[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Jan 15, 10:42*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Jan 15, 2:47 pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
current.
"stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what?

An observation of my riding patterns. Work with batteries in audio
circuits which I described and you cut. A WAG, which seems to be your
standard method.

Why don't you show us a worked case of a ride with numbers, eh,
Colesy? Doing a little work will soon expose your wishful thinking
even to yourself.

The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of
course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around
the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
presented as a perpetual motion machine.
No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component
efficiencies.

That's what I said, Colesy.

It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and
with technological development likely to become ubiquitous.

On bicycles? When this Copenhagen wheel ceases to be vaporware, call
me, Colesy.

You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
years in Formula One auto racing.
I did. I found that it has not been dropped.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/1...-kers-to-stay/

LOL. Name the teams that will use KERS this year.

"F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.

Name the teams that will use KERS.

Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published
today includes provision for the devices.

Name the teams that will use KERS this year.

The F1 teams association had agreed not to use KERS next year but I m
glad it s staying.

Name the teams that will use KERS.

There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in
2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap,
approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds"

Name the teams that will use KERS.

Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting,
both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite
an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/1...too-hasty-to-d....

"When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca
Marmorini said:

* * *The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because
the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive."

Excuses, excuses.

Here we're talking about violent
braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
better ways of making cars more energy efficient.
They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with
design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and
technology) systems to be used.

So why can't you name any teams that will actually use KERS?

Answer: the cars are faster without KERS.

Bikes just don't
brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
problem.
The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial
problems

LOL. A few manufacturers hit by the economic downturn dropped out.
Next year there are more teams on the grid than last year. As usual,
you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy.

and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses.

You're an idiot, Colesy. You should distinguish between the governing
body and the teams. The previous head of the governing body has just
been forced out precisely because he tried to put a budget cap in
place. The teams that matter threatened to split off into a separate
series if he proceeded, then forced him out. As I said, you haven't
the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. You read an
outdated handout from one guy who has no power to do anything, and
thought it was an answer. That's just about your standard method of
debate, and it's despicable.

Want to bet that champions this year spend a minimum of three times
the budget cap, and more likely twelve times as much (about half a
billion dollars)?

Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have
trumped R&D.

The Copenhagen Wheel is one where wishful thinking wasted more
taxpayer's money, more likely.

And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.
I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel
free to "show your work" as the teachers say.

Oh, I showed you, Colesy, and you cut my reasoning, and then came up
with some old press release and tried to pretend it is the gospel.
Show me one team, just one, that will use KERS this year. Show me just
one team that stands a chance of winning the championship that will
even try to work within the *optional* budget cap. You're wanking
again, Colesy.

The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...
You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!
There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without
regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the
cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of
a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to
lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater
average power).

I think the principal benefit of the Copenhagen wheel, should it ever
cease to be vaporware, will be to make the poseurs down at the Kaffy
Baisikkel feel "responsible". It's not technology, it's feelgood crap
for shaveleg trendies.

As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more
efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The
efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can
virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight
continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in
technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like
hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a
lot of small motors.

That's what I said, if less pompously: "You'll be developing well-
defined leg muscles, Pete!"

Try again, Colesy.

Andre Jute
*Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science

No need to get ****y, just admit you were wrong & get over it.

You should practice what you preach so pompously, Colesy. I shot down
every one of your points. So admit you were wrong and get over it. Or:

Name one team that will use that KERS/Copenhagen crap next year.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework