Hi Sal
Comments
-
The Komatsu HD605 diesel-to-EV is under development. This article was from September.
https://newatlas.com/komatsu-electric-dump-truck/51377/ -
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
From the original article Sal posted:
Of course, this is still an experimental project, and Empa (the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology) is working with the e-Dumper team to study battery performance in such a harsh environment and use case. Empa's battery expert, Marcel Held, says that a big question is what happens if there's mechanical damage to the cells—a real possibility in an environment like a quarry.
"Some batteries start smoking, others burst into flames," he said. "The crucial thing in this instance is to make sure the neighboring cells are not damaged by the fire and heat. Otherwise, there is the risk of a chain reaction." -
Well .... uhm .... there's only going to be 1440 nickel manganese cobalt cells, so I'm sure that statistically speaking there's not all that much of a certainty that things will go wrong.
For the most part.
Generally speaking.
Sal Palooza -
Gawd I wish I didn't mistakenly start this thread...
-
maximillian wrote: »...
Actually, the dump truck story is pretty cool. It only works because it brings its load downward. The opposite direction would take a lot of energy. It may not even be worth more than using a standard diesel truck.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.
The First Law says "You can't win".
The Second Law says "You can't break even."
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »maximillian wrote: »...
Actually, the dump truck story is pretty cool. It only works because it brings its load downward. The opposite direction would take a lot of energy. It may not even be worth more than using a standard diesel truck.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.
The First Law says "You can't win".
The Second Law says "You can't break even."
Don't try to tell that to the kooks trying to push an agenda. All that matters in their kooky agenda."Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
Well, there's a widespread tendency to look at the use of energy in a so-called open system. An open system can exchange matter and/or energy with its surroundings. All of those "perpetual motion" schemes depend on just such a system. There's at least a little additional energy that needs to be put in compared to what comes out. In an isolated system (e.g., the whole univese), the entropy of the system always, always increases. No free lunch.
This is true with batteries, too -- if batteries didn't "obey" the Second Law, they could be recharged an infinite number of times, and every Joule of energy used in charging the battery could be recovered to do electrical work. But, unfortunately, the battery loses "a little something" with every charge-drain cycle, and some of the energy put in during charging is lost (as heat) and cannot be recovered to do useful work -- without expending even further energy.
-
Where does the energy to create the electricity come from? About 75% from fossil fuels. Electricity from fossil fuels is about 35 - 45 % efficient. It would be better to burn the carbon to generate the power to the wheels that to burn the carbon to make electricity, charge the battery, etc. There is nothing "green" about electric cars that got their electricity from a fossil fuel plant. Nuclear energy to create the electricity makes the most "green" sense. Burn gasoline and save the planet (and our tax money). If it makes good economic sense, then it doesn't need tax credits.
Show us a diagram Dr. H!
Carl -
-
Tell the author of the article.
I was Quoting the story. Not the picture of the Truck.
http://www.komatsuamerica.com/mining/electric-trucks
That's the problem I have with your citations, Sal. They are not accurate and/or truly relevant to what your point is. They attempt to fit what your agenda is, regardless of the above. You did the same thing in the closed thread. Unfortunately, I was not able to point it out.
Your response of posting someone's work, attempting to make your point seem relevant, even though the person's work may not (has not been) be accurate to, or relevant in making your point does not help your credibility at all.
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."![:\](https://forum.polkaudio.com/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
I'm just glad we're not part of the Paris accord. We all know who the author of that one is.
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a b!tc#. It doesn't "work" in the global sense of 'creating' energy, nor even in the (thermodynamically legitimate) sense of 'harnessing' gravitational potential energy. It "works" because a load of mass is transferred to it at the top of the hill. The energy cost of putting the load into that big momma truck up at the top of the hill exceeds the amount generated by the trip downhill. That, friends, is the crux of the Second Law.
They are taking stuff down from a mountain. The mass is essentially constant. But the change is height is much greater in transferring the load down a mountain than the height difference in loading the truck. ΔPE = mgΔh. It's a transfer of potential energy to stored electrical energy in the batteries using regenerative breaking. In this case, the energy is there from the creation of the planet. The mountains are in a state of lower entropy with respect to the planet. Taking stuff down from the mountains and making them "flatter" with the rest of the planet increases entropy.
It only works in this VERY limited use case. Wouldn't work on flat land or a quarry. That's all I found was cool. -
I just let off some carbon emissions, excuse me while I leave the room..
Polk Audio SDA 2.3tl Fully Hot Rodded. 😎
SVS SB16 X2
Cary SLP-05/Ultimate Upgrade.
Cary SA-500.1 ES Amps
Cary DMS 800PV Network
OPPO UDP 205/ModWright Modification
VPI Scout TT / Dynavector 20x2
Jolida JD9 Fully Modified
VPI MW-1 Cyclone RCM
MIT Shotgun 3 cables throughout / Except TT, and PC’s -
Yes, the gravitational potential energy is doing the (incremental) work -- but there's a
substantial (I assume) added mass in the truck on the downhill run due to the load... and the load had to get loaded into the dump truck somehow. More 'anti-entropy'.
We're generally in violent agreement -- and the only real point is that, from a universal perspective, entropy increased (less free energy around in the universe to do work after the truck makes a run than before).
I guess the corollary point is that any scheme that looks like a cheap or free way to "make energy" fails the test from the perspective of the universe (which, when all is said and done, is the only perspective that really matters)
It is clever -- like my wife's old Hybrid Explorer with regenerative brakes to get back some of that energy expended going down a hill and use it to charge batteries (and reduce wear on the disc brakes). But, again, not 100% of the dissipated energy is 'reclaimed' by charging the batteries. Darn you, Second Law!
-
"violent agreement"? What the does that mean? I am not violent in any sense of the term. I agree with your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but I disagree with your application. That doesn't make me violent.
First please explain "anti-antropy". If you Google this term is has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
The equation is clear: the energy difference in transferring an object of mass "m" over a change of height "Δh" is: E = mgΔh
The only practical variable here is Δh. Loading a truck changes the height about 30 feet (guess here by the picture of the truck). I am making an assumption here that the top of the mountain is on average flat. So the energy is required to load the truck is what it takes to lift the mass "m" 30 feet.
Since the unloading point is down the mountain (and it's called a mountain in the article) the height difference is substantially larger. For a 300 foot mountain (which is small) the height difference in 10 times larger than the height difference in loading the truck. Sure, there's inefficiency losses here and there. But there is an order of magnitude potential difference in energy.
The mass is only the load. There is energy required to move the empty truck up the mountain in which some of it is captured going back down due to regenerative breaking. This is at a net loss. Point is that the truck is much heavier going down compared to going up.
There's no "free" energy being generated here. But when energy is transferred from one place to another and entropy is increased, then there is a potential to make it do work for us. That's what's going on. Moving the mass out of a quarry decreases entropy and would require a lot of energy from somewhere else (constant recharging from the grid or use a diesel truck).
For your "hybrid" example... yes there is losses, but the point is that the energy from the Δh going down a hill doesn't need to be completely wasted as heat generated in conventional breaks. It can be transfered to somewhere else. The key term here is "completely". As you correctly put it, you can't claim 100%. Point is that you don't have to lose 100% to waste heat either.
-
Do you read the stuff you link?
From your link.Get ready for some crazy claims here.Like any battery breakthrough announcement, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of those announcements never result in any kind of commercialization.
Political Correctness'.........defined
"A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."
President of Club Polk -
maximillian wrote: »"violent agreement"? What the does that mean? I am not violent in any sense of the term. I agree with your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, but I disagree with your application. That doesn't make me violent.
First please explain "anti-antropy". If you Google this term is has nothing to do with thermodynamics.
The equation is clear: the energy difference in transferring an object of mass "m" over a change of height "Δh" is: E = mgΔh
The only practical variable here is Δh. Loading a truck changes the height about 30 feet (guess here by the picture of the truck). I am making an assumption here that the top of the mountain is on average flat. So the energy is required to load the truck is what it takes to lift the mass "m" 30 feet.
Since the unloading point is down the mountain (and it's called a mountain in the article) the height difference is substantially larger. For a 300 foot mountain (which is small) the height difference in 10 times larger than the height difference in loading the truck. Sure, there's inefficiency losses here and there. But there is an order of magnitude potential difference in energy.
The mass is only the load. There is energy required to move the empty truck up the mountain in which some of it is captured going back down due to regenerative breaking. This is at a net loss. Point is that the truck is much heavier going down compared to going up.
There's no "free" energy being generated here. But when energy is transferred from one place to another and entropy is increased, then there is a potential to make it do work for us. That's what's going on. Moving the mass out of a quarry decreases entropy and would require a lot of energy from somewhere else (constant recharging from the grid or use a diesel truck).
For your "hybrid" example... yes there is losses, but the point is that the energy from the Δh going down a hill doesn't need to be completely wasted as heat generated in conventional breaks. It can be transfered to somewhere else. The key term here is "completely". As you correctly put it, you can't claim 100%. Point is that you don't have to lose 100% to waste heat either.
I am the violent one -- I do agree with you, but you miss the point! The mass (m) changes, too -- the truck goes up the hill empty, and comes down full. The mass added to the truck requires some kind of big piece of equipment to lift it up (above the dump truck's height) and drop it in. The energy associated with doing that didn't seem to be accounted for in the analysis of the truck's purported net generation of energy driving loads of stuff down the hill in its working day. Locally, at the truck, looks like more energy out than was put in. Globally -- not so much.
There is no "anti-entropy"; thus the quotes. I was using a turn of phrase to provide a jocular/colloquial reference to reduction of entropy. Entropy can be reduced locally; you & I both know that. More violent agreement
We're on the same page -- heck, we're green here (see that 5+ kW of PVs on my roof); stealin' heat from the sun...
Your last paragraph could serve as a textbook example of "violent agreement". We both are saying the same thing, but spinning it differently. The old "glass half full, glass half empty" trope. It is worth saving as much energy as possible -- but don't expect miracles.
On topic the difference in spin, I'd opine, is at the root of the back-and-forth in this thread. Netting out the plusses and minuses of local (on a per-vehicle basis) vs. regional energy production for vehicles (i.e., using the grid for a fleet of vehicles) almost certainly favors the latter globally -- but there are clear dfferences of opinion about that here! 
Of course, there may be violent disagreement about that on this board!
-
Do you read the stuff you link?
From your link.Get ready for some crazy claims here.Like any battery breakthrough announcement, it should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of those announcements never result in any kind of commercialization.
He only reads the parts that apply to his agenda...you know that agenda that he has claimed time and time again NOT to push but has admitted to pushing already several times in this and the previously mentioned closed thread.
"I am not here to push an agenda...except my agenda!" Sal Cameli"Some people find it easier to be conceited rather than correct."
"Unwad those panties and have a good time man. We're all here to help each other, no matter how it might appear." DSkip -
ahem -- Just to be really, really clear: and because I think that both Maximillian and I have published on thermodynamic topics in the peer-reviewed literature
The only reason I ever brought this up was as an antidote to the tendency of so many folks in the "enlightened, tech-savvy 21st Century" to believe that one can get something from nothing because of their ignorance of very basic and well established physical principles. It is very sad -- because it can result in the separation of people and their money for no good reason
That is absolutely and irrevocably untrue. Sorry.Until you use Regenerative Braking. Then those laws are thrown out the window. Old technology that doesn’t work anymore because new tech killed it.
...
EDIT: PS, Maximillian, I do see (and concede) your point that delta(h) is probably, numerically, larger than delta(m) in the present case. Not to be confused with delta(H), of course!
-
I'm just glad we're not part of the Paris accord. We all know who the author of that one is.
Paris Hilton?
Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
"I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."
My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....
"Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson
"Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee -
-
What's Picard's beef?Jay
SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0 -
I think it relates to my perception of thermodynamics
-
-
"....not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." William Bruce Cameron, Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking (1963)
-
That's right. Thermodynamics is no laughing matter.
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »That's right. Thermodynamics is no laughing matter.
Although pharmacodynamics can cause lots of laughter. -
or pharmacokinetics, for that matter...
-
mhardy6647 wrote: »or pharmacokinetics, for that matter...
Alright, now you're starting to sound like my ex-wife.
-
You're OK by me Doc.
I think, in part, a misunderstanding of what you meant by "violent agreement" as well as your (apparently not as universally-recognized as I thought) enjoyment of turning a phrase (in this case, 'anti-entropy') seems to have run afoul of a desire for use of the vernacular of science.
Maximillian, you're OK too, methinks. As Doc H has alluded to, it's probable that you two are just defining the problem (of the truck/ore, not thermodynamics) differently and that on balance you're more in agreement than not. Perhaps even violently so.
I do wish that you would craft a response more informative than a dismissive video, though. For me, personally, I'd like to know what 'lens' you're viewing the problem through: From Acme Mining Co.'s? From the dump truck's? From the Universe's? Obviously, if we consider the work done by plate tectonics, which so graciously lifted all that ore to elevation, to be "free", that changes the balance sheet considerably compared to a Universal lens that includes work done by the planet as a debit.
I suspect that some of the disagreement you're feeling has to do with viewing through different 'lenses'.
But I could just be barking mad.
Peace.Jay
SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0
https://youtu.be/BNsrK6P9QvI
https://youtu.be/rmRUgfkvnbg