Why the world's biggest electric vehicle NEVER needs charging!!

[Muhendis]

6 minutes ago, bignok said:

I wish i was born in 1920 and died already when i see this stuff

Stop looking it's not good for you.

[impulse]

Reminds me of a Tom Scott video from years and years ago, of a mine (quarry?) in the UK that uses a cable trolley (for lack of a better word) to haul rocks down a mountain.  No outside power required.  They load the rocks into the cars at the top and the weight of the rocks going downhill is sufficient to pull the empty cars back up the hill.

 

I'd post a link, but YouTube is blocked at my current location.  Tom Scott.  One of the best story tellers on YouTube.

[scorecard]

2 hours ago, eisfeld said:

What do you envision them to deliver to a rock quarry site up the mountain a dozen times a day? A cold bottle of beer for the workers?

Stragne...

[JensenZ]

13 hours ago, Muhendis said:

That is one scenario which will undoubtedly work providing the mountain quarry is high enough to allow time for regen. braking to do it's stuff.

 

What about another scenario where the quarry is lower than the road which is relatively flat?

 

Not very versatile but good for elevated quarries in Switzerland.

Obviously the vehicle is purpose built to work in a specific quarry where it will working for many years, saving a fortune in fuel. It could be adapted to many other quarries with similar profiles.

[GammaGlobulin]

16 hours ago, eisfeld said:

You don't need to involve F=ma. All you need is the ratio of the weights of both full and empty truck plus the energy round trip efficiency of the electric motor and battery between recuperative braking and climbing.

If you want to calculate the potential energy of the payload of the truck at the top of the hill (or available potential energy going from start at top to end at bottom), then, you are going to need F=ma, and the other equations you can derive from F=ma.  Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

 

You can refer to this video, for example....

 

 

And look!

He is using....BIG G!

You see???

 

 

 

 

[eisfeld]

13 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

If you want to calculate the potential energy of the payload of the truck at the top of the hill (or available potential energy going from start at top to end at bottom), then, you are going to need F=ma, and the other equations you can derive from F=ma.  Sorry, but that is just the way it is.

 

You can refer to this video, for example....

 

 

And look!

He is using....BIG G!

You see???

 

 

 

 

You are missing the point with that exercise though. It's irrelevant what the individual absolute potential energies are for answering the question if the truck can do the trip without having to charge. All we need to know is the ratios of energy gained/spent (the energy round trip efficiency) as well as the ratio of weight fully loaded to empty. Because then we know the truck can recuperate more energy than it needs to climb back up.

 

That way it doesn't even matter if our truck was operating on earth or on the moon and we have a way to calculate if the truck can go back up without charging independently of G or F=ma. In fact, your formulas cannot answer the question at all because it doesn't take into account the efficiency of the drivetrain, battery and so on which in the real world matter a lot.

[GammaGlobulin]

38 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

You are missing the point with that exercise though. It's irrelevant what the individual absolute potential energies are for answering the question if the truck can do the trip without having to charge. All we need to know is the ratios of energy gained/spent (the energy round trip efficiency) as well as the ratio of weight fully loaded to empty. Because then we know the truck can recuperate more energy than it needs to climb back up.

 

That way it doesn't even matter if our truck was operating on earth or on the moon and we have a way to calculate if the truck can go back up without charging independently of G or F=ma. In fact, your formulas cannot answer the question at all because it doesn't take into account the efficiency of the drivetrain, battery and so on which in the real world matter a lot.

Yes, well, you may be missing the point of my simple question initially which was:

 

In this case, WHAT IS THE TOTAL energy available?

In order to calculate this, it is simple to subtract the potential energy at the end point from the potential energy at the starting point.

 

After doing this, in case anyone might be interested, you could top-up the battery after one round trip, and then see if there had been a net loss or a net gain. And by doing this, you would know the energy loss or gain of the entire system.

 

This is really no different a case than a waterfall, for example. Except, in this case, you have rock flowing downhill. And the rock is carried by a truck, instead of a pipe or a riverbed. Or, you can think of a hydroelectric generator with water flowing downhill to power the generator.

 

OR, you can think of a storage batter using water instead of electricity, such as in the case of PUMPED STORAGE:

 

But, no matter what you consider, in these cases, you still gotta use....

 

BIG G!

 

Now you see?

 

Just do the simple calculations as they taught you in high school, beginning with F=ma.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by GammaGlobulin

[GammaGlobulin]

So anyway, Guys...

 

I just REALLY HOPE that you people are able to generalize enough in your thinking to GRASP THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT THAT:

 

a. In this case, we are using ROCK flowing downhill to generate energy to power the truck.

 

b. This is NO DIFFERENT from using water flowing downhill to power a water turbine to generate energy to power a truck.

 

The calculations are identical in terms of calculating the energy provided by gravity, which is converted into an electric current, which is stored in a battery, and in-turn used to power an electric vehicle.

 

I do not know why this simple concept is so difficult, really...

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

I just hope that, someday soon, I find a genuine genius woman in Thailand.

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

If hell is located at the center of the Earth ????,  then it could also work for this vehicle. 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

9 hours ago, impulse said:

Reminds me of a Tom Scott video from years and years ago, of a mine (quarry?) in the UK that uses a cable trolley (for lack of a better word) to haul rocks down a mountain.  No outside power required.  They load the rocks into the cars at the top and the weight of the rocks going downhill is sufficient to pull the empty cars back up the hill.

 

I'd post a link, but YouTube is blocked at my current location.  Tom Scott.  One of the best story tellers on YouTube.

 

[eisfeld]

  

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes, well, you may be missing the point of my simple question initially which was:

 

In this case, WHAT IS THE TOTAL energy available?

You didn't ask that question. Are you still hallucinating maybe? What you said was:

 

On 9/3/2023 at 6:32 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

But how efficient is the recovery of the initial potential energy? 

 

Well, you can derive everything from one equation, F=ma, plus the gravitational constant big G.

You can't derive the efficiency via F=ma and G. For that you need the total measured round-trip numbers and if you have those then what's the point of starting calculations at a way lower level?

 

 

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

After doing this, in case anyone might be interested, you could top-up the battery after one round trip, and then see if there had been a net loss or a net gain. And by doing this, you would know the energy loss or gain of the entire system.

There is no reason to top-up the battery in order to find out if there was a net loss or gain. You simply look at the battery charge at the end. Are you still thinking in terms of diesel fuel powered trucks where you would have to top-up to get the number of liters used?

 

  

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This is really no different a case than a waterfall, for example. Except, in this case, you have rock flowing downhill. And the rock is carried by a truck, instead of a pipe or a riverbed. Or, you can think of a hydroelectric generator with water flowing downhill to power the generator.

But in those cases there is nothing traveling uphill like in the OP's case. It would be only one half of the equation.

 

  

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

OR, you can think of a storage batter using water instead of electricity, such as in the case of PUMPED STORAGE:

That's not the same at all. Pumped storage has a net loss. Clearly this truck has a net gain.

 

  

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

BIG G!

 

Now you see?

 

Just do the simple calculations as they taught you in high school, beginning with F=ma.

May I challenge you? Please go ahead and post the calculations and the result which shows that this truck does not need charging via the equations you posted. Without measuring the efficiency. I'll wait.

[GammaGlobulin]

9 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

But in those cases there is nothing traveling uphill like in the OP's case. It would be only one half of the equation.

First off, you do not NEED anything traveling uphill so that you can take measurements.

It's a simple matter to do the equations before the truck is even built.

 

Also, if one were a designer of this truck, then it would be required to first do all the calculations that I mentioned.

You would need to know the total available energy, which means the potential energy at start, minus the potential energy at finish.

 

And, let's NOT quibble about insignificant wording such as "topping up".

Obviously, I was speaking about measuring, in some way, the amount of energy, either net loss or net gain, after the round trip had been completed.

 

For some reason, and I do not know why, you continually think that it is a wise idea to build a system, without first doing the calculations, and then take measurements AFTER THE FACT.

 

Well, yes, this might work for CURTAIN HANGING, for example.

But this is not done when designing a system as shown in the UTUBE video.

 

So, I would be OK with using your approach/method, if I were advising an interior decorator to hang my curtains.

 

But, I would not trust your methodology to design any important engineering.

 

Build first.

Then measure.

Build first,

Then measure.

 

Who does that?

 

 

 

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

YES!

Exactly!

This is exactly the SAME concept.

Except, in the UTUBE example, a truck is used with generators onboard the truck located at the wheels.

Oh, Wait.

Having watched the video, this gondola system does not use electricity.

Therefore, different concept.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by GammaGlobulin

[eisfeld]

9 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

First off, you do not NEED anything traveling uphill so that you can take measurements.

It's a simple matter to do the equations before the truck is even built.

OK, I'm waiting for you to do the calculations. Keep us posted.

 

9 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Also, if one were a designer of this truck, then it would be required to first do all the calculations that I mentioned.

You would need to know the total available energy, which means the potential energy at start, minus the potential energy at finish.

The total available energy just plays a role in battery capacity planing. The rest as mentioned twice just depends on two ratios. And yes, they did know those ratios before building the truck. Component specs are a thing.

 

11 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

And, let's NOT quibble about insignificant wording such as "topping up".

Obviously, I was speaking about measuring, in some way, the amount of energy, either net loss or net gain, after the round trip had been completed.

Obviously ???? Oh wait, didn't you say you don't need to measure. Hm how confusing.

 

12 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

For some reason, and I do not know why, you continually think that it is a wise idea to build a system, without first doing the calculations, and then take measurements AFTER THE FACT.

No idea why you got that impression. It's not the case. Should consider getting off those hallicugenics ????

[GammaGlobulin]

3 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Obviously ???? Oh wait, didn't you say you don't need to measure. Hm how confusing.

This is correct.

It is NOT necessary to measure ANYTHING after the fact.

And, taking measurements after the fact would be too late.

 

You need to begin by knowing the energy available, as I have stated several times.

Then do further calculations to determine quantities such as generator/motor efficiency, or energy lost to heat of tires as they heat up with use, or energy lost when batteries are charged, because when batteries are charged, and heat up as a result, energy is lost.

 

 

[eisfeld]

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

energy lost to heat of tires as they heat up with use

Tell us you have no idea about practical engineering without saying so. I guarantee you, the engineers who planned this truck didn't take into consideration energy loss due to tires heating up. Watching Youtube videos is fine but it's no substitute for doing actual real world engineering.

 

But of course I'll still eagerly await your calculations, take your time ????

[GammaGlobulin]

21 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Tell us you have no idea about practical engineering without saying so. I guarantee you, the engineers who planned this truck didn't take into consideration energy loss due to tires heating up. Watching Youtube videos is fine but it's no substitute for doing actual real world engineering.

 

But of course I'll still eagerly await your calculations, take your time ????

Working on it...

Please be patient.

 

"HydraulicsIOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering779 (2020) 012028IOP Publishingdoi:10.1088/1757-899X/779/1/0120284
Figure4.Electric dump truckeDumper Like all electric vehicles, eDumper recuperates the energy generated by braking. While braking occurs, the electric motor goes into reverse mode, producing electricity that charges the batteries. The eDumper is used in a mine near Biel (Switzerland). Ittransports 65 tons of rock to a cement factory down the mountain with a slope of 13%. When descending from the mountain, the dump truck has a large inertia, due to which the regenerative braking system chargesthe batteries. As a result, eDumper charges itself and does not require frequent network connections. Battery charge measurements were taken after ascending with a fully loaded body and after descending to the loading point in the quarry. At the beginning of the rise, the battery charge was 90%, after the rise it was 80%. After the descent due to the recovery of power, the batteries were charged up to 88%, which is almost equal to the initial charge of the batteries. A dump truck carries out about 20 descents and ascents daily."

[GammaGlobulin]

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I guarantee you, the engineers who planned this truck didn't take into consideration energy loss due to tires heating up.

Just out of friendly curiosity...

You wouldn't happen to be an engineer working in the petroleum industry in Thailand...

Would you?

 

[eisfeld]

23 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Just out of friendly curiosity...

You wouldn't happen to be an engineer working in the petroleum industry in Thailand...

Would you?

 

Eh no, well the first part with engineering is right. But not in the petroleum industry. Just out of friendly curiosity... why'd you think so?

[GammaGlobulin]

13 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

Eh no, well the first part with engineering is right. But not in the petroleum industry. Just out of friendly curiosity... why'd you think so?

a.  You seem too old, and therefore polite and respectful, to be involved in bioengineering.

b.  You seem interested in steel pipes, and also heat transfer involving steel pipes.

c.  You are more interested in the practical rather than the theoretical.

d.  This IS Thailand, and there are many here that work in the petroleum industry.

e.  So I thought you might be a drilling engineer.

f.  And, this IS Thailand, and there are very many drilling engineers here, in Thailand.

 

 

[Daffy D]

Another advantage with the truck is it never needs to stop for charging.

 

In theory it could run 24/7 without stopping for years.

 

Yea! I know all about servicing and replacing parts, but in theory it could. 

 

 

 

[Muhendis]

11 minutes ago, Daffy D said:

Another advantage with the truck is it never needs to stop for charging.

 

In theory it could run 24/7 without stopping for years.

 

Yea! I know all about servicing and replacing parts, but in theory it could. 

 

 

 

I wonder how much oil an ICE engine on a dumper truck that size would need every oil change?

Electric motors probably need a bit less.....????

[Daffy D]

I'm no expert on eclectic vehicles but would guess they need less servicing than a diesel motor 

 

The biggest wear on a truck like that would probably be the Tyres.

 

Now if they put on steel wheels to run on a track it would save tire wear and would not even need a driver, think I might be onto something here  

[Crossy]

50 minutes ago, Daffy D said:

I'm no expert on eclectic vehicles but would guess they need less servicing than a diesel motor 

 

The biggest wear on a truck like that would probably be the Tyres.

 

Now if they put on steel wheels to run on a track it would save tire wear and would not even need a driver, think I might be onto something here  

 

Enter the funicular ...

 

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/02/water-powered-funiculars.html

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

1 hour ago, Daffy D said:

I'm no expert on eclectic vehicles but would guess they need less servicing than a diesel motor 

 

The biggest wear on a truck like that would probably be the Tyres.

 

Now if they put on steel wheels to run on a track it would save tire wear and would not even need a driver, think I might be onto something here  

The most complicated thing on these big trucks is the transmission and clutch.  They are all diesel/electric by design,  that is why the DIY conversion was fairly simply for this truck.

[Muhendis]

3 hours ago, Crossy said:

 

Enter the funicular ...

 

https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/02/water-powered-funiculars.html

 

 

 

 

Here's another one for the connoisseurs. 

 

Ffestiniog Railway North Wales

The line was constructed between 1833 and 1836 to transport slate from the quarries around the inland town of Blaenau Ffestiniog to the coastal town of Porthmadog where it was loaded onto ships. The railway was graded so that loaded wagons could be run by gravity downhill all the way from Blaenau Ffestiniog to the port. The empty wagons were hauled back up by horses, which travelled down in special 'dandy' wagons. To achieve this continuous grade (about 1 in 80 for much of the way), the line followed natural contours and employed cuttings and embankments built of stone and slate blocks without mortar. Prior to the completion in 1842 of a long tunnel through a spur in the Moelwyn Mountain, the slate trains were worked over the top via inclines (designed by Robert Stephenson), the site of which can still be seen although there are few visible remnants.

 

Thanks to wiki for the description.