7071 feet.  The start and end points are
at (40.4130 N, 105.1689 W) and (40.4111 N, 105.7318 W) in case anyone wants
to verify my figures.

7071 feet / 43.6 miles = 3.07%.  That's a pretty decent grade for a real
road to sustaiin for over 40 miles.  3.07% grade means a up angle of
AcrSine(.0307) = 1.76 degrees.  There might certainly be a few steeper
roads, but one with a angle of 30 degrees, which is 50% grade, is really
really hard to imagine.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\02\15@141253 by Robert Csaba Molnar

picon face
Dear Mr Turgut.

I might not know a lot of physics or other stuff, but math I know.
A 30 degree road has a 50% slope. That means that if you drive 10 horizontal kilometers, you will find yourself 5kms higher.  Since you said you drove on the slope, than you should be around 4472 meters above sea level.
You can break down the road in as much segments as you like, all with 50% slope. It will still have the same result.
If you would have said 30% slope instead of 30 degrees, that it would have been a slightly different story, but still a suspicious claim.   
Now lets say that you drove 10 kilometers on a road with at most 30% slope, and an average of 7% slope. This could be something true. Still I doubt that anywhere in the world there are roads build with 30% gradient.

I don't say I don't believe your story. Just that the place where you ran your tests seems out of this world.

--- On Tue, 2/15/11, Yigit Turgut <RemoveMEy.turgutTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

From: Yigit Turgut <spamBeGoney.turgutspamBeGonespamgmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] Almost Free Energy (or not)
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 7:59 PM

> Basic high school trig says the road would have had a elevation gain of 5km,
> or 16,400 feet.  I think the OP is in Turkey, where the highest mountain is
> Mt Ararat, which is 5165m (17,000 feet) above sea level at the top.  Even if
> there was a road to the top (which I don't think there is), this would still
> be quite a feat.
>
> Unless the OP can show us the road he drove, the obvious conclusion is he's
> just a ordinary liar.

Also that measurements are taken due to sea level, try  using the
other part of your brain instead the one trying to find weaknesses
everywhere ((:

2011\02\15@142538 by Joe Koberg

flavicon
face
I would like to point out Frink, which can do unit-based calculations very easily.

http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/#SampleCalculations

For example I can put "100 amps * 48 volts" into the "from" field,  And "hp" into the "to" field, to see (in an ideal world) how many horsepower that battery can produce.

Better yet, try  "100 Amps * 48 Volts * 1 hour"  ->  "km * 100kg * gravity"

Joe




On 2011-02-15 09:07, RussellMc wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>          Russel

2011\02\15@142605 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 15/2/2011 16:30, Yigit Turgut escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

Wow, the guy just discovered a new physical principle:

"The motors used in Celebi Carriage/Transportation System do not bother
with trying to turn the tires. They only shift the center of gravity,
and the wheels are bound to follow the movement of the vehicle. "

The Nobel Prize in Physics next year will certainly be his.

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\02\15@143404 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Robert Csaba Molnar
<molnar_rcsEraseMEspam.....yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Turgut.
>
> I might not know a lot of physics or other stuff, but math I know.
> A 30 degree road has a 50% slope. That means that if you drive 10 horizontal kilometers, you will find yourself 5kms higher.  Since you said you drove on the slope, than you should be around 4472 meters above sea level.
> You can break down the road in as much segments as you like, all with 50% slope. It will still have the same result.
>
> If you would have said 30% slope instead of 30 degrees, that it would have been a slightly different story, but still a suspicious claim.
>
> Now lets say that you drove 10 kilometers on a road with at most 30% slope, and an average of 7% slope. This could be something true. Still I doubt that anywhere in the world there are roads build with 30% gradient.
>
> I don't say I don't believe your story. Just that the place where you ran your tests seems out of this world.

Road is 30 degrees which made it worth for me to share beneath the
efficiency. I do not have detailed information about the test
environment (like coordinates) but it was in Elazig/Turkey where the
structure is mostly consisting of rocks, hills and mountains.There is
no sea at 500km diameter and I didn't have the equipment to measure
the air pressure so I don't know my  distance relative to sea level
but it cannot be lower than a few meters. If you assume the start
point is at sea level then you should be right with your numbers 4 - 5
km's.


On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Isaac Marino Bavaresco
<EraseMEisaacbavarescospamyahoo.com.br> wrote:
>
> Wow, the guy just discovered a new physical principle:
>
> "The motors used in Celebi Carriage/Transportation System do not bother
> with trying to turn the tires. They only shift the center of gravity,
> and the wheels are bound to follow the movement of the vehicle. "
>
> The Nobel Prize in Physics next year will certainly be his.

That's what I was talking about, I find it very hard not to question
this phenomenon and stay non-responsive.If I hadn't seen this with my
own eyes I wouldn't even bother to share. (assuming my MSc is not on
lying)

2011\02\15@150416 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> If you assume the start point is at sea level then you
> should be right with your numbers 4 - 5 km's.

OK, let's take this at face value.  Let's say the car weighed about 1 ton,
which is light for a car.  That's 2000 pounds, or about 9000 Newtons.  If
you take a 9000N car on a trip and it ends up 5000m higher at the end, 45MJ
had to have been expended somewhere somehow.  This has nothing to do with
how curvey or not the path was, how long it took, or what exactly propelled
the car.  This is simply looking at resulting potential energy alone.

Now let's look at a car battery.  Let's be generous and say it is rated for
100 A-h, which means it can put out 100A at 12V for 3600 seconds.  That's
4.3MJ, or less than 1/10 of the absolute minimum it would take to move the
car up 5000m.  4 such batteries simply can't do that, and that's assuming
the entire energy of the battery can be converted to potential energy of the
car.  In reality there will be wind resistance (you said average speed was
about 80km/h = 50 miles/h, so wind resistance is a factor), other sources of
friction, and of course inefficiency in converting the battery energy to
motion.

Clearly something is wrong somewhere.

2011\02\15@153341 by V G

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bob Blick <RemoveMEbobblickEraseMEspamEraseMEftml.net> wrote:

> Hi Olin,
>
> There is no challenge. In his original post he was saying he witnessed
> something that was remarkable and asking if it was possible. He was
> finding it unbelievable himself.
>
> There is no need for you to shoot flames. At this point you should just
> stop posting in this thread.
>
> Bob


This is quite possibly the first time in my life I'm finding myself cheering
Olin on. The claims in the OP's first post sound ridiculous.

Maybe he's exaggerating.

Maybe he's trolling.

Maybe he just wants to get a laugh.

Or maybe he's actually serious

2011\02\15@155936 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 15/2/2011 18:04, Olin Lathrop escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

The site says that the 4 batteries are 150Ah for a total of 25.92MJ,
which is more than half the necessary energy. But still not enough.

2011\02\15@164018 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Isaac Marino Bavaresco
<RemoveMEisaacbavarescospam_OUTspamKILLspamyahoo.com.br> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

It also says the car is only 470kg, so 4600N, hence only 23MJ required
in potential energy. So providing you can extract all that energy from
the batteries with 100% efficient motors, and not too many other
losses it is possible ;) The bigger problem is that the claim is a
minimum speed of 70km/h - even if it was all done at that speed it
would take 8.57 minutes or 514 seconds to cover the 10km, hence 44kW
required power just against gravity, yet only 1.6kW of motors.

Of course if we look at motor power, then consider that for a bicycle,
400W will get you close to 50km/h. Given almost all the power there is
against wind resistance and that power required to overcome wind
resistance goes with the cube of the speed, then 1600W would only get
you close to 80km/h for a bicycle frontal area/Cd - now that car would
appear to have a lot more than a bicycle worth of frontal area.

Chris

2011\02\15@170237 by Kerry Wentworth

flavicon
face
Actually, it says "also note that vehicle weights around 1100kg"

Kerry


Chris McSweeny wrote:
{Quote hidden}

-- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 267.11.13 - Release Date: 10/6/05

2011\02\15@170334 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 15/2/2011 19:40, Chris McSweeny escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

I think his car is too heavy for its apparency. Four 150Ah truck
batteries  would mass something around 160kg to 180kg. The motors shown
in the site shouldn't mass more than a few units of kg each.
For just one person it surely should be possible to build a very light
weight vehicle. I would go for a tubular design, perhaps less than 100kg
in weight.

Isaac

2011\02\15@172514 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Kerry Wentworth
<EraseMEkwentworthspamspamspamBeGoneskunkworksnh.com> wrote:
> Actually, it says "also note that vehicle weights around 1100kg"

Not if you look at the site (which is where Isaac was getting his
battery spec) - the one with 4 150Ah batteries has claimed weight of
550kg (I was looking at chassis weight before).

If I plug 550kg (rather than 470kg) in, then the PE requirement is
actually almost 27MJ, hence not quite enough energy in the batteries
even assuming perfect conversion.

Chri

2011\02\15@191455 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 15 February 2011 13:27, Yigit Turgut <RemoveMEy.turgutKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> I entered to a 30 degree 10km uphill road at
> 90km/hr and completed the road at 70km/hr.

> that vehicle weights around 1100kg = 1900kg.

OK.
Random applied engineering type subject 101

Q: As above.
A: Severely breaks the laws of physics.

Watts reqiuired = vertical m/s x mass x g
Or kg mass x m/S vertical ascent rate x 10 = Watts / Watt /watts /
watt / Wazzup?

For 2200 Watts available and 1100 kg+ mass.

P = 10.V.m

V = {P/(10.m)
= 2200 /10/1100
= 0.2 ,m/s vertical ascent takes ALL the power, before you even start
with windage!

2.  ... 30 degrees ...

Unless this was in Christchurch NZ, and the road is now 10+ x longer
than it was when I last drove up and down it (SCARY!!!)
..then that angle is wrong.

Given the above calculation, very very very wrong.

Conclusion: Must have a magna whatshisface installed or be made by De Lorean.



                   Russel

2011\02\15@203057 by John Gardner

picon face
It's a lot easier to think about how elevation change affects power
in terms of grade, rather than angle.

That's how the original (railroad) engineers figured it, anyway...

Jac

2011\02\15@223959 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 15/02/2011 19:34, Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> I don't say I don't believe your story. Just that the place where you ran your tests seems out of this world.
> Road is 30 degrees which made it worth for me to share beneath the
> efficiency. I do not have detailed information about the test
> environment (like coordinates) but it was in Elazig/Turkey where the
> structure is mostly consisting of rocks, hills and mountains.There is
> no sea at 500km diameter and I didn't have the equipment to measure
> the air pressure so I don't know my  distance relative to sea level
> but it cannot be lower than a few meters. If you assume the start
> point is at sea level then you should be right with your numbers 4 - 5
> km's.

I just had a quick look on Google Maps out of interest.
I can't find anywhere within a ~20km radius of Elazig where the elevation is above ~1600m (there were no mountain symbols around I could see.
The lowest point I found was ~1000m, so that gives roughly a maximum 0f 600m possible climb.
Comparing with a place that I visited on a skiing trip - Leysin, Switzerland, which I recall had some very steep roads - I checked this out and found a climb from 500m to 1952m in ~4km (as the crow flies) which IIRC is pretty much straight up a mountain side with no roads, but even that is "only" ~20 degrees. I imagine any actual roads around there are not anywhere near as steep (not enough time to investigate further right now though)
Also, on the video the gradient looks pretty flat too - are you sure you didn't mean 3 degrees, 1:30, or something?


2011\02\15@230041 by RussellMc

face picon face
> Also, on the video the gradient looks pretty flat too - are you sure you
> didn't mean 3 degrees, 1:30, or something?

Note my "laws of physics" comment re lifting a mass vertically.

You need ~10 kW to cause 1000 kg to ascend vertically at 1 m/s. He
even stated the factor of 2 implication of sine  30 for those who may
have missed it.

He's doing a classic "free energy" / perpetual motion / magnets /
crystals / oxygen free copper / Apple ... trust me I saw it myself,
where do you want your Brooklyn Bridge delivered to? Presumably to see
how "real engineers' rise to the challenge.

Even from a Ningbo hotel room I can smell the sizzle of the sausages ...

If you want "a bit of a rise" with a road joining them, Look up
Dante's view (Dante's lookout) just along from  Zabriski point (not
the movie).

Over a mile and you FEEL like you could walk down it in under an hour.
Don't try! Walking down the road may  not be too too much wiser,
often.



         Russel

2011\02\15@233400 by Richard Prosser

picon face
On 16 February 2011 17:00, RussellMc <apptechnzSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\02\16@000123 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 16/02/2011 04:00, RussellMc wrote:
>> Also, on the video the gradient looks pretty flat too - are you sure you
>> didn't mean 3 degrees, 1:30, or something?
> Note my "laws of physics" comment re lifting a mass vertically.
>
> You need ~10 kW to cause 1000 kg to ascend vertically at 1 m/s. He
> even stated the factor of 2 implication of sine  30 for those who may
> have missed it.
>
> He's doing a classic "free energy" / perpetual motion / magnets /
> crystals / oxygen free copper / Apple ... trust me I saw it myself,
> where do you want your Brooklyn Bridge delivered to? Presumably to see
> how "real engineers' rise to the challenge.
>
> Even from a Ningbo hotel room I can smell the sizzle of the sausages ...

Yes, I noted that, just trying to see what the point of it all is. Probably some of those shady bracelet wearing pandas involved too ;-)

> If you want "a bit of a rise" with a road joining them, Look up
> Dante's view (Dante's lookout) just along from  Zabriski point (not
> the movie).
>
> Over a mile and you FEEL like you could walk down it in under an hour.
> Don't try! Walking down the road may  not be too too much wiser,
> often.
>

Just checked it out - that looks to be quite an impressive area (as is Google Earth - not used it for ages, it's improved a great deal)

2011\02\16@062001 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Joe Koberg wrote:

> I would like to point out Frink, which can do unit-based calculations
> very easily.
>
> http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/#SampleCalculations
>
> For example I can put "100 amps * 48 volts" into the "from" field,
> And "hp" into the "to" field, to see (in an ideal world) how many
> horsepower that battery can produce.
>
> Better yet, try  "100 Amps * 48 Volts * 1 hour"  ->  "km * 100kg *
> gravity"

Pretty cool. So far I'm using SpeQ
<http://www.speqmath.com/index.php?id=1> that has similar capabilities,
but Frink looks like SpeQ on steroids :)

Thanks for the pointer. Looks quite useful.
Gerhar

2011\02\16@072116 by Chris McSweeny

picon face
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Richard Prosser <spamBeGonerhprosserSTOPspamspamEraseMEgmail.com> wrote:
> The worlds "steepest Street" (Guinness Records) is apparently Baldwin
> St in Dunedin. At its steepest point it's still "only" 19 degrees or
> 35%. (Bit of a puffer to climb, even so). I can't really see a road
> approaching this steepness for any appreciable distance. Even less
> likely without Guinness knowing about it.

Try running up and down it (the scary bit is the down) - there's an
annual race, which just happened to be on when I was visiting Dunedin
for a couple of days (despite my girlfriend's suspicions, it really
was a complete coincidence).

Though my understanding is that's "steepest street" with the
definition of street being somewhere people live - I'm sure there are
steeper bits of tarmac around.

Chri


'[OT] Almost Free Energy (or not)'
2011\04\04@084053 by Gerhard Fiedler
picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

> Joe Koberg wrote:
>
>> I would like to point out Frink, which can do unit-based calculations
>> very easily.
>>
>> http://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/#SampleCalculations
>>
>> For example I can put "100 amps * 48 volts" into the "from" field,
>> And "hp" into the "to" field, to see (in an ideal world) how many
>> horsepower that battery can produce.
>>
>> Better yet, try  "100 Amps * 48 Volts * 1 hour"  ->  "km * 100kg *
>> gravity"
>
> Pretty cool. So far I'm using SpeQ
> <http://www.speqmath.com/index.php?id=1> that has similar capabilities,
> but Frink looks like SpeQ on steroids :)
>
> Thanks for the pointer. Looks quite useful.
One nice thing about Frink: it calculates with hex numbers with more
than 32 bits.

Another nice part of Frink: its unit (and measures) definition file.
Worth a read, for the large number of odd units in there -- and more
interestingly, for the difficulties the author had in creating a
consistent unit calculator. The file contains a number of interesting
comments by the author.

<http://futureboy.us/frinkdata/units.txt>

Gerhar

2011\04\04@122914 by Adam Field

flavicon
face
> One nice thing about Frink: it calculates with hex numbers with more
> than 32 bits.
>
> Another nice part of Frink: its unit (and measures) definition file.
> Worth a read, for the large number of odd units in there -- and more
> interestingly, for the difficulties the author had in creating a
> consistent unit calculator. The file contains a number of interesting
> comments by the author.
>
> <http://futureboy.us/frinkdata/units.txt>

Thank you for the link to that file. That was an interesting read. I
enjoyed the part about the "candela" unit of measure

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...