3 ms·
Yes, and weighing the whole thing against alternatives makes it questionable. First, it might save lots of energy, but it is also a lot more complicated than j
by hxa7241 17y ago
Yes, and weighing the whole thing against alternatives makes it questionable.
First, it might save lots of energy, but it is also a lot more complicated than just having brakes, which it is going to have anyway.
And how much energy would it really save? It still has to accelerate that detachable portion which could be a substantial fraction of the whole, and furthermore the train would probably need to be substantially heavier to support the extra mechanism, which would be a loss . . .
Still, it is a creative leap, which makes one think about how to be similarly inventive. You have to get some wild ideas before figuring out the details.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoIt saves a lot of energy. Accelerating one part can be done by taking energy from the incoming sub/super carriage. Accelerating and decellerating the smaller carriages is much more efficient than the whole train.
- krschultz 17y agoAre you sure? How much extra air drag will there be having a hump that basically doubles the frontal area and adds a load of form drag?
- lftl 17y agoI'm less worried about energy, and more about time. Not having to stop at every stop along a route would cut a lot of commute time, and make adding more stops more feasible.
- KiwiNige 17y ago>> but it is also a lot more complicated than just having brakes At least one train maker still struggles getting this bit right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_%28train%29#Braking_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_%28train%29#Braking_iss... I'd be very worried about safety with something this complex unless it could be proven to always fail in a safe way.