[alancalverd]

Can't find the reference to "a parachute which costs nothing" but I'm happy to pay the postage on 30 such devices, delivered to my gliding club.

[Bored chemist]

Can't find the reference to "a parachute which costs nothing" but I'm happy to pay the postage on 30 such devices, delivered to my gliding club.

:-)

[Yahya (OP)]

A parachute to generate 17.4 watt should be 3 meter in diameter and that costs $19:
https://www.amazon.com/Foot-Play-Parachute-Handles-Multicolored/dp/B01BYK3JIY
if 5 square meter gives 210 N force then the 3 meter parachute or 7 square meter gives:
1.4*210=294 N then I would need gears to bear this force I'm not sure how much these gears would cost but that wouldn't be so much, the first gear in the clockwork needs to be big and strong to bear high torque but the last gear undergoes only small torque, comparing that to wind turbine which might cost $183 for 17.5 watt
P.S:
Larger parachutes have low price than small ones" I think according to area"

[Bored chemist]

Why bother with the gears?
Why not just build a  generator that matches the available force and speed?

[Yahya (OP)]

Why bother with the gears?
Why not just build a  generator that matches the available force and speed?

Because I would need high ratios, for 1 km and 4 hours about 110:1 gear ratio.I don't think an ordinary clockwork would function efficiently with 110:1 and if height is lower and period is longer more ratios are needed

[Yahya (OP)]

By the way I would need small number of gears for this ratio :
four gears with ratios : 3:1,3:1,3:1,4:1

[Bored chemist]

Why bother with the gears?
Why not just build a  generator that matches the available force and speed?

Because I would need high ratios, for 1 km and 4 hours about 110:1 gear ratio.I don't think an ordinary clockwork would function efficiently with 110:1 and if height is lower and period is longer more ratios are needed

You have completely missed the point.
You do not need gears if you use a generator that is matched the to the energy supply.

Incidentally, ordinary clocks have gears that drive the second hand, and the hour hand which implies a ratio of at least 3600 to 1 so your idea that "an ordinary clockwork would function efficiently with 110:1 " is just silly.
A school kid wouldn't have made that mistake.

[Yahya (OP)]

Incidentally, ordinary clocks have gears that drive the second hand, and the hour hand which implies a ratio of at least 3600 to 1 so your idea that "an ordinary clockwork would function efficiently with 110:1 " is just silly.
A school kid wouldn't have made that mistake.

You have to review gears efficiency then you would find that a clock is not efficient it has strong spring with much power but it hardly moves its arms it has very small friction
You can't use high ratios for power applications, can you use a ratio of 100:1 to run a bicycle ?

[Yahya (OP)]

By the way it is impossible to be 3600:1 you should consider that the input spring has much more cycle capacity , so it is not just only one cycle for the spring to be charged.
If the spring has 30 cycles then the ratio will only be 120:1

[Bored chemist]

By the way it is impossible to be 3600:1

It can not be impossible- every mechanical clock has one.

can you use a ratio of 100:1 to run a bicycle ?

You are getting near to the actual point here.
What use would a bike with a 100:1 ratio be?
Either it would be stupidly high or stupidly low.
That's because the rest of the bike- essentially the size of the wheels- is made to work with a gear ratio near 1:1

In the same way, you can make a generator for your parachute + string system that would need a ratio near 1:1
And when you do that, you don't need a gearbox.

[Yahya (OP)]

By the way it is impossible to be 3600:1

It can not be impossible- every mechanical clock has one.

can you use a ratio of 100:1 to run a bicycle ?

You are getting near to the actual point here.
What use would a bike with a 100:1 ratio be?
Either it would be stupidly high or stupidly low.
That's because the rest of the bike- essentially the size of the wheels- is made to work with a gear ratio near 1:1

In the same way, you can make a generator for your parachute + string system that would need a ratio near 1:1
And when you do that, you don't need a gearbox.

You are wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+clock+gear+ratios&oq=mechanical+clock+ratio&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.12642j0j7&client=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

it says 60:1

"That's because the rest of the bike- essentially the size of the wheels- is made to work with a gear ratio near 1:1"
No , it is because it won't has sufficient efficiency if larger ratios are used

[Bored chemist]

it won't has sufficient efficiency if larger ratios are used

Gearboxes do not change the available energy.

You are wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?

Well, OK, I messed up the arithmetic
Google is not God. It can find stuff that's wrong.
The second hand of a clock goes round 60 times faster than the minute hand and the hour hand goes 12 or 24 times slower.
So the ratio of the speeds is 720 to 1
And there must be  a gear chain in the clock with (at least) that ratio.
How else could the hands move at the right speeds?

"Thus the overall gear ratio from the second hand gear to the hour hand gear is set as 720:12:1. "

from
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~yuqingz/report/me588_2012f.pdf


You are just not thinking straight here.

[Yahya (OP)]

You are wrong.
https://www.google.com/search?

Well, OK, I messed up the arithmetic
Google is not God. It can find stuff that's wrong.

Please be honest and quote what I post It is :
https://www.google.com/search?q=mechanical+clock+gear+ratios&oq=mechanical+clock+ratio&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0.12642j0j7&client=ubuntu&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
NOT:
https://www.google.com/search

[Bored chemist]

It's not dishonest because I never said, or implied that I was quoting you in full. I just truncated it.

I just cited a page that shows you are wrong.
The page isn't really important because it's obvious that you are wrong  on two counts .
The hour hand moves 720 times slower than the second hand.
So there must be a 720 : 1 ratio gear box in there.

And you still don't need a gearbox if you design the generator properly.

[Kryptid]

I just cited a page that shows you are wrong.
The page isn't really important because it's obvious that you are wrong  on two counts .
The hour hand moves 720 times slower than the second hand.
So there must be a 720 : 1 ratio gear box in there.

Gear ratios can be way, way higher than that too!

[Yahya (OP)]

I just cited a page that shows you are wrong.
The page isn't really important because it's obvious that you are wrong  on two counts .
The hour hand moves 720 times slower than the second hand.
So there must be a 720 : 1 ratio gear box in there.

Gear ratios can be way, way higher than that too!

There is a difference gear ratios for speed increment can't be , and the higher the ratio is the lower the efficiency is.
what I'm talking about is gears for speed increment . it has  maximum value for good efficiency .

[Bored chemist]

Have you come to your senses about the gears in clocks yet?

Also, have you accepted that gears don't increase the energy  available.


It's true that high ratios tend to be inefficient.
The best ratio is 1:1, because then you don't need a gearbox and so you don't have to accept any inefficiency in it..
And, if you design the generator correctly, that's what happens.
So why do you think your gear system is helpful, given that it is redundant in this case?

When you have answered those, you can get back to this one- you keep trying to ignore it- is that because it shows you to be a fool?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322

[Yahya (OP)]

So why do you think your gear system is helpful, given that it is redundant in this case?

You said :

It's true that high ratios tend to be inefficient.

A parachute needs high ratios to reach 1 Km in 4 hours , if ratio is small it will reach 1 Km in perhaps minutes, but high ratios without my clockwork are inefficient that why my clockwork is important.

[Yahya (OP)]

You have to ask yourself a question:
Why turbines are used today instead of this method even if it gives much power than turbines ? if it does not need complicated tools such as my clockwork , why not it is already used ?

[Bored chemist]

You have to ask yourself a question:
Why turbines are used today instead of this method even if it gives much power than turbines ? if it does not need complicated tools such as my clockwork , why not it is already used ?

Because it's a stupidly inefficient use of land, as I already pointed out (before you moved the goalposts).

A parachute needs high ratios to reach 1 Km in 4 hours , if ratio is small it will reach 1 Km in perhaps minutes, but high ratios without my clockwork are inefficient that why my clockwork is important.

Why do you persist in ignoring the fact that you do not need a gearbox if you build a suitable generator?

And, don't forget to reply to this, or people will think you don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=73150.msg549322#msg549322