New energy ideas

[Ocean1]

Two things: -
Firstly, surely conservation of energy says that the effect on the earth's rotational momentum is much greater than than the mass proportionality.

You can blame Einstein this time, for the most famous equation of all time.

Secondly, there is the issue of changing angular momentum. As your elevator climbs the tower, it is being accelerated in the direction of rotation and so exerts a force on the tower in the opposite direction. The opposite of course applies on the way down.
How do you tangentially stabilise the tower?

How much lateral stiffening does a slingshot string need?

Think the largest sheer forces on such a structure would be atmospheric effects on the lower end and coriolis effects on the payload. Neither insignificant but both much smaller than the tensile stress on the structure. I did see a finite element analysis of such a tower somewhere, lateral acceleration hardly registered.

[Bass]

Think the largest sheer forces on such a structure would be atmospheric effects on the lower end and coriolis effects on the payload. Neither insignificant but both much smaller than the tensile stress on the structure. I did see a finite element analysis of such a tower somewhere, lateral acceleration hardly registered.

You're starting to lose me a bit here.

I can't see where E=MC squared is relevant. We are not talking about either relativistic speeds or matter-energy conversion. It's purely mechanics and Newtonian stuff at that

A slingshot needs huge stabilisation if the stone were to try and climb up the string from your hand to the pouch, which is the situation we have here.

The tangential accelerations I mentioned ARE the coriolis forces, I just used other words. I agree entirely about the tensile stress.
My point was that if your payload is a railcar, then your outer end anchor rock needs to be MUCH larger than the railcar to make the coriolis effects minor and so your cable needs to hold much more than just the railcar.

To use your analogy, this is equivalent to a slingshot with a large stone in the pouch and a smaller one climbing the string.

What am I missing?

Still an awesome scheme and your idea of running a superconductor up the tower as the cold end of some sort of heat engine........yeah!

[Ocean1]

You're starting to lose me a bit here.

I can't see where E=MC squared is relevant. We are not talking about either relativistic speeds or matter-energy conversion. It's purely mechanics and Newtonian stuff at that

It's perfectly relevant at sub relitivistic velocities, it's simply a discription of the amount of energy represented by a certain mass moving at a certain speed, relative to the observer. In this case the mass is the railcar and the observer is the tower, their relative velocities in both X and Y axis are identical. Their relative velocities in Z is a function of the rate of climb of the car, which you can control. I don't have the means to define it, but at any rational velocity corolias forces would be fairly minor wrt the overall structural requirements of the tower. It may be that the trip might take a day as opposed to an hour, in order to manage that but without hard numbers for the mass of each but I just don't know.

A slingshot needs huge stabilisation if the stone were to try and climb up the string from your hand to the pouch, which is the situation we have here.

The tangential accelerations I mentioned ARE the coriolis forces, I just used other words. I agree entirely about the tensile stress.
My point was that if your payload is a railcar, then your outer end anchor rock needs to be MUCH larger to make the coriolis effects minor and so your cable needs to hold much more than just the railcar.

To use your analogy, this is equivalent to a slingshot with a large stone in the pouch and a smaller one climbing the string.

Try it, put a bead on the string and hold it with your fingers, spin the string up and let the bead go. The string buckle any?

What am I missing?

Still an awesome scheme and your idea of running a superconductor up the tower as the cold end of some sort of heat engine........yeah!

More, given the planet's magnetic field it's basically a fucking huge generator, but I don't know how to figure output. Seems likely that at a minimum it'd power the elevator.

[Hitcher]

E=MC squared? I thought we were talking about F=gM1*M2/r squared.

[Swoop]

Plop a thermal/solar hotwater heater up there too...

The drawback with that is the simple fact that the solar panels and systems require maintenance.
The majority of kiwi houses fitted witht these are inefficient due to lack of maintenance.
A european systems engineer was over here and was horrified!
Our water quality was one contributing factor.

The suppliers of the equipment seem capable of the "quick sale" mentality, where they sell and install the gear, get the money out of the customer, and leave the customer feeling good... but uneducated about what needs doing in the future to maintain their investment.

[Bass]

Originally Posted by Bass
You're starting to lose me a bit here.

I can't see where E=MC squared is relevant. We are not talking about either relativistic speeds or matter-energy conversion. It's purely mechanics and Newtonian stuff at that

It's perfectly relevant at sub relitivistic velocities, it's simply a discription of the amount of energy represented by a certain mass moving at a certain speed, relative to the observer. In this case the mass is the railcar and the observer is the tower, their relative velocities in both X and Y axis are identical. Their relative velocities in Z is a function of the rate of climb of the car, which you can control. I don't have the means to define it, but at any rational velocity corolias forces would be fairly minor wrt the overall structural requirements of the tower. It may be that the trip might take a day as opposed to an hour, in order to manage that but without hard numbers for the mass of each but I just don't know.

OK.
I grant you that Maxwell's equations still work perfectly well at the sort of speeds we are talking about.
My point was that the relativistic effects would be tiny and that Mr Newton's stuff is perfectly adequate and WAY simpler. However, you are quite correct that a slow climb would reduce the coriolis effect.

A slingshot needs huge stabilisation if the stone were to try and climb up the string from your hand to the pouch, which is the situation we have here.

The tangential accelerations I mentioned ARE the coriolis forces, I just used other words. I agree entirely about the tensile stress.
My point was that if your payload is a railcar, then your outer end anchor rock needs to be MUCH larger to make the coriolis effects minor and so your cable needs to hold much more than just the railcar.

To use your analogy, this is equivalent to a slingshot with a large stone in the pouch and a smaller one climbing the string.

Try it, put a bead on the string and hold it with your fingers, spin the string up and let the bead go. The string buckle any?

But this is exactly my point - the string has to be strong enough to hold the rock - not the bead. Yes it does buckle due to coriolis forces and the amount of buckle depends on the ratio of the mass of the rock to the mass of the bead. Again to use your point, it also depends on how fast the bead moves,

What am I missing?

Still an awesome scheme and your idea of running a superconductor up the tower as the cold end of some sort of heat engine........yeah!

More, given the planet's magnetic field it's basically a fucking huge generator, but I don't know how to figure output. Seems likely that at a minimum it'd power the elevator.

Surely it rotates at the same speed as the earth and so is immobile relative to the earth's field - so no generation?

E=MC squared? I thought we were talking about F=gM1*M2/r squared.

I'm with you - also my point
That's Newton, not Einstein

[Ocean1]

Originally Posted by Bass
But this is exactly my point - the string has to be strong enough to hold the rock - not the bead. Yes it does buckle due to coriolis forces and the amount of buckle depends on the ratio of the mass of the rock to the mass of the bead. Again to use your point, it also depends on how fast the bead moves,

Arrrggg –ggg, me eyes is rupturing.

Why do you always make me go look, it disrupts the flow of my flippant and argumentative diatribe.

Here, numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_e...and_cable_lean

There’s that FEA diagram I saw too.

My point was that any structure capable of the vertical stress component orta be well good for the angular loads.

[ManDownUnder]

I came across a really simply idea the other day though.

Car pulls in from being out and the amount of heat slowly seeping off the bonnet was impressive. I lay some wet washing out on a towel and sure enough - water be gone!

It'd be nice to construct a duct of sorts to encourage the updraft, and hang washing in it. I reckon you'd dry most of a load per drive if that makes sense

[Bass]

Arrrggg –ggg, me eyes is rupturing.

Why do you always make me go look, it disrupts the flow of my flippant and argumentative diatribe.

Well, that's because I'm a pedantic SOB

Here, numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_e...and_cable_lean

There’s that FEA diagram I saw too.

What a cool article. Thanks for that

My point was that any structure capable of the vertical stress component orta be well good for the angular loads.

And I agree. It's just that the tension loads are a good deal higher than you first suggested

Besides, I enjoy a good technical bullshit session

[The Stranger:Me]

Rather than solve a problem, why not remove it?
The company Sixpackback works for designs and prototypes electric motors. He was saying that they are able to make motors for refrigerators that are over 80% efficient when existing ones are around 20%.
They are FA dearer to produce as they use less copper and resources and are lighter.
How many other painless opportunities for energy saving are out there?

[avgas]

He was saying that they are able to make motors for refrigerators that are over 80% efficient when existing ones are around 20%.

Internal combustion fridge motors?
All electric motors run 50% or higher efficiency.
Unless its a really fucked one