Toyota - "Ideas for Good" commercial - Rollercoaster

[CoasterKrazy]

^Giving up and saying some thing is impossible and can't be done, has never made any one famous. On top of that, it only sets an individual up for failure. You obviously are a little behind on some newer (and some older) technology, Battery technology has taken many leaps and bounds in the last 5 years alone, and generator and inverter technology is not far behind. Yes there will always be losses, but that will not matter when technology flips the ratio. The advancement in gear box technology alone is amazing. The only thing on this Earth that I think is impossible, is a REAL man having a baby.

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.

[luff]

What the Toyota commercial is showing is just regenerating the braking at the end of the ride. What they are missing is that all the potential energy on the fist hill does not make it into the kinetic energy at the end. A lot is bled off, that is why the following hills can not be higher than the first (unless you shoot some more energy in the system)

Now FD has a ton of energy on the brake run, i bet they could save some money there

[Monroe]

^Giving up and saying some thing is impossible and can't be done, has never made any one famous. On top of that, it only sets an individual up for failure. You obviously are a little behind on some newer (and some older) technology, Battery technology has taken many leaps and bounds in the last 5 years alone, and generator and inverter technology is not far behind. Yes there will always be losses, but that will not matter when technology flips the ratio. The advancement in gear box technology alone is amazing. The only thing on this Earth that I think is impossible, is a REAL man having a baby.

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.

OK let me see if I can get you going in the same direction as me. First, I am not saying that you are wrong about the fact that it can not be done right now so there is no argument there. What I have a hard time with is the fact that you are just simply wrighting the potential for it to happen off, just because you accept scientific fact. Don't just accept some thing because it is in a book, unless you need that info to pass a test. Discover things for yourself, I can guarantee that you will come close to the same results but they will be different. Science is discovery not fact, just think of where we would be if Thomas Alva Edison just accepted Humphry Davy's or sir Joseph Wilson Swan's version of the light bulb. If you want an example of what I think could happen with today's technology, then how about this.

First, the weight of the batteries will have to come down some more. Second, the gear boxes will have to lose some weight too. There would be one gear box and generator per car, (not train) and they would be attached to a box that would be added to the back with the batteries in it. The batteries would be switched out when the charge cycle is complete, they would only be charged while connected to the train. The lift motor will have to be changed to a lower torque (lower amp) and the gear box will have to be changed out with one to supplement the lower torque. I can see some thing like this on Vortex, but not on Beast (way too much weight to begin with), and just to be safe: PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU RESPOND. THIS IS JUST SOME THING I THOUGHT UP, I DID NOT TEST IT AND I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF IT WILL WORK. (Who am I kidding, it will work, engineers are never wrong

Lighten up a little CoasterKrazy and think for yourself, don't take any ones word for fact........even mine.

[KIfan1980]

think for yourself, don't take any ones word for fact........even mine.

I think you should add that to your signature quotes!

Also, thanks for pushing people to think beyond what they "know" - while you share some great and large historical inventions as examples, I believe there are smaller and potentially more meaningful examples happening everyday. This breakthrough/out of the box thinking is what will keep this country and the world moving forward. Just looking around me right now, I'm amazed at how many things there are that I'd have scoffed at as impossible when I was in High School - USB drives (we had 5 1/4" floppies or tape back then), internet w/ wireless router (didn't exist back then), thin flat panel display (I don't miss the green screen), iPhone (we stopped at a pay phone to make a call, we had to see friends to talk to them, had an address book, calendar, yellowpages, maps, Mattel Handheld Football, etc... back then)

[CoasterKrazy]

OK let me see if I can get you going in the same direction as me. First, I am not saying that you are wrong about the fact that it can not be done right now so there is no argument there. What I have a hard time with is the fact that you are just simply wrighting the potential for it to happen off, just because you accept scientific fact. Don't just accept some thing because it is in a book, unless you need that info to pass a test. Discover things for yourself, I can guarantee that you will come close to the same results but they will be different. Science is discovery not fact, just think of where we would be if Thomas Alva Edison just accepted Humphry Davy's or sir Joseph Wilson Swan's version of the light bulb. If you want an example of what I think could happen with today's technology, then how about this.

First, the weight of the batteries will have to come down some more. Second, the gear boxes will have to lose some weight too. There would be one gear box and generator per car, (not train) and they would be attached to a box that would be added to the back with the batteries in it. The batteries would be switched out when the charge cycle is complete, they would only be charged while connected to the train. The lift motor will have to be changed to a lower torque (lower amp) and the gear box will have to be changed out with one to supplement the lower torque. I can see some thing like this on Vortex, but not on Beast (way too much weight to begin with), and just to be safe: PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE YOU RESPOND. THIS IS JUST SOME THING I THOUGHT UP, I DID NOT TEST IT AND I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE IF IT WILL WORK. (Who am I kidding, it will work, engineers are never wrong

Lighten up a little CoasterKrazy and think for yourself, don't take any ones word for fact........even mine.

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.

[Monroe]

Could our understanding of thermodynamics change? Yes, but at this time there is no reason to think it will.

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.

[The Interpreter]

While I was in high school, our science book told us man would never land on the moon. Only one small problem...he already had...

[CoasterKrazy]

Could our understanding of thermodynamics change? Yes, but at this time there is no reason to think it will.

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.

[Monroe]

Could our understanding of thermodynamics change? Yes, but at this time there is no reason to think it will.

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.

Not only can it change, but it is. I already talked about the advancement in technology for the gear boxes (collection of energy) but you ignored that. I also talked about the advancements in batteries, (stored energy) as I recalled you ignored that too. By the way, do you know that the theories of thermodynamics are not the same theories that started the whole idea of thermodynamics? That's right some one proved some one else wrong, imagine that, it has changed in the last few billion years. "why would it change now?" because it can, it has in the past and it will again, also because of science, real science, people using and manipulating science, not because of facts, because facts can only be proven wrong. You can't prove some thing right if it is already right. One last thing, the world is round, I don't care what the papers say about it being flat, it is in fact round.

[CoasterKrazy]

Not only can it change, but it is. I already talked about the advancement in technology for the gear boxes (collection of energy) but you ignored that. I also talked about the advancements in batteries, (stored energy) as I recalled you ignored that too. By the way, do you know that the theories of thermodynamics are not the same theories that started the whole idea of thermodynamics? That's right some one proved some one else wrong, imagine that, it has changed in the last few billion years. "why would it change now?" because it can, it has in the past and it will again, also because of science, real science, people using and manipulating science, not because of facts, because facts can only be proven wrong. You can't prove some thing right if it is already right. One last thing, the world is round, I don't care what the papers say about it being flat, it is in fact round.

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.

[Monroe]

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.

What I described was some thing off the top of my head, it also described multiple battery packs that can be changed out. I also mentioned that every thing would have to be much lighter, and that it was some thing off the top of my head and it was not tested. If you wanted exact specs and blue prints you should have said so. You continually just pull stuff off the internet and out of books and it shows, I will continue to repeat what I said: Science is not fact, it is people discovering new things, rediscovering old into new, it is theories that are written just to be proven wrong and rewritten to accommodate the new findings. It is people thinking for themselves, growing new ideas and nourishing old. Continue reading your books my friend, and you will find out what is being discovered today five years from now. I am not going to say any thing else on this, the person who initially started the thread does not deserve this, and I am sorry for taking it further than I should have.

[CoasterKrazy]

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.