2 ms·
You don't add them up like this. I can make a car use 50% less fuel an infinite amount of times, not just twice.
by vasco 4y ago
You don't add them up like this. I can make a car use 50% less fuel an infinite amount of times, not just twice.
- WalterBright 4y agoPlease rethink your statement. You cannot get more motive energy than the energy put into the propeller. > I can make a car use 50% less fuel an infinite amount of times No, you can't. Conservation of energy applies. P.S. I didn't "add" them, either. 90% x 115% => 103.5%
- moloch-hai 4y agoThat is not how it works. 1-((1-0.9)x0.85) = 0.915, 91.5%. 15% better.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- davrosthedalek 4y ago(Your original point is not affected by this nitpicking, but:) A car, traveling any distance, between two points of constant height (in the gravity field), and neglecting work through friction (which is zero in the zero speed limit, albeit the movement is quite slow then, but a pumped out tunnel and mag lev gets you very close), requires no work, so no fuel. Technically.
- rbanffy 4y ago> I can make a car use 50% less fuel an infinite amount of times, At some point it'll be running on nuclear fission, as you won't be able to feed it a single whole atom. ;-)
- recursive 4y agoDoesn't follow. One of the ways you can make a car use less fuel is by reducing drag and friction. A propeller provides a certain thrust for a certain input power. If more power comes out than goes in, you can use it to construct a perpetual motion machine.
- moloch-hai 4y agoYour construction of what the number means doesn't make sense, and (therefore) you need to start over. It is generally a mistake to assume people quoting figures mean stupidly impossible things, even though sometimes they do.
- WalterBright 4y agoGood luck with that.