Dear Mr. President from Rush Limbaugh

[PDUB]

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,...

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

First of all, let me re-establish that this entire idea is a B.S. adventure.



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



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.


...

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

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

There are several reasons it would be impractical, but parasitic drag is not likely one of them.

...

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

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

YES, YES! Now you've got it!

...

I take exception to your condescending attitude...

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

we don't need no stinkin' engineering guys.

...

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.

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

If power were evenly distributed throughout the train, I would think indefinate size, limited only by the range of radio control.

...

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

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

And? The circle train would be 1000's of miles long. It would be a new record.

...

More big losses... they are additive.

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

"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.

...

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!

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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.

...

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!

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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. You can verify the figures with the link to the rolling resistance table I already gave you earlier...

...

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.?

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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!"

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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.

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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.

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

Originally Posted by Wes Tausend

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

...

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....