Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (4288)	2/19/2008 4:07:51 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

That depends on the journey: <Most of the energy a car uses, is in the acceleration to speed>. On a trip to another city, the acceleration energy is trivial = get up to 100 kph then sit with the engine racing along at 4000 rpm until getting there when wind resistance and rolling resistance is sufficient to stop the car in a few hundred metres. I could do trips like that without having brakes at all. Even around town, brakes aren't really necessary with a manual gearbox. In the good old days, my challenge was to drive my 1951 Hillman without starter motor, brakes, or clutch other than to get going = park on a downward slope to get moving and clutch start the motor, then double-declutch for gear changes [matching engine speed to the next gear], using the engine to slow and stop. Even around town, rolling friction, drag and idling are the greatest part of energy and the amount which can be recovered is small, though as you say, it might as well be collected since it's cheap to collect it and the braking energy has to be dumped somewhere. I was surprised and disappointed when I worked out how little energy would be collected from braking and put back into acceleration. Mqurice