CoasterKrazy

This is actually pretty insightful! The "leverage" you mentioned is known as moment, which is expressed in units of force*distance, like pound*feet, pound*inch, or kip*feet (a kip is a unit commonly used in structural engineering applications, equivalent to half a ton, or 1000 pounds). A moment occurs just as you described it- when a force is applied at a distance away from where that same force is being resisted. So, in the case of WindSeeker, the force is applied to the tower, and the as the tower tries to rotate (fall over), a moment is induced in the foundation as it keeps the tower upright.

it be neat to see it with a tone of l.e.d.'s. it would be a light show & a half @ night... At an American Society of Civil Engineers meeting held at the park a few months ago, Mr. Gramke said that all new lighting in the park would use either CFLs or LEDs in order to reduce electricity consumption. Hopefully this is still the case!

CoasterRZ, I think you mean "hydration" and not "hydrolysis," which are two very different chemical processes.

Could Kings Island require payment every time Glee mentions their name? Not that they should, KI obviously doesn't have even an ounce of the clout held by Coke and Pepsi, but could they legally do so?

On a similar note, Interpreter, do you know why they can mention Kings Island but they don't show labels on beverage containers?

There was a topic on CoasterBuzz a few months back about "Kings Island" being one of the fastest-growing Google searches at the beginning of the summer. While some attributed it to the fact that the website name had been changed, I have a hard time believing people from greater Cincinnati searching for the KI website could create even a ripple in Google's ocean of searches. If however, the park happened to be mentioned on a wildly popular national (multi-national?) television show, coupled with the name change, I can imagine "Kings Island" having a larger share of Google requests. Whether the Glee references have an effect on Kings Island searches or not, I think the park could certainly benefit from contacting the powers-that-be at Fox and working on some kind of visit, episode taping, or concert series. That being said, given the insane popularity of Glee, I wouldn't be surprised if the park ran into a situation similar to the rumored Nickelodeon one- the potential benefits from the brand are huge, but the associated costs are even higher. Either way, I sure hope someone at the park is looking into this. Free advertising (however small it may be) on a popular nationwide television show can't hurt, and neither can a little synergy between the show and the park.

I've taken almost nothing from the internet. Rather, I'm using what I learned during my undergraduate studies in engineering and applying it to a real-world situation. Like all legitimate engineers and scientists, I will continue to use books. And that way, I'll continue to be able to recognize a flawed (or in this case, impossible) design when I see one.

Without supplementary sources, it is only until 100% of the energy in the system can be recovered, gear boxes are perfectly efficient, and batteries can store and then relinquish 100% of the energy they receive (with absolutely no losses in any of these cases- no friction, no heat), that the system you have described would be possible. It would also be necessary that the coaster never demand more energy than it did during the initial charging phase (presumably, it's first cycle), so the train could never be heavier, wind resistance never higher, or lubricants ever less effective. We are nowhere near having the technology to do any of these things. Yes, our understanding of the laws change, but it would seem that the laws themselves do not.

Why not? Did a book tell you that? With technology developing at the rate it is, there is more and more reason to not only think it will but to strive to change it our-self. Research has shown that the laws of physics are steady with time. If thermo hasn't changed for the last few billion years, why would it change now? Feel free to keep "thinking for yourself" and avoiding the textbooks. I'll stick to reality.

I don't think this is a matter of "thinking for myself" any more than claiming that Vortex was designed by Vekoma, or Diamondback was designed by Giovanola, is "thinking for myself." What you are proposing is a perpetual motion device, which, like we've both said, given our current understanding of thermodynamics, is impossible. Could our understanding of thermodynamics change? Yes, but at this time there is no reason to think it will. I'll admit that "impossible" is not the best term to use. Incredibly unlikely works better.

I'm not trying to be famous, I'm accepting scientific facts as they are. Perhaps I'm not understanding what kind of system you are imagining. But if it's strapping some Toyota made do-hicky to Vortex/Beast/Flight of Fear, sending the train on its merry way using the current lift motor/LIMs, and then letting the regenerators take over for all power needs once the train is back in the station, it's not possible.

There's no debating that, given the opportunity and necessary advancements, this technology could be used to help reduce the energy consumption of roller coasters. I'm all for green tech, and I welcome any attempts by theme parks to decrease their carbon footprint, but from a physical/thermodynamic perspective, it is indeed impossible to have an entirely, 100% self-sustaining roller coaster based upon regenerative technology. There will always be losses, and as such, some external source must provide the energy necessary for the coaster to operate. We could develop technologies with efficiencies such that those outside sources are minor, but they would be there nonetheless. Again, this tech could definitely be used in amusement parks. It can not, however, result in those parks removing their rides from external powers sources after the first test run.

Using regenerative technology (both present and future) it is impossible to have a self-sustaining roller coaster. Some outside source must be provided because it is not physically possible to convert 100% of the potential energy of the train to electricity. There will always be losses, and therefore another source of energy is necessary. I'm not familiar with current technology or what Toyota proposes, but I would imagine that unless a coaster is designed specifically for this system, it would not be economically or physically feasible to install this on an existing ride. I doubt the energy savings would be greater than the cost of the technology, and I doubt any significant amount of electricity could be generated without preventing the train from running the course ( , however, are pretty cool (see 5:15)).

According to Mr. Gramke, the WindSeeker sight is not considered wetlands.

That primer looks really good, especially in the second photo...a little too good, perhaps...?

According to Jeff Gramke, the blacktop in Coney Mall replaced the failed concrete that was originally there. Rather than replace the concrete with concrete, asphalt was easier to install and maintain. Hopefully what Mr. Gramke said a few weeks ago was true, and the concrete/asphalt in Coney Mall now will be replaced with pavers.

While I don't know what changes will be made to the midway, I'm assuming the trees were removed in order to bring in the equipment and parts necessary for construction. Rather than risk a potential collision, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they removed the trees for constructability issues, but intend on replacing them. We'll see...

As Mr. Gramke was discussing foundations, I got the impression that (assuming he was indeed talking about the Flight Commander sight) the sight for WindSeeker was chosen because of its more favorable soil conditions. I don't think we have to worry about The Beast being disturbed. I can't imagine that WindSeeker will have a very big footprint, and there is a good amount of space between Vortex, Action Theater, and Beast (check out Google Earth).

As confirmed by Jeff Gramke, WindSeeker will be located between Action Theater and Vortex. He mentioned that they considered another sight "about 150 feet away" but they found the soil conditions between Vortex and AT to be better suited for WindSeeker. Whether or not that means they considered the Flight Commander pad is up for debate. The Action Theater exit path will be modified to provide access to the new ride's entrance and exit. Also, the asphalt in Coney Mall will be removed and replaced with pavers over the off-season. Sounds good to me!

For those of you who have yet to visit Halloween Haunt this year, along with the normal photos being taken at the front gate, there was a setup in line for Wolf Pack where groups had their picture taken in front of a backdrop of corn stalks. Normally, I avoid the front-gaters like the plague, but I wasn't given a choice in SOB's old queue (which I did not mind at all for some reason...), so my group and I enjoyed having a few shots taken. Since I haven't had a non-on-ride photo taken at the park for years, I didn't realize you are now able to view your photos online when you get home. This is a perk I had experienced at Disney, and the fact that I could purchase the photos at home over the internet encouraged me to buy them, which I definitely would not do at the park. If this were done with ORPs as well, I would be much more inclined to purchase those. Anyway, while they've probably been doing this for quite some time (see below*), kudos to Kings Island for making it easier for me to give them my money, and more importantly, remember my great time with friends at the park! *The website where I bought my two pictures still bears the Paramount Parks emblem

That is not the reason Son of Beast was closed or is closed. I'm sorry i was misinformed. I was just under that impression No need to apologize. For those of us who don't have inside information, there are few other impressions we could have. Most information released to the public that I can find points to what you said. The ride was closed after the report from a rider, and remains closed because the park is not happy with its condition. Cinci Enquirer, June 22 2009 Cinci Enquirer, Nov 14 2009 WCPO, July 27 2009 WCPO, March 16 2010 WLWT, June 24 2009 WLWT, March 19 2010

This sounds oddly familiar... stating you intend to reach your goals by having those goals. Sounds like a plan to me!

For completeness' sake, while the singers do in fact sing live throughout the performances, there are certain instances where background tracks with pre-recorded voices are used, over which the live performers will sing. This is, at least to some extent, lip synching, although in my opinion, completely understandable given the fact that performers must dance and/or change costumes throughout the shows.

I was told that the spike on top of the Tower was removed in order to make it easier (and safer) for maintenance personnel to replace the light at the top of the tower. This replacement was done regularly in order to follow federal aviation requirements, and by removing the spike and installing the light elsewhere, the process wasn't as daunting as it had been.

It irks me that "conventional wisdom" among roller coaster enthusiasts is that Cedar Fair paid "too much" for the Paramount parks. The vast majority of people in this community have absolutely no way to determine how much the parks are actually worth, and have little to no information whatsoever regarding the agreement between CBS and Cedar Fair. Without that information, any statements regarding how much CF should have paid are nearly baseless. Now, an argument that can be made is, given the price tag, was it a good move for Cedar Fair to purchase the parks? Hindsight being what it is, looking back it seems like CF would have been better off without acquiring the Paramount parks, especially given the recession. Assuming Kinzel and Co. didn't have a crystal ball, however, I can't blame them for buying the parks. It seems to me that adding the Paramount parks to their portfolio was the only viable way for Cedar Fair to grow. With Hard Rock Park, Wild West World, and even to some extent, California Adventure as examples, it's apparent that it is fairly difficult build a new amusement park from the ground up. If I had been in CF's shoes, five successful amusement parks would have been quite appealing to me as well. Okay, off my soapbox... As far as Kings Island during the Paramount years, my favorite aspect was the themeing. While some of the park was indeed a "poor man's Disney," Flight of Fear, Tomb Raider, and Italian Job were at least on par with comparable rides at Universal Studios, in my opinion. What I disliked most was that the quality of that themeing, invariably, lasted a season or less. I much prefer Cedar Fair's non-themeing, just-make-things-look-nice approach, compared to Paramount's theme-it-and-let-it-break policy. I don't hate the Paramount years by any means, but I appreciate what Cedar Fair has done, and given the path the park took under CBS, I think it is in much better hands now.