h a l f b a k e r yThe mutter of invention.
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,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
CTV elevator
Use people's fat arses to haul themselves back up again | |
The idea is a simple one and from what I can guesstimate very similar to what is going on in most elevators, however with a little twist. Instead of using the counter weight on an elevator to make the work easier for the motors why not store the energy instead of wasting it on brakes and use it as a
lift boost later. The key comes in with using a CVT (Continuous Variable Transmission) in between the elevator car and the counter weight. By using an electronic system that can monitor and manipulate the ratios of the pulleys it could there by changing the work necessary to raise or lower the elevator car. So when you take people down you can store the net potential energy by transferring it to the counter weight instead of using motors to pull the car down. Then when you need to take people up you use the stored energy in the weight to take them back up. While it’s not a completely self-sufficient system, it should be a bit more efficient then the energy used to haul weight up and down an elevator shaft. And to keep things as simple as possible you could use a motor that runs to add potential energy to the counter weight, preferably somewhere that’s easy to access and perform maintenance on. Moreover, the slowing power of CVT should be very smooth because of its variable nature. Check here for some info on CVT’s http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/gearbox/tech_gear_cvt.htm
(?) Sterling's URL...
http://autozine.kyu...x/tech_gear_cvt.htm
...moved to a link. [st3f, Oct 04 2004]
Mine shaft tested mother approved.
http://gizmodo.com/...-in-an-o-1588181296
How much is that in kilocalories? [popbottle, Aug 31 2015]
[link]
|
| |
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? |
|
| |