« on: 06/08/2018 15:58:24 »
Do you think this idea deserves investment?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
As high as 28800:1 ? and this is for 4 hours only for longer periods the ratio needed is higher .you said efficiency reduces at high ratios. So what about 28800:1 ?my clockwork can achieve large ratios such as 28800:1So can ordinary clockwork.
You already lost that argument when you failed to understand that a normal clock has a high ratio.
Congratulations; you have just proved why springs are not a good way to do this.my clockwork can achieve large ratios such as 28800:1 I mentioned " this is why I invented it in order to achieve high ratios"applying this ratio to the above calculations will make energy release in 4 hoursYou have never yet, in any of your posts explained why your clockwork is anything new.
let me make some calculations:Springs need a tool to make energy release at longer periodsSo, you still have yet to understand that you can build a generator with a large torque.
Why is that?
What's the problem with you?
You have never yet, in any of your posts explained why your clockwork is anything new.https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/nanotechnology/carbon-nanotube-super-springs
One additional complexity about storing energy in stressed carbon fibre nanotubes is one that watch makers recognised 300 years ago is that the rate of release of energy drops of rapidly so the fusee was developed to cope with this problem, it is rather like recovering the energy stored in a capacitor and bulky electronics are required.Springs need a tool to make energy release at longer periods
They could build a huge clockwork with huge gears and tonnes of carbon nano tube, carbon nano tube is cheaper for larger amounts cheaper than " 450$ for 1 kg " and it is abundant and my clockwork is more practical also for larger projects.For them to replace fuel they need grid scale good storage.And how does your proposal to store a penny's worth of electricity help?
Solar panels alone are not reliable they always need storage at night.For them to replace fuel they need grid scale good storage. There is a need for renewable energy due to dangerous environmental issuesI deleted my post because I think it is not accurate since the cost of gears ,carbon nano tube and solar panels is one time cost only then electricity would be free using the clockwork and the solar panelsIf you ignore the one time costs then power from solar panels is free. You don't need the clockwork.
What is the point of storing so little electricity?I don't understand your question but lithium won't be practical for grid scale storage .I could use tonnes and tonnes of carbon nanotube material as it is abundant, another thing using lithium ion batteries with solar panels is more expensive it would need electronic devices for electricity manipulation but I could use a motor to charge the clockwork using solar panels and a generator to generate electricity again , my clockwork with carbon nanotube is for huge grid scale energy storage with solar panels.
I've had .For a generater 60 Hz for 4 hours I would need 864000 revolutions and a total ratio of 28800:1. I would need 7 gears of ratio 3:1 and an eighth gear of ratio 1:12" the eigth one is for the generator". The generator torque for 20 watt is 0.05 N-m then input gear torque "first gear "would be:
As I said, you have failed to look at the infrastructure.
But the most expensive one is 4330$ for each 10 kg https://www.ctimaterials.com/product-category/industrial-carbon-nanotubes-products/ , and it gets cheaper for larger amounts, because carbon nanotube is abundant it could be used in large amounts i.e tonnes to store a lot of energy:some are extremely cheap like this one:Do you think the cheap stuff is the good stuff?
which costs 19,900$ for each 100 kg the same price as lithium ion batteries but has better features than lithium ion batteries
Or do you think the material that stores a thosand times more energy than steel is going to be a special grade that's expensive?
BTW, you seem to have missed the importance of a word or two hereEnergy density is in fact more than 1000 times steel spring:"She and colleagues have found that carbon nanotubes, in contrast, should have very high energy densities, potentially over 1,000 times those of steel and close to those of the best batteries"
If you you chose 15$ and click " select options" and chose your amount as 1000 grams it will give 1330$ for each 1 kgAccording to the link it costs 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg, let's say it is storing 20 watt for 4 hours will need a kilo gram of this material costing $1000, this amount of energy is 80wh costing 200$ using lithium ion batteries , then carbon nanotube is more expensive than lithium ion but it last longer:
And, once again, you show how bad you are at this sort of thing.
" 10-15 dollars for each gram , 1000$ for a kg"
No, that's $15,000 per Kg
So, it's more than 10 times the price of lithium technology.
And you are ignoring the other infrastructure costs.
Seen the price of carbon nanotubes?https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/multi-walled-carbon-nanotubes/
OK, the total mass is 18 Kg (3+5+10)It has acceleration =0, the floor pushes back against the total force.
and the additional force- the weight of the table is 100 N
So the total force (downward) is 180N, and the total mass is 18Kg.
So, do you really think my table is accelerating downwards at 180/10 i.e. 10 m/s/s?
Or are you still missing something?
Let us say I have a table in front of me here in my house.- it has a mass of 10 KgI have to take the whole mass including the table as mass and the whole weight including the table as force
On the table are two rocks - one is 5 Kg and the other is 3 Kg.
Gravity acts on the two rocks. The local value for the acceleration due to gravity is near to 10 m/s/s
So the forces acting on the table are about 50N and 30N both acting downwards.
So the force due to the weights of the rocks produce a total of 80 N on the table.
Well, if the force is 80N and the mass is 10Kg, do you think the table will accelerate downwards at F/M i.e. 80/10 = 8 metres per second per second?
Or do you realise that you have to take other forces into account?