Re: Halloween Message: Ignore all messages launched by a troll ...

[Edward Dolan]

"daytoncapri" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[newsgroups expanded]

> This a suggestion for dealing with an irritant - ignore it.
>
> I see that a posting tree in this group has grown substantially from an
> original post by a troll. (We will use no names here.)
>
> The size of the posting tree - as you talk with each other - is a form
> of gratification for the trolls original post - so don't provide it.
> The troll will happily post at a ratio of his to others of 4-to-1,
> 5-to-1, 20-to 1 - as long as he/she gets a response.
>
> Regardless of your content, the mere fact that you made a post in
> response to him (that includes to someone else under his orginal post),
> makes the troll happy, and reinforces that behavior.
>
> If you really get the troll going, he will be delighted to paint the
> entire page with multiple OPs.
>
> [Yes, I see the irony - I am responding in my own way - too.]
>
> You don't really know who the troll is - a dolt, a genius or a fool, or
> a tired, anemic sick baby boomer, a paranoid, a very smart and happy
> and otherwise well-adjusted adolescent, or a person who once was an
> authentic personality - and then lost it, or something else. Any
> characterization in your posts won't make the mark. By missing the
> mark, it only encourages the troll to enjoy the anonymity and
> reinforces the compulsion to post.
>
> The solution is to not respond, here are THREE WAYS TO NOT RESPOND
>
> 1. Refuse to answer any original post from a troll. (Unless, of course,
> if you yourself are a troll)
>
> 2. Refuse to build the posting tree. Do not post under a subject that
> was initiated by a troll. (Unless, of course, if you yourself are a
> troll)
>
> 3. Finally, please do not respond to this particular post, i.e, this
> message you are reading. Seriously. It's a waste for everyone. The
> best way to demonstrate that you agree with my thinking is to not post
> a reply. (Unless, of course, if you yourself are a troll)
>
> Let's move on to real conversation. There's a lot of good people in
> this group with a variety of good questions and helpful answers.
>
> We have important things to share about cycling - let's come here for
> those purposes.
>
> So . . . somebody, how about posting a new topic - on topic?
>
> End of message

All of the above is nothing but the purest gobbledygook by a know-nothing
moron.

However, the cycling newsgroups are now being visited by a real troll which
will give all of you an opportunity to learn what a troll is by what a troll
does. It is easy not to respond to him because he never says anything. His
messages are really just a form of spam, mindless and vacuous. But I am glad
that he is here so that the rest of you can FINALLY learn something about
trolls.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

 

[Jeff Grippe]

Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries. This
type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.

Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Jeff

 

[Tim Downie]

Jeff Grippe wrote:
> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
> a human to charge it.

Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
*way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur. Who wants
to pedal harder than they have to already to make progress?

Tim

 

[Ken C. M.]

Tim Downie wrote:
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>> a human to charge it.
>
> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
> *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur. Who wants
> to pedal harder than they have to already to make progress?
>
> Tim
>
>

It seems to me that the vehicle would weight so much and would take so
much electricity to drive it that you would have to a very high gear
ratio in order to spin the generator fast enough to charge the batteries
to drive the vehicle that you would be much better off just buying a
nice lightweight bicycle.

Ken
--
The bicycle is just as good company as most husbands and, when it gets
old and shabby, a woman can dispose of it and get a new one without
shocking the entire community. ~Ann Strong

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jeff Grippe wrote:
> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
> by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries. This
> type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
> that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
> think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
> vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.

Seems like a bad alternative way of providing an electric assist, which
is already widely available. Some assist systems /require/ a degree of
pedalling input (Pedelecs), but others let the rider choose to either do
all the work themselves, some of it, or (at least for a time) nothing.
You might wonder why you'd want the former, but legislation and legailty
accounts for most of the answers.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ben C]

On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>> a human to charge it.
>
> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
> *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur.

Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever combination
of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).

A clean and not worn bicycle chain transmission is I think around 98%
efficient.

I don't know what it is on a typical recumbent, but I should think a bit
lower, as the chain(s) are often rather long.

The difference between 96% and 98% is only a few kph on the cruising
speed.

The chief advantages of an electric transmission are the possibility of
regenerative braking, and as the OP suggests, CVT. You set a
second-order "gear lever" for how hard you feel like pedalling (based on
how strong/tired you are), and you pedal away at 90rpm or your favourite
cadence. If you get to a hill, the machine just goes a bit slower. The
resistance always feels the same. No more fiddling with ridiculous 10
speed blocks of sprockets. It's also cleaner on a commuter machine not
to have an oily chain flying around.

Where it gets really interesting is when you consider the possiblity of
hybrid power sources (human/battery or human/battery/internal combustion
engine).

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:11:21 -0500, "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
>by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries. This
>type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
>that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
>think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
>vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.
>
>Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?

Any competent engineer would look at the significant power losses in
the two points of energy conversion of crank->generation and
generation->storage, and immediately conclude that this was a really,
really intensely bad idea by comparison to direct coupling of the
crank to the wheel via a chain.

Yes, I am dead certain that what you propose has been tried, since
examples of battery-powered bicycles and examples of human-powered
generation systems are trivially easy to find as far back as the first
decade of the 20th century. The fact that no such lash-up as you
propose is actually produced for sale, when there has been a hundred
years' worth of experimentation involved, should be a big clue.

Do not let my observations dissuade you from spending your own money
in an attempt to make it work, however. Some of us value the
entertainment factor in watching such endeavors as they are pursued to
their conclusion. I would, however, counsel against seeking venture
capital for the project; some investors have a tendency to become a
bit testy when their money proves ill-spent.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:48:28 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jeff Grippe wrote:
>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
>> by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries. This
>> type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
>> that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
>> think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
>> vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.
>
>Seems like a bad alternative way of providing an electric assist, which
>is already widely available. Some assist systems /require/ a degree of
>pedalling input (Pedelecs), but others let the rider choose to either do
>all the work themselves, some of it, or (at least for a time) nothing.
>You might wonder why you'd want the former, but legislation and legailty
>accounts for most of the answers.

I believe that lack of range on batteries and the uselessness of a
vehicle that has a grossly inefficient drivetrain is a far more
important factor in the way electric-assist bikes are made.

Oh, and lest anyone start flogging the regenerative braking horse yet
again, the bloody corpse decayed into a festering mass and was
shoveled out into the dumpster long since. Please do your flailing
out there.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Grolch]

BionX makes such electric assist setups. While there isn't true recharging,
there is regenerative ability while braking etc. On the BionX units you can
set the assist to 25%, 50%, 100% or 200% and, I believe there is different
settings for the regenerating. I have seen the set up on Catrike Road
trikes. The guy who rides it is like superman on the hills. They are pretty
pricy though, about $1500.00 Canadian for the most powerful motor and best
battery combination.

Grolsch


"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle
> that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would
> really be an electric vehicle with the option of using a human to charge
> it.
>
> Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?
>
> Jeff
>

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Ben C wrote:
>On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>>> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>>> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>>> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>>> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>>> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>>> a human to charge it.
>>
>> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
>> *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur.
>
>Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
>around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever combination
>of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).
[...]
>The chief advantages of an electric transmission are the possibility of
>regenerative braking, and as the OP suggests, CVT.

I'm fairly sure I've seen a web page about a vehicle set up that way.
It might have been a modified Twike. It was a one-off research project
not a product for sale, anyway.

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:48:28 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
>>>by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries. This
>>>type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
>>>that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
>>>think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
>>>vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.
>>
>>Seems like a bad alternative way of providing an electric assist, which
>>is already widely available. Some assist systems /require/ a degree of
>>pedalling input (Pedelecs), but others let the rider choose to either do
>>all the work themselves, some of it, or (at least for a time) nothing.
>>You might wonder why you'd want the former, but legislation and legailty
>>accounts for most of the answers.
>
>
> I believe that lack of range on batteries and the uselessness of a
> vehicle that has a grossly inefficient drivetrain is a far more
> important factor in the way electric-assist bikes are made.
>
> Oh, and lest anyone start flogging the regenerative braking horse yet
> again, the bloody corpse decayed into a festering mass and was
> shoveled out into the dumpster long since. Please do your flailing
> out there.

Do you mean the Vectrix motor scooter

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/03/vectrix_electri_1.php



Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>>>powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>>>batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>>>level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>>>vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>>>since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>>>a human to charge it.
>>
>>Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
>>*way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur.
>
>
> Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
> around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever combination
> of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).
>
> A clean and not worn bicycle chain transmission is I think around 98%
> efficient.
>
> I don't know what it is on a typical recumbent, but I should think a bit
> lower, as the chain(s) are often rather long.
>
> The difference between 96% and 98% is only a few kph on the cruising
> speed.
>
> The chief advantages of an electric transmission are the possibility of
> regenerative braking, and as the OP suggests, CVT. You set a
> second-order "gear lever" for how hard you feel like pedalling (based on
> how strong/tired you are), and you pedal away at 90rpm or your favourite
> cadence. If you get to a hill, the machine just goes a bit slower. The
> resistance always feels the same. No more fiddling with ridiculous 10
> speed blocks of sprockets. It's also cleaner on a commuter machine not
> to have an oily chain flying around.
>
> Where it gets really interesting is when you consider the possiblity of
> hybrid power sources (human/battery or human/battery/internal combustion
> engine).

Battery density is misleading here as Texaco, by repute, bought the
technology to produce long range batteries a number of years back and
have sat on it ever since. There have been numerous attempts to produce
long range electric vehicles and a good number of successes however they
never make it to market. I have a suspicion that the oil companies and
governments do not want the technology available until they can tax our
road use efficiently through road pricing.

We are what is commonly called 'being sold a pup' by the motor trade and
government.

In my opinion of course.

Sniper8052

 

[Bill Z.]

"Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> writes:

> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is powered
> by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries.

You might want to look up the efficiency of a battery to see why this
is a bad idea.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tim Downie]

"Ben C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>>> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>>> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>>> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>>> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>>> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>>> a human to charge it.
>>
>> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
>> *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur.
>
> Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
> around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever combination
> of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).

I'm sorry, but I find that figure hard to believe for the motion to
electricity to storage to motion conversion.

Storage to motion perhaps, but not the whole shebang. Got any links
supporting that figure?

Tim
>
> A clean and not worn bicycle chain transmission is I think around 98%
> efficient.
>
> I don't know what it is on a typical recumbent, but I should think a bit
> lower, as the chain(s) are often rather long.
>
> The difference between 96% and 98% is only a few kph on the cruising
> speed.
>
> The chief advantages of an electric transmission are the possibility of
> regenerative braking, and as the OP suggests, CVT. You set a
> second-order "gear lever" for how hard you feel like pedalling (based on
> how strong/tired you are), and you pedal away at 90rpm or your favourite
> cadence. If you get to a hill, the machine just goes a bit slower. The
> resistance always feels the same. No more fiddling with ridiculous 10
> speed blocks of sprockets. It's also cleaner on a commuter machine not
> to have an oily chain flying around.
>
> Where it gets really interesting is when you consider the possiblity of
> hybrid power sources (human/battery or human/battery/internal combustion
> engine).

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:08:21 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>> Oh, and lest anyone start flogging the regenerative braking horse yet
>> again, the bloody corpse decayed into a festering mass and was
>> shoveled out into the dumpster long since. Please do your flailing
>> out there.
>
>Do you mean the Vectrix motor scooter
>
>http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/03/vectrix_electri_1.php

It can recover up to 5% of the energy used in acceleration when
braking[1]. That's not enough to extend the range appreciably.

In any event, that is not a bicycle of any type. It's an electric
scooter.



[1] If they claim more than 5%, what else are they exaggerating?
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Ben C]

On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ben C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>>>> powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the
>>>> batteries. This type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the
>>>> level of resistance that they desire for cycling and still have a
>>>> vehicle that moves. I don't think that this would qualify as an HPV
>>>> since it would really be an electric vehicle with the option of using
>>>> a human to charge it.
>>>
>>> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going to be
>>> *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and derailleur.
>>
>> Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
>> around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever combination
>> of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).
>
> I'm sorry, but I find that figure hard to believe for the motion to
> electricity to storage to motion conversion.

Leave out storage. The OP did say describe an energy path of crank ->
generator -> battery -> motor. But I think it's better to drive the
motor directly with the generator, and only involve the battery when
you've got surplus energy you need to dump somewhere (i.e. regenerative
braking). Otherwise you're just wasting energy in the losses incurred in
charging and discharging it.

The Prius transmission is also partly mechanical. At a motorway speed
with a fully charged battery, I believe what will be happening is the
petrol engine will be driving the planet carrier, which will be
transferring torque directly to the ring gear (connected to the wheels).
But at the same time, an electric motor will be spinning the sun gear
(effectively raising the gear ratio), and getting the power to do that
directly from a generator on the ring gear. So some of the power is
being transferred through an electrical generator->motor linkage, and
some of it through a mechanical linkage.

But I think the figure of 96% was meant to be for the motor/generators
themselves actually, not for the whole transmission.

> Storage to motion perhaps, but not the whole shebang. Got any links
> supporting that figure?

Hmm, I found this:

http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/121119.pdf

If you look at Figure 15, that's the amount of power lost for a 30kW
load. 7.4% is lost altogether, but more is lost in the gears than in the
electrical components.

But this may be because the gears are doing more of the driving in that
test than the motor/generator system, not necessarily because the
motor/generator system is itself particularly efficient.

 

[Tim Downie]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Ben C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On 2006-11-02, Tim Downie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>>>> Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle
>>>>> is powered by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to
>>>>> charge the batteries. This type of setup would/could allow
>>>>> someone to choose the level of resistance that they desire for
>>>>> cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't think that
>>>>> this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an electric
>>>>> vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.
>>>>
>>>> Driving a generator to charge a battery to drive a motor is going
>>>> to be *way* more inefficient that a simple chain drive and
>>>> derailleur.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily much less efficient. Toyota claim an efficiency of
>>> around 96% for the Prius transmission (which uses a clever
>>> combination of planetary gears and generator-driving-motor).
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I find that figure hard to believe for the motion to
>> electricity to storage to motion conversion.
>
> Leave out storage. The OP did say describe an energy path of crank ->
> generator -> battery -> motor. But I think it's better to drive the
> motor directly with the generator, and only involve the battery when
> you've got surplus energy you need to dump somewhere (i.e.
> regenerative braking). Otherwise you're just wasting energy in the
> losses incurred in charging and discharging it.
>
> The Prius transmission is also partly mechanical. At a motorway speed
> with a fully charged battery, I believe what will be happening is the
> petrol engine will be driving the planet carrier, which will be
> transferring torque directly to the ring gear (connected to the
> wheels). But at the same time, an electric motor will be spinning the
> sun gear (effectively raising the gear ratio), and getting the power
> to do that directly from a generator on the ring gear. So some of the
> power is
> being transferred through an electrical generator->motor linkage, and
> some of it through a mechanical linkage.
>
> But I think the figure of 96% was meant to be for the motor/generators
> themselves actually, not for the whole transmission.
>
>> Storage to motion perhaps, but not the whole shebang. Got any links
>> supporting that figure?
>
> Hmm, I found this:
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/121119.pdf
>
> If you look at Figure 15, that's the amount of power lost for a 30kW
> load. 7.4% is lost altogether, but more is lost in the gears than in
> the electrical components.

As far as I can make out, that paper only lists mechanical losses (which
come to 7.%). It makes no mention of losses inherent in the generation &
conversion into motive power.

Tim

 

[Tim Downie]

Grolch wrote:
> BionX makes such electric assist setups. While there isn't true
> recharging, there is regenerative ability while braking etc. On the
> BionX units you can set the assist to 25%, 50%, 100% or 200% and, I
> believe there is different settings for the regenerating. I have seen
> the set up on Catrike Road trikes. The guy who rides it is like
> superman on the hills.

Please elaorate. Do you mean he rides up hills wearing a cape, rides up
hills effortlessly or rides up hills putting in an effort that only Superman
is capable of?

Tim

 

[Grolch]

"Tim Downie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Grolch wrote:
>> BionX makes such electric assist setups. While there isn't true
>> recharging, there is regenerative ability while braking etc. On the
>> BionX units you can set the assist to 25%, 50%, 100% or 200% and, I
>> believe there is different settings for the regenerating. I have seen
>> the set up on Catrike Road trikes. The guy who rides it is like
>> superman on the hills.
>
> Please elaorate. Do you mean he rides up hills wearing a cape, rides up
> hills effortlessly or rides up hills putting in an effort that only
> Superman is capable of?
>
> Tim
>
>
He rides up hills like I wish I could... effortlessly

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Werehatrack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:11:21 -0500, "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone ever hear of a bike/trike/quad setup where the vehicle is
>>powered
>>by batteries and the pedaling is strictly used to charge the batteries.
>>This
>>type of setup would/could allow someone to choose the level of resistance
>>that they desire for cycling and still have a vehicle that moves. I don't
>>think that this would qualify as an HPV since it would really be an
>>electric
>>vehicle with the option of using a human to charge it.
>>
>>Has anyone ever heard of such a thing?
>
> Any competent engineer would look at the significant power losses in
> the two points of energy conversion of crank->generation and
> generation->storage, and immediately conclude that this was a really,
> really intensely bad idea by comparison to direct coupling of the
> crank to the wheel via a chain.
>
> Yes, I am dead certain that what you propose has been tried, since
> examples of battery-powered bicycles and examples of human-powered
> generation systems are trivially easy to find as far back as the first
> decade of the 20th century. The fact that no such lash-up as you
> propose is actually produced for sale, when there has been a hundred
> years' worth of experimentation involved, should be a big clue.

Contact Union Pacific. They use that but they have 5000 hp diesels running
alternators without no battery assist. What's a little ineffiency between
friends on this one.


>
> Do not let my observations dissuade you from spending your own money
> in an attempt to make it work, however. Some of us value the
> entertainment factor in watching such endeavors as they are pursued to
> their conclusion. I would, however, counsel against seeking venture
> capital for the project; some investors have a tendency to become a
> bit testy when their money proves ill-spent.

You should see my latest creation. I made an Electric Chopper Bike with
about a 15 mile range. It doesn't even look like a bicycle at all but under
all that trim is still a pedal bike.