The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Also that the machines in the on-site gym be hooked up to give positive feedback
to the electricity supply
The fitness center at my daughter's school does that with their aerobic machines (steppers and elliptical machines). IIRC the generated power is used for lighting in that area of the building. They've even had contests between campus groups for 'most power generated' over a given period, partially as a means of encouraging students to stay fit.
Since we operate a sewer company, I've suggested turbines in the mainlines. My thinking is that, our cost - overall - would go down because of the electricity put back into the system by the turbines, and our revenue would go up because the energy extracted from the sewer flow would have to be made up by electric pumps at lift stations, and we can bill our sewer customers for that. Now that's a win-win for us!
Of course, the customers kinda get it in the hiney, but "oh, well!"
I'm a little pissed that he dodged this question: "What if you strapped C4 to a boomerang? Could this be an effective weapon, or would it be as stupid as it sounds?"
Let's say it had a remote detonator, or some sort of fail-safe that it would automatically detonate before returning within X meters (Fellow Americans, I'm using meters here because we are talking science). Wouldn't it be an effective weapon to clear out enemies that are hiding behind a building, tank, or other barrier. It could possibly be more effective than a grenade, since it turns and is not a line of site weapon.
I know, this would be handheld, much more portable than a grenade launcher (m32 or xm307) or similar artillery, and single person operational. The military still uses grenades right? The boomerang could serve the purpose of clearing a small space, too, by throwing lightly underhand.
True, but then again, the turbine on the rain gutter is not accurate either. Why is the turbine attached after the gutter curves outward, as opposed to free falling water? Where Mr. Wright? Why can't I find Mr. Wright?
The way he computed the elctricity vs. rain is quite mysterious. Somehow, the quantity of falling water transforms into kWh, but how ? I assume it is simply the work value of the falling water weight turned 1 to 1 into electricty (which actually assumes a efficiency of 1 from the turbine).
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
You're right - it is a matter of energy transformation. The potential energy given up by the water in falling from roof height to ground level is transformed into electrical energy, less the losses in conversion. That's where it all falls down (pun intended). A rain gutter downspout is rarely a full pipe, if ever, and probably always a turbulent flow. Turbines are best operated using laminar flow, and even then are probably less than 70% efficient. I'd expect a conversion efficiency of less than 50% in the best of times, far less most of the time.
Will Rogers never met me.
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 27-Oct-16 18:57