Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: nicksanspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 30 Aug 2005 11:55:22 -0400
Doug Miller <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>...The reciprocating cylinder design is inherently less efficient --
>>>*considerably* less so, in fact -- than a conventional piston engine
>>>for one simple reason: the mass of the reciprocating parts is far higher,
>>>and therefore correspondingly greater energy is wasted in reversing their
>>>direction 'x' times per second. It simply *can't* be more efficient
>>>than a conventional design.
>>
>>Sure it can, with good bearings and balancing.
>
>Not without violating the laws of thermodynamics, it can't. It simply takes
>more energy to reverse the direction of a moving two-kilogram mass than to
>reverse the direction of a one-kilogram mass moving at the same velocity.
It takes no energy, with proper counterbalancing.
You seem to enjoy vaguely referring to these "laws of thermodynamics" :-)
How much energy is required to reverse a seesaw direction with a perfect
bearing and perfect springs under each end? Does it depend on the weight
of the people?
Nick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: AL
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- References:
- Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Christina Peterson
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Doug Miller
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: nicksanspam
- Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- From: Doug Miller
- Thanks for Patent help.
- Prev by Date: Re: Alternative source of fuel oil
- Next by Date: Re: Saab 95/96, was Re: Strokes, Cycles and Variable Compression
- Previous by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Next by thread: Re: Thanks for Patent help.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|