4 ms·
I think the cycle time on this would be far superior to a pneumatic system: cycling this system effectively means lifting ~100 pounds ~8 feet, which a reasonabl
by gcanyon 2mo ago
I think the cycle time on this would be far superior to a pneumatic system: cycling this system effectively means lifting ~100 pounds ~8 feet, which a reasonably fit person (who could reach that high) could do several times a minute for extended periods.
He got an efficiency over 40% (if memory serves, I watched this video yesterday) -- I wonder between pumping and discharge how efficient a pneumatic system would be, but I can't imagine that it's higher.
- fc417fc802 2mo agoIf the pump were operated by a bicyclist and the projectile feed automated I imagine the pneumatic system would win out by a very wide margin regardless of any reduction in overall efficiency.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo agoOnce this thing is dialed in, a wind- or stream- rechargeable version is the obvious next step.
- gcanyon 2mo agoI've seen potato guns (obviously much larger bore than this) and inflated bicycle tires to 100psi+ How do you imagine making the cycle time better "by a very wide margin" compared to lifting 100 pounds less than 10 feet?
- fc417fc802 2mo agoIsn't it a simple matter of sustained energy output scaled by the overall efficiency? I'm saying that a human cycling can sustain much much higher energy output for much longer than most other forms of exercise. Running probably comes close and swimming likely exceeds both of those but in the latter two cases I'm not clear how you could productively harness energy from the activity with any sort of efficiency so it doesn't apply here.