[Wes Tausend]

Originally Posted by PDUB

Wes, Wes , Wes....


Hydro-electric power generation is not in the realm of perpetual motion. Please don't get confused by what I am trying to convey here. I am not suggesting that. No doubt, some power generation could be realized from loaded railcars rolling on downhill tracks.

On a very small scale, on the order of magnitude of a water-wheel for railcars (if you get my drift), you might get your idea to partially work... but then there are the logistics of dynamic loading and unloading of coal, etc. that would cause you significant grief. Not that they couldn't be overcome...

On a larger scale, you're SOL... the physics just doesn't support it. Just think about the limitations in railroading normally... what is the longest train you can run right now... even on level ground?

Now for your circle train you are talking about trains that are tens... or more like hundreds... of miles long!

I am not up on the regenerative power dissipated by dynamic braking, but I'm guessing it is small compared to the power required to haul an empty consist up that same hill. Go run some numbers, including losses in couplers and parasitics, and get back to us. You'll need to get with some of the coorporate engineering guys to verify the figures. Then we'll talk some more.

As a parting thought... there are lots of smart people that have come before us... why do you suppose that your idea has not been implemented already? I mean, it isn't technology limited (in other words your idea isn't dependant on a technological breakthrough/development, such as room temp superconductors, to work), right?

Wes, Wes , Wes....

First of all, let me re-establish that this entire idea is a B.S. adventure. There are several reasons it would be impractical, but parasitic drag is not likely one of them. It actually would work, in theory, but there are certainly easier ways to accomplish the task. This is a Rube Goldberg contraption from the start.

Hydro-electric power generation is not in the realm of perpetual motion. Please don't get confused by what I am trying to convey here. I am not suggesting that. No doubt, some power generation could be realized from loaded railcars rolling on downhill tracks.

YES, YES! Now you've got it! Hydro-electric power generation is not in the realm of perpetual motion, NOR is similar gravity-fed railcar electric power generation, but that is what you seemed to originally imply. I merely pointed out that they are the same principle, so you would realise this. If you read between the lines, I also pointed out that I believe water weight carried in railcars would produce MORE power than the same amount of water left to dribble downstream in a coarse river channel ...because the rail cars appear to have less overall drag than flowing water.

On a very small scale, on the order of magnitude of a water-wheel for railcars (if you get my drift), you might get your idea to partially work... but then there are the logistics of dynamic loading and unloading of coal, etc. that would cause you significant grief. Not that they couldn't be overcome...
They all load on-the-fly. We unload some coal cars by belly dumping them on-the-fly over a pit. Other rotary coupler cars need to pause momentarily to flip upside down. Maybe we could get them to rotate upside down on-the-fly, clamped on a rollercoaster screw type track.

On a larger scale, you're SOL... the physics just doesn't support it. Just think about the limitations in railroading normally... what is the longest train you can run right now... even on level ground?
If power were evenly distributed throughout the train, I would think indefinate size, limited only by the range of radio control. The longest train I ever ran was about 7900 feet, including hills, all the power on the head end. Other than stalling completely, my slowest long trains slowed to 0.2 mph, barely topping Beaver Hill. (Heh, heh, he said "barely" and "beaver"). Yes, the speedos are that accurate; shadows from the sun movement darn near outrun us at times. Maybe they could more economically grind coal to powder and send the slurry in 1000's of miles of continuous pipeline with water, since the train would be a continuous "pipeline" anyway. As for physics, I believe this is already done, the slurry that is. Not much diff.

Now for your circle train you are talking about trains that are tens... or more like hundreds... of miles long!
And? The circle train would be 1000's of miles long. It would be a new record.

I am not up on the regenerative power dissipated by dynamic braking, but I'm guessing it is small compared to the power required to haul an empty consist up that same hill. Go run some numbers, including losses in couplers and parasitics, and get back to us. You'll need to get with some of the coorporate engineering guys to verify the figures. Then we'll talk some more.
First, you guessed wrong about comparative power dissipated by dynamic braking. Next we need to define "consist". In rail lingo that means the set of locomotives connected (MUed, aka multiple unit'ed) together. If I have 3 locomotives, I have a 3 unit consist, all on one throttle. Now if you are talking about power required to climb a hill with empty cars as opposed to the regenerated power gained from going downhill, I can tell you they are amazingly close to the same with very little loss. This because of the amazing low rolling friction and ultra low parasitic losses associated with railcar movement. I beginning to think I might never fully convince you of this fact unless you saw it with your own eyes. Have you ever ridden a roller-coaster? Not much rolling loss there either. You can verify the figures with the link to the rolling resistance table I already gave you earlier; we don't need no stinkin' engineering guys. The couplers are hitch points without loss ...so what is your point here, or is a misnomer on your part? There are some minor frictional losses associated with the bolster pin (similar to a 5th wheel), as the trucks and wheels steer around curves, if that is what you meant. I guess too many curves might kill it, like it kills rivers. But I didn't imagine it that way.


As a parting thought... there are lots of smart people that have come before us... why do you suppose that your idea has not been implemented already? I mean, it isn't technology limited (in other words your idea isn't dependant on a technological breakthrough/development, such as room temp superconductors, to work), right?
There is a first for everything. Like I said up front, this is a B.S. setup and deserves to die. I just didn't want you to condemn it for misunderstood reasons, although I don't expect anyone to take me serious. Here is a link to a topigraphical USA map. I propose trains will flow, or roll, downhill from the red/brown heights, east to the green lower central area of the US, just like rivers do. It is over a 1500 foot drop, about a one percent grade, maybe better. The coal would not only theoretically deliver itself, but it's mere weight would provide some generated power (like hydro-electric generation) in doing so. In that respect, the idea has been implemented already with water. But, as I mentioned before, long, long train physics is a problem. The needed break-through technology would be a strong enough "hitch" system as I mentioned earlier. Do you understand the "Giant Space Rope" problem I brought up earlier?

I would certainly understand if you said you just didn't have more time to spend on this. Remember, it is just a mental exercise in B.S. engineering (imagineering).

Wes

...