h a l f b a k e r yBaker Street Irregulars
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
Why not? Because CVTs are expensive and energy is cheap. |
|
|
The easier solution (less redesign of critical components) would be to upgrade the motor controller to have regenerative braking to store excess energy as electricity. That's also probably not cost effective. |
|
|
"So when you take people down you can store the net potential energy by transferring it to the counter weight..."
When the counterweight is raised, it *is* storing the net potential energy. I see what you mean though. I'd rather do away with the extra parts. |
|
|
With this system, if you get a run of small loads going down and heavy loads going up (or vice versa), the counterweight is going to prematurely hit the top or the bottom of its travel, and as soon as it gets at/near that point, you're going to have to shift the ctv into {max car movement=min/zero counterweight movement} which would excessively load the motor. |
|
|
The heavier the counterweight (say, a few times heavier than an standard one), the less of the problem this would be, but the greater the demands on the ropes/etc would be. |
|
|
"The easier solution (less redesign of critical components) would be to upgrade the motor controller to have regenerative braking to store excess energy as electricity. That's also probably not cost effective."
Scad, I thought about that one however, what can you do with the tiny bit of energy that you're generating? you can't use it to lift the cab again nor does it make sense to sell it back to the grid for the pennies that it costs. I think that Benjamin got the drift of what I was getting at, and that is to use the counterweight not as a ballast, but as a battery. Say the counterweight is 5 times the weight the rated max lift , then you wouldnt' need to worry about having multiple loads going up full and down empty. The weight is a potential issue, but then again so too is adding the CVT, but the point of this thing is to make it as efficient as possible, because energy won't always be so cheap |
|
|
2,089 ft times the weight of a dozen humans (2400 lbs ? ) and at speeds of 32 ft per second. see link. |
|
|
Elevator balance say two people. So really 2000 lbs up and down at 32 ft per second. |
|
|
How much energy are we really talking about? |
|
| |