24  comments

add a commentJump to comment form

Filip Za???ny

May 13, 2016
07:38

Catalyst


1 |

Is the claim for the zero energy loss some kind of a joke or is it serious statement? Even a very little friction ratio creates tremendous loss of energy(hence idea to create hyperloop), there is also a loss due to air resistance and not to mention coming from transporting energy from the power source. Please take it into consideration, because otherwise this is proposal is totally invalid.


Hugh Loebner

May 13, 2016
02:23

Member


2 |
Proposal
creator

Have you actually read this proposal?  

*Theoretically* zero energy is required for motion.This is a law of nature (Newton's First Law)

Of course energy will be required to overcome friction in the real world. Fortunately, roller bearings are very, very good at reducing friction. 

At *no* point do I say there is zero loss. I repeatedly state "almost" no friction. The coefficient of rolling friction is .0018 which really is quite low. An angle of slightly more than .1 degree will provide sufficient forward force to overcome rolling (but not air) resistance. 

I specifically (and in bold type) state that it is *not* perpetual motion. I also state that energy *must* be entered into the system. (By solar, I suggest). 

The *relative* energy lost (viz-a-viz the total energy of the moving object) from air resistance will be inversely proportional to the density of the object, which is why I suggest tungsten ballast for the extremely high velocity system. This is why a feather drops more slowly than a lead ball;the lead ball is denser.


Filip Za???ny

May 13, 2016
07:57

Catalyst


3 |

I've just wanted to debunk points A and B as they state "Zero energy is required to move"(it comes right after statement of efficiency of rampways, so why would I thought of it as a theoritical assumption?) and small friction is present.

0.0018 is low? Railroad steel wheel on steel rail has a ratio of 0.0003 to 0.0004 and and yet these are still considered to lose a lot of energy due to friction. With 0.0018, to move 1000kg, 1km straightforward you would need the energy of around 17,658kJ, which is compared to light 17658 watt LED for 1 s. Is this small amount of friction? If that would be so easy, as you said, there would no problem of energy efficiency in the transportation. 

I won't be discussing issues of passenger comfort and money needed for new infrastructure. 


Filip Za???ny

May 13, 2016
07:06

Catalyst


4 |

* you would have the loss of energy of around 17.658kJ. 


Hugh Loebner

May 13, 2016
09:54

Member


5 |
Proposal
creator

1 liter of gasoline has 35 megajoules of energy. 

(35,000,000 joules/liter) /(17685 joules/kilometer) = move 1000 kilograms 1979 kilometers. 

I'd say that's pretty good. 


Parag Gupta

May 18, 2016
10:04

Fellow


6 |

Hello!  I'm Parag Gupta, an MIT Climate CoLab Catalyst.  I rather like this proposal as it relates well to the area of my Ph.D. research, namely diamond-like carbon coatings and their use in mitigating fricition and wear in lubricated and non-lubricated sliding conditions.  I do think that roller bearings have low rolling coefficients of friction, but perhaps not much better than other materials.  Tribology ABC and its calculators are a good place to start, but the site does tend to be generalized.  Also, the conditions of rolling and the slide-to-roll ratio will matter a lot.  That is, please note that your tribological behavior will depend on contact pressure, temperature, humidity, whether or not there is a lubricant, etc.  At the very least, you have proposed an interesting thought experiment, and I like how you've tried to quantify many of your assertions.  It would be neat to see a more developed proposal with specific energy saving comparisons to other types of engineering structures already in existence.


Hugh Loebner

May 20, 2016
08:05

Member


7 |
Proposal
creator

Hi Parag,

I'm glad you liked the proposal. 

If I am selected as a finalist I will have the opportunity to develop the idea. Remember that there is a limited number of characters that are allowed .  There were a number of things that I  had to omit

Energy saving is not my only goal; I consider carbon sequestration to be imperative for humanity's future. There is already too much GHG in the atmosphere.

I'd welcome any assistance you'd care to provide.

 

Hugh

 


Negah Nafisi

May 23, 2016
06:40

Impact Assessment Fellow


8 |

Hi Parag,

Documentation of assumptions for the impact assessment can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rjoj_RyXuDKKGS9YBVG_Shjdger1fBIMm_eZ05m8_Qg/edit?usp=sharing

Best,

Negah


Kevin Vonmoses

May 25, 2016
11:40

Member


9 |

Whoa, y'all...  Efficiency is only marginally effected by friction, frontal area, drag coefficients and such..  The fuel conversion to Work, or the source power is where the expenses and the reduction in GHGs is what is the larger question.

How do you get the vehicle to a 'launch' altitude?  Basic physics say that the source HAS to be greater than the sum of any losses and the Work to be done...


Kevin Vonmoses

May 25, 2016
11:20

Member


10 |

AND moving 1,000kg a kilometer with 17,685 joules of fuel is about 5.6% efficiency...  That is 'pretty good'?

Maybe that is because we have been using the Otto cycle to power transportation without challenging it's efficiency for more than century...


Hugh Loebner

May 25, 2016
07:58

Member


11 |
Proposal
creator

It will go 1979 kilometers not 1.  Big difference.

Energy to raise the cars will be electricity produced by solar powering elictric motors, so no GHG's produced whatever the efficiency. 


Hugh Loebner

May 25, 2016
08:53

Member


12 |
Proposal
creator

More complete response:

Solar power creates electricity to run motors which drag cars to top (in effect "fueling" cars with gravity). No GHG's produced there. Zero GHG's produced when converting gravity "fuel" energy to kinetic energy.

L


Hugh Loebner

May 25, 2016
08:06

Member


13 |
Proposal
creator

One last point.  Energy will be captured and stored by rolling uphill. For local systems with short distances between stops, perhaps 98% of the original potential energy still will be available as kinetic energy when the car reaches the next station, for it will not have slowed by much, and this will be  captured by rolling up to the station. 


James Lau

Jun 10, 2016
07:15

Member


14 |

I know of some subway system that make the track in and out of each station slightly lower than the station so that the gravity can assist the acceleration at the start and help slow down when the train get into station. This roller coaster idea has been implemented partially before. Because riders cannot get on and off roller coaster halfway along the track, the start and end point must be  restricted. Gliding across river and thinks like that use similar idea. 


Hugh Loebner

Jun 11, 2016
06:51

Member


15 |
Proposal
creator

Yes.  The NYC subway is one such.  However (1) the principal motive power is electricity and (2) no effort is made to sequester carbdon.


James Lau

Jun 11, 2016
03:07

Member


16 |

For the roller coaster to move fast enough, vertical drop of 10 meter is required for speed of around 7 meter per second (16 mph). Most human can easily pedal bicycle at this speed. Building bicycles are much easier and cheaper than making roller coasters. A roller coaster system to accommodate enough starting and end points (remember than riders cannot get out of the roller coaster at any other point) would be extremely costly. Roller coaster has proven to be cost effective because some people are willing to pay for the excitement with no desire to achieve transportation goal. Glide cable across natural transportation barrier (such as river) is much more meaningful transportation device. Glide cable is also use for amusement. Safety concern make roller coaster or glide cable profitable mostly for other than transportation purpose. I cannot take this as serious transportation proposal. The technical details are not with this idea.


Hugh Loebner

Jun 12, 2016
10:16

Member


17 |
Proposal
creator

What is there about the following table which you don't understand? A drop of 64 ft will provide a velocity of 40 mph.

What is there about the concept of using vegitative materials in the construction of the ramps to sequester carbon that you don't understand?

H       V                          H         V

  16 ft    20 mph             44 m  105 k/h

  64       40                     175      211 

 144      60                     400      320

1300   200                   1470      600


James Lau

Jun 12, 2016
07:38

Member


18 |

I made a mistake in the height to speed conversion. The roller coaster system is extremely inefficient for mass transportation. The web of many starting and end points will quickly exhaust  available space. I think Tarzan swing from trees is better method of using gravitational energy for transportation. 


Hugh Loebner

Jun 13, 2016
02:00

Member


19 |
Proposal
creator

You have also made an error in your estimates of area.  Within cities the space is already committed to streets. Between cities there are vast spaces.

I do, however, like Tarzan swings as an *optional* method.  As an ACSM certified personal trainer I applaud brachiation as a means of cardiovascular and muscular improvement

 


James Lau

Jun 13, 2016
07:03

Member


20 |

My main proposal for the contest in the energy supply is not advancing. I am impressed with your proposal enough that I hope you are willing to communicate with me by direct email so that I can try to recruit you for the real global warming (climate change) solution. My email address is jameslau2@gmail.com.

My entry title is Thermonuclear fusion energy converter on earth (OTEC). OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) was first proposed 135 years ago but no cost effective design has been implemented. I think my proposal is cost effective. The contest format is not sufficient for me to present sufficient detail to be convincing. Some details in my proposal (not included in the contest) are not in all OTEC proposals I have been able to read.

The Roman aqueducts has been limited by the material technology. They use shallow slope to control water flow. Roller coaster need track material (probably metal) far beyond ancient Roman technology. Good roller coaster design probably want to use greater slope at beginning and end to increase average travel speed. Your inclusion of device near the end to make up for the energy loss along the track due to friction is another sign of your more extensive reasoning.

I enjoy the interchange with you here. I am glad to see you approve Tarzan. I hope we have more discussion with emails.


Parag Gupta

Jun 15, 2016
08:42

Fellow


21 |

Hello!  It's Parag Gupta again, an MIT Climate CoLab Catalyst.  I have reviewed your materials again and am glad that you addressed some of the points I made in my comments.  Good luck moving forward!


Hugh Loebner

Jun 15, 2016
11:08

Member


22 |
Proposal
creator

Hello Parag,

I have made the comment that the precise value of the coefficient of rolling bearings does not matter too much. Whether it's .0015 or .0020, the system works the same.  Since tribology is your thing, it's important to you, but as far as my proposal goes, the only important thing is that roller bearings have a very low coefficient of friction.  If you can come up with a diamond coated sliding or rolling bearing, that would be great.  However, it's not essential for the proposal.  I am not proposing massive research into reducing friction; we've reached an o.k. level.  What is necessary is massive research on carbon sequestration.


Michael Hayes

Jun 22, 2016
03:39

Member


23 |

Hello Dr. Loebner (Hugh if I may),

You are calling for a massive research effort focused upon carbon sequestration and I would like to help clarify some of the technology you call for in your proposal. I do apologize if some of the below information is already familiar to you. 

a) The term "biochar concrete" has no current recognition in the Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration (CCUS) field. As you may know, the CCUS field is currently evolving out of the concept the IPCC refers to as Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) and there is little differentiation between the two. 

You're absolutely correct in that 'Green' cement needs to be deployed on a truly vast scale and I would support the use of near term future infrastructure construction providing this critical CCUS need. For a brief on 'Green' cement you may wish to view what Blue Planet has to offer as well as the work on Biorock

Both technologies can support massive scale offshore marine biomass production services inter alia marine CO2 capture, direct ocean pH adjustment, production of low or negative carbon protein, removal of execc nutients (dead zones) etc.  And thus the full spectrum of CCUS needs, as well as a multitude of other needs, can be addressed.

b) On the issue of your type of infrastructure being significantly more efficient than a theoretical hyperloop may be difficult to support, especially if the hyperloop is made primarily with Green cement/Biorock and produces vast amounts of carbon negative biofuel for internal or export use. The two transport/energy management systems, however, can work in conjunction with each other. There needs not to be all encompassing winner or champion method. Hyperloops will, most likely, be around for some time and alternative transport/energy management methods, such as your concept, can be folded into the future global hyperloop infrastructure.

A final note: the use of ground effect for the non-drop leg of you concept would work well specifically in the marine environment.  

I hope the above is helpful and good luck with your work.

Michael


Michael Hayes

Jun 22, 2016
03:41

Member


24 |

Hello Dr. Loebner (Hugh if I may),

You are calling for a massive research effort focused upon carbon sequestration and I would like to help clarify some of the technology you call for in your proposal. I do apologize if some of the below information is already familiar to you. 

a) The term "biochar concrete" has no current recognition in the Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration (CCUS) field. As you may know, the CCUS field is currently evolving out of the concept the IPCC refers to as Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) and there is little differentiation between the two. 

You're absolutely correct in that 'Green' cement needs to be deployed on a truly vast scale and I would support the use of near term future infrastructure construction providing this critical CCUS need. For a brief on 'Green' cement you may wish to view what Blue Planet has to offer as well as the work on Biorock

Both technologies can support massive scale offshore marine biomass production services inter alia marine CO2 capture, direct ocean pH adjustment, production of low or negative carbon protein, removal of execc nutients (dead zones) etc.  And thus the full spectrum of CCUS needs, as well as a multitude of other needs, can be addressed.

b) On the issue of your type of infrastructure being significantly more efficient than a theoretical hyperloop may be difficult to support, especially if the hyperloop is made primarily with Green cement/Biorock and produces vast amounts of carbon negative biofuel for internal or export use. The two transport/energy management systems, however, can work in conjunction with each other. There needs not to be all encompassing winner or champion method. Hyperloops will, most likely, be around for some time and alternative transport/energy management methods, such as your concept, can be folded into the future global hyperloop infrastructure.

A final note: the use of ground effect for the non-drop leg of you concept would work well specifically in the marine environment.  

I hope the above is helpful and good luck with your work.

Michael

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.

Add Comment