On the scale of the water wheel it works because the energy put in is more that the parasitic drag on the wheel... on your railroad, the drag would very quickly overcome any efficiency realized by the gravity fed cars coming down the hill loaded with coal... it is too far to the powerplant to make it work... thus the perpetual motion reference.

As for the electric power superhighway, once low-cost room temperature superconductors are found, this will become a reality:3DSMILE:!

'Til then, you are stuck doin' what you're doin', so keep on truckin'**)... the stockholders are hungry:LOL:!

I know I'm stuck, unless I want to go back to hoisting drywall at my age. Not that the exercise wouldn't do me some good again. :LOL:

While there certainly is railcar parasitic drag, it is not one of the things that would prevent significant energy from being extracted from coal cars rolling downhill. Don't worry, I have given this thought before imagineering. ;)

To understand, imagine water flowing downhill of its own accord. We all know that energy can, and is, extracted from this gravity principle. (It may seem like perpetual motion, but energy from the sun causes rain and snow to accumulate near the Continental Divide and the gravity does the rest.) Many streams and rivers, such as the Missouri, flow quite slowly, 4-5 mph, but provide a considerable amount of power per 1000 cubic foot of flow.

From railroad experience, I can tell you that a coal train rolling down the same grade, will far outrun the water, because of lower drag. There are relatively level areas of track where I coast for 30-40 miles at 50 mph, sometimes forced to add a bit of dynamic brake to keep from speeding. The true downhills are much more demanding, causing me to need all the dynamic braking and half my airbrakes. The amount of regenerated power wasted out the top of the blower grids (think toaster elements) would run a small city, plus smoking all 900+ plus brake shoes. Of course, it only take about 10 minutes to get to the bottom of my little hills, as opposed to actual mountain grades west of me. There, rivers run white-water.

Here is an interesting rolling resistance table. Looking at the difference between rubber tires and steel wheels, it is easy to see why Warren Buffett is investing in future transportation in the rail end of it. Actually, I am a BNSF stock-holder myself, privately and in 401K. But I am invested in common stock as opposed to Warrens preferred stock. Never-the-less, I work myself too hard. :LOL:

The idea that, "low-cost room temperature superconductors" will help power lines is true. Long transmission lines could pass power long distances with little loss if constructed thusly. But this is way out there. On the other hand, present super-cooled superconductors can improve local transformers, I would think.

Present super-cooled superconductors can also maintain and even improve low "rolling resistance" in Maglev trains. I see the main advantage as extremely low track maintainence, one of the glaring flaws in my circle-train concept. Hard to work on worn track with a train moving on it. :rolleyes:

There is technology already afoot to make transmission more viable. What I am speaking of is Siemens HV Direct Current Transmission System (HVDC). With very high voltage, power losses are greatly minimised. With DC instead of AC, fluctuating magnetic and corona losses are further minimised. Siemens engineered the inverter technology in our newest locomotives that allows huge AC currents to be handled by solid state devices and eliminated troublesome brush type DC traction motors. I got to ride in prototypes. We've come a long way since our transistorised audio amplifiers tended to blow out. Siemans is from Germany. I don't know if HVDC is being fully adapted in the US, as we are getting a bit behind other progressive nations, to call a spade a spade.

I have a perpetual motion story in mind. A new thread is in order just as soon as I get time. :MECOOL:

Wes

...

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:JEKYLHYDE!

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?

What in the world...

Wes,
A similar sort of technology already exists, and has been used. F1 called it KERS for Kinetic Energy Recovery System. It gave cars an extra 80bhp for a small handful of seconds. Sometimes it was enough to pass a car when used well, other times the weight disadvantage balanced it out. Most teams phased it out, and I think it will be out of all cars when the new season starts in a month or so.

Steve

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. :JEKYLHYDE :LOL:

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. :LOL:

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. :LOL: 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. :D


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

...

I know. I know. But this thread was already rife with B.S.
Hope you don't mind too much. :rolleyes:

Wes

...

Steve,

It sounds like Williams might use KERS in 2010, but maybe not since the loss of Toyota.

Since Toyota based the Prius on a battery recovery system, its possible that was the reason to promote it. Cosworth might not have any interest in KERS. What have you heard?

The Prius gains a lot of acceleration from the recovery and general battery storage use. The second generation Prius electric motor provides 295 footpounds of torque by itself, just shy of the 300 footpound Ford Mustang 5.0 V8. Toyota limits the torque to protect the little axles.

As a side note, some electric rail switch yards pump dynamic braking energy back into the third rail, as recovered power to be used by other switchers in the same circuit.

Wes

...

Well, if that's the case, then energy recovery is already feasible to some degree.

You figure the weight of the empty train/cars go up and down the hill, so the available potential energy is that of the load mass x elevation. If in the process of changing potential energy to mechanical to electrical to mechanical, the loss of energy to mechanical friction/elctrical conduction, etc, is significantly less than that of the potential energy, then I would think there is a possiblity of it working. I think you would have to have two parallel rail systems, or at least a bypass area, so the trains coming down and going up could be operating at the same time, to be able to transfer the electrical power generated efficiently.

I guess anything is possible if you throw enough of money at it.

Our Governments at all levels have throughly disproved that theory!!:D

First, let me apologize to the group for such a long post. Right now, I intend it to be my last, accepting the fact of Jamo's friendly heads-up on us being out in the weeds on this thread. That said,...





You feign that this is just B.S., and then continue to go after it. What's up with that... more B.S.:confused:?



Actually, it is exactly why it won't work...



I take exception to your condescending attitude...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend (Post 1029531) we don't need no stinkin' engineering guys. :LOL: ...

I resemble that comment... and have resembled it since long before completing the Master's level engineering program at an accredited U.S. university;). In light of this, I don't plan on responding again until you produce some analysis to support these, as you call it, "B.S." claims.



Even this causes efficiency losses... small, but still there.


More big losses... they are additive.


I think not... it was an educated guess. Could it be wrong? Absolutely... but not very likely. There are losses in every part of the system. First in the power generation segment, then in a mechanical or electrical storage unit (you are currently wasting it in some heater elements, if I understood your earlier post), and finally when you deliver the power back into the system. Add these inefficiencies to the losses in the drive system and the frictional losses as mentioned below, and... well you should be getting the picture by now. These losses can be 12-15% or more at each point, depending on technology. Just look at the transmission and rear-end losses in these cars when discussing crank vs. rear-wheel Hp:cool:!


If I mistakenly used the term consist to describe a complete train, and "consist" is simply a MUed set of engines, then I was wrong... that was an engineer's meager understanding of railroading showing through... but, then again, I'm not that kind of an engineer;)!




Based on what analysis... especially the "amazingly close" part;)? That table is for the wheel to track contact ONLY... you neglect to take into account aerodynamics, bearings, seals, couplers, etc.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend (Post 1029531) I beginning to think I might never fully convince you of this fact unless you saw it with your own eyes. ...

To use a now infamous quote, "YES, YES! Now you've got it!" ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend (Post 1029531) Have you ever ridden a roller-coaster? Not much rolling loss there either. ...

Yes I have, and if you ever have, you will note that if the operator allows the coaster to "go around again," it only will go up the hill about a quarter to a third of the way before the dogs catch the chain... it doesn't go all the way back to the top on its own... to pick up more coal;).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend (Post 1029531) 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. :D

Wrong answer! The couplers are lossy. There are frictional losses in each moving part... and yes, the curves will kill it, too.



Good, then don't take offense if I don't spend anymore time on it... already spent too much;)! But I know it can be fun to dream-big! Run the numbers and get back to us...:D.

I'm lost! Haven't a clue if the foregoing is in reference to Limbaugh or Obummer?:LOL:

PDUB,

Yeah, I should apologise too. Although this is the Lounge. Usually everyone is fairly subject-tolerant until it comes to an all out screaming barfight. Less than sober discussion is pretty common. Sorry if I was condescending. I appreciate you bothered to think and reply about it at all. :o

I think I tend to get caught up in the core principle of things. It's a curse. I did ponder whether it would work, or not, for quite a while; trains do seem to roll better than rivers right beside us, and ...what might that mean. :rolleyes:

I'm thinking about the numbers. Railcars do have amazing low drag per pound, even better when they are loaded heavy. But I think you might be right; accumulated losses would be too great in reality. Existing track is not too straight etc. In my last post, towards the end, I did "run some simple numbers" in speculating that it would certainly work, because I claimed it is a one percent grade. Then I got to thinking about a one percent grade and how steep that really is. Whoa. :eek:

A one percent grade would be a 1 foot drop in 100 feet. There is quite a bit of excess kinetic energy in a 1% grade. Most all of our intermediate grades are less than 2%, which is considered mountain grade, just about max for railroading. Certainly the overall cross-country grade is not all that steep as 1%, unfortunately.

What I did is a glaring error. I roughly supposed a 1500 foot drop in 1500 miles and surmised 1 foot per mile as a 1% grade. In reality, a mile is 5280 feet, not 100 feet, so the average macro grade would only be about a .0001893 grade, pretty durn flat. At best, a large circle train would probably run with comparatively low constant power consumed because it is very slightly downhill for 1500 miles, from the mine to various eastern power plants.

So in essence, you were right from the beginning. There doesn't seem to be a need to run any more numbers. Thanks for your spirit of adventure, in discussing this, though. :)

###

On a different note, it still makes sense to me that America could benefit from sending the energy, contained in coal, cross-country by a new investment in interstate powerlines, perhaps along rail corridors. Along the way, the powerlines may pick up energy from nuclear power, hydro-electric and some minor amounts from windfarms etc. The coal fired, mine located, mega-plants may replace several smaller plants spread all over the country-side and be made more efficiently "clean". And all of you would not have to pay me to haul it because the energy would ship itself.

So how is Limbaugh involved? For some reason, he majorly helped defeat McCain, the non-ball-playing nuclear advocate, who might have been the next Ike in building such far-sighted energy distribution structure. The result is, Obama will likely cave into coal/rail interests first. IMO.

The advent of Ikes interstate highways hurt the railroads market share because it enhanced trucking. So would interstate powerlines also kill our coal contracts. But would it be good for America, as competing economies grow ever stronger? I think so. But I've been wrong before. ;)

Wes

...

Thanks for a very gracious post, Wes! I appreciate it.

I agree with your assessment on the need for more transmission lines. The major hurdle is mostly the environmentalists. A few years ago, I happened to be talking with a representative of a power company from Indiana, and he told me that they are not attempting to expand these anymore, because it costs too much and takes too much time. The most recent one they built took something like 15 years to get built from start to finish, mostly due to legal wrangling from those opposing its installation. that makes it really hard for them, and we all pay the price in the end. Think rolling blackouts in California. Abundant power is cheap power...

While we are at it. we should put rails through many of the interstate corridors, as well. I think I recall hearing that rail is 3 or so times more efficient as trucking (you can fill in the correct value here)... where are the environmentalists on this obvious oversight? We would get the side benefit of reducing traffic on the roadways... a plus for every Cobra owner in the country:3DSMILE:!