h a l f b a k e r y"More like a cross between an onion, a golf ball, and a roman multi-tiered arched aquaduct."
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,
|
|
|
| |
Any counterweight that could add energy to a moving
train would have to be very heavy. On solar power alone
the lifting mechanism would have to be geared down to a
snail's pace. |
|
| |
This is an impressively bad idea. |
|
| |
Why not use to solar panels to feed into the grid,
and thereby add to the normal power supply of the
train? |
|
| |
[Max] because in my country most trains don't run
on electricity. |
|
| |
Well then, there's your problem. |
|
| |
Start as part of a package express similar to bike messengers in say New York. Just big enough to carry a dozen file boxes. Work out the kinks, before trying to do a whole train without back up power. |
|
| |
// in my country most trains don't run on electricity. // |
|
| |
If you live in the USA then you're in for a bit of a shock:
our locomotives may run on deisel, but the engine just
powers a giant generator. The wheels are driven by special
electric motors called dynamic motivators. So unless
the trains in your country run on coal, they do in fact run
on electricity. |
|
| |
The trains here run on rails. |
|
| |
My nose runs. Does that count? |
|
| |
(wonders about "sunth"? ) |
|
| |
// // in my country most trains don't run on
electricity. // |
|
| |
If you live in the USA // |
|
| |
To be fair, this sort of language isn't used in the USA.
It implies the existence of other countries. |
|
| |
As far as i know, [Alterother], that's how diesel trains work everywhere, or at least in the UK. |
|
| |
Concerning the idea, maybe it would work better for a short period during summertime on Icarus if the trains concerned were largely made of aerogel. |
|
| |
What's the idea here? Solar panels are baked. Energy storage by lifting a weight against gravity is baked (though on a large scale the weight is usually water; see pumped-storage hydroelectric power). Using previously-stored energy to propel trains is baked. |
|
| |
You seem to imply that the energy is coupled to the train mechanically instead of electrically (though you don't say this explicitly - "the weight is free to drop in a way that boosts the train along" could mean a lot of things). |
|
| |
Nope, that's it in a nutshell. It is usually an idea's mad
genius that lies in its simplicity, but in this case it's just
the flaw. What most people seem not to know about trains
is how very, very heavy they are. Even many intelligent
laymen directly observing a locomotive or freight car (but
somehow unable to read the dry and gross weight ratings
stenciled on the side) will underestimate the tonnage and
the force involved in moving it. |
|
| |
[19thly], I know that, but I was trying to make my point
without being any more of a presumptive douchebag than I
usually am. |
|
| |
How much of a train's weight is tradition-led
overbuilding? I mean, I saw a train once, it was
constructed entirely from soot and girders. Is there
no place for aluminium on trains? Apart from
occupying the cargo space, that is. |
|
| |
Freight trains seem overbuilt because the are built to
endure incredible abuse. Yes, there are materials that are
stronger/harder/more ductile and lighter than steel, but
for high-strength hard-wearing and resilient low-cost
materials
that will take a pounding for decades, nothing beats steel. |
|
| |
And yes, there are plenty of aluminium-bodied freight
cars, although they ride upon steel chassis. Most of them
are built to carry nasty substances, such as anhydrous
ammonia or sulfur. One sweltering summer day I had the
rare privelege of changing the brake beams on an
aluminium covered-hopper loaded with eighteen tons of
chicken shit. |
|
| |
That's looking suspiciously like a parlour game. See
help file. |
|
| |
Locomotives are deliberately built heavy, because
that's part of what determines how much weight
they can
pull, what their traction is against the rails. |
|
| |
The weight of train ends up not mattering much,
because they don't vary speed much, and they
lose more energy to wind than to rolling friction at
the wheels. Combined with the fact that for all
that the cars are heavy, the load weight is higher,
and the substructure needs to be strong to carry
it (aluminum is lighter than steel, but the strength
to weight ratio is similar, and aluminum doesn't
have a fatigue limit). |
|
| |
Passenger trains, especially light, heavy and
commuter rail do, frequently, have much of their
structure and all of their housing made from
aluminum, owing to their much more frequent
stops and starts, which increases the utility of
lighter weight construction. The primary load
bearing components will still be steel, however,
because they need to stand up to millions or
hundreds of millions of cycles, which aluminum
just doesn't do. |
|
| |
As far as the idea itself, if you were going to do
something like this, it would probably only be an
advantage in the case of steep grades where a
helper engine is frequently already used. But in
that case you could just use a plug in helper
engine, no need for weights. |
|
| |
As I mentioned since trains pick a speed and stick
with it they're not going to benefit much from a
short burst of added energy. The concept of
laying panels along the right of way may make
sense in some places (I'm thinking the US Midwest,
where you've got lots of rail and not much in the
way of trees blocking the light), but unless you
electrify the right of way, you'd be better off
selling that power to the next city and using the
profits to buy a more efficient engine. |
|
| |
And [Fishy]- I suggest you re-read the help file. It
rules out games called for in the idea, but not people
having some fun in the annos. |
|
| |