OT: Nitrogen filled tires

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:00:59 -0700, John Larkin

Macon?? That's almost as good as having "...bored..." do it ;-)

No, MissingProng can't do math at all. He's entirely number-phobic.



You're an idiot. I can do the math without even making a single actual
calculation.

That's very Zen: doing the math without doing the math.

It is 100% obvious that it is a futile endeavor, and then
there are several other factors that make it a prohibitive venture.

The term for today is:

UNSPRUNG WEIGHT

You know... that thing that one does NOT want to add to their
suspension assembly, particularly at the wheel... ;-]

Gosh, why do people have wheel covers?

Gosh, why do people use Aluminum wheels now?

Why are "wheel covers" plastic now?

Get a clue, John. The patent you cited is retarded, or it would be a
viable product by now, and it isn't. The idea you cited SOUNDS good, but
is NOT a good idea, for the reasons I cited.

I never said it was a good idea; I said it was possible.

You and JY said it was impossible, but it's not.

The idea of combining a spinning bling thing with an air pump is
silly, but it could certainly be made to work.

John

 

[John Larkin]

Yeah, the wind would make the pimp bling spinney thing work. But it
wouldn't DO any WORK.

Windmills do work, lots of work, and they're just powered by air.


When you hook it up to your compressor load, it

would fail miserably..

It would take only a tiny amount of power to pump a few cubic inches
of air a day. At thousands of strokes per day, its displacement would
be tiny... think about a piston the size of a pencil lead.

Then, there's that unsprung weight thingy again.
Nobody in their right mind would buy it, when my shock absorber version
would work much better.

Nobody would buy either one. But that doesn't make the ideas much less
interesting. You can never develop new stuff if you whack-a-mole every
idea as soon as it pops up.

John

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:56:18 -0700, ChairmanOfTheBored

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:00:59 -0700, John Larkin

Macon?? That's almost as good as having "...bored..." do it ;-)

No, MissingProng can't do math at all. He's entirely number-phobic.



You're an idiot. I can do the math without even making a single actual
calculation.

That's very Zen: doing the math without doing the math.

It is 100% obvious that it is a futile endeavor, and then
there are several other factors that make it a prohibitive venture.

The term for today is:

UNSPRUNG WEIGHT

You know... that thing that one does NOT want to add to their
suspension assembly, particularly at the wheel... ;-]

Gosh, why do people have wheel covers?

Gosh, why do people use Aluminum wheels now?

Why are "wheel covers" plastic now?

Get a clue, John. The patent you cited is retarded, or it would be a
viable product by now, and it isn't. The idea you cited SOUNDS good, but
is NOT a good idea, for the reasons I cited.

I never said it was a good idea; I said it was possible.

You and JY said it was impossible, but it's not.

Show me where he or I either one said it was or is impossible. We
didn't. We said "will not work". There is a difference.

Working involves more than your basic physics declaration of it being
in the realm of possibility. "Working" requires form fit and function.

The idea has a bad form, doesn't fit with sound automotive engineering
practice, and barely functions.

The idea of combining a spinning bling thing with an air pump is
silly, but it could certainly be made to work.

See above.

 

[John Larkin]

Even worse! Now you want it to free spin at an intersection and be
decoupled from your zero force required compressor?!

Sure, why not? The last few spins represent very little net energy
(energy goes up as velocity squared) so you may as well let it spin at
low speed, to keep the girls impressed.

Hahahaha!

Why don't you complicate it some more, and put sensors on it, and
BlueTooth them up to a dashboard readout!?

The new federally-mandated tire pressure sensors *will* have RF links
back to the dashboard. See this week's EE Times.

John

 

[John Larkin]

What a DOG!

That thing weighs so damned much, even the tire makers will void their
mileage warranties on cars that use it!

Then, there's that damned unsprung weight monster trolling in again.

Nobody in their right mind would put such a behemoth mass in the
wheels.

That's not the point we were discussing. We were discussing whether it
was possible.

John

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Windmills do work, lots of work, and they're just powered by air.

Said "air" is typically perpendicular to the blades of said windmill.

The new word for today is "Torque arm".

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

It would take only a tiny amount of power to pump a few cubic inches
of air a day. At thousands of strokes per day, its displacement would
be tiny... think about a piston the size of a pencil lead.

I'd rather think about a BIGGER piston, over in the suspension
mechanicals, and a surge tank to HOLD what is generated, and then,
generation is only needed once a week.

Pencil lead pistons?
We don' need no stinking pencil lead pistons in our wheels!

Hehehehe...

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Nobody would buy either one. But that doesn't make the ideas much less
interesting. You can never develop new stuff if you whack-a-mole every
idea as soon as it pops up.

That's the whole point. That "patent" you cited has an attached work
load COST to it, and said cost eventually ends up being paid by the
motor, and the mile per gallon figure of the car.

My idea uses energy that has as yet never been used for work, and does
NOT cause any attached cost to the drive train of the car's motivational
mechanism. ALL suspension systems undulate. There is a LOT of lost work
that gets absorbed by the shocks.

An electric car should have little generators in there to boost the
battery's charge.

They have such devices in use by the military now, that use the
soldiers hiking gate to generate charging currents for their manpack
gear.

Stick THAT in your calculator and run the numbers on it, sir.

It is a far better idea.

It WILL get used, if not sooner, later...

I win, and I did NOT need to perform a single calculation.

ASCII ya later.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Sure, why not? The last few spins represent very little net energy
(energy goes up as velocity squared) so you may as well let it spin at
low speed, to keep the girls impressed.



The new federally-mandated tire pressure sensors *will* have RF links
back to the dashboard. See this week's EE Times.

And the readout on your compressor always sends back the message:

"no worky".

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

That's not the point we were discussing. We were discussing whether it
was possible.

Sure it would be. Mounted on a train!

His design relies on the wheels turning. That TAKES work away from the
drive train. A very BAD thing.

At least your design was more like a self winding watch. No juice
stolen from the power plant.

Yours may not be the greatest, but it is far better than that crap that
guy got a patent issued on.

 

[John Larkin]

That's the whole point. That "patent" you cited has an attached work
load COST to it, and said cost eventually ends up being paid by the
motor, and the mile per gallon figure of the car.

My idea uses energy that has as yet never been used for work, and does
NOT cause any attached cost to the drive train of the car's motivational
mechanism. ALL suspension systems undulate. There is a LOT of lost work
that gets absorbed by the shocks.

An electric car should have little generators in there to boost the
battery's charge.

They have such devices in use by the military now, that use the
soldiers hiking gate to generate charging currents for their manpack
gear.

Stick THAT in your calculator and run the numbers on it, sir.

It is a far better idea.

It WILL get used, if not sooner, later...

I win, and I did NOT need to perform a single calculation.

You won nothing - your prize will NOT be in the mail - and you never
do calculations.


John

 

[Guy Macon]

You're in Oregon here aren't you, guy?

Nope. I live in the TMZ.

 

[Guy Macon]

It's really not a fan assembly. You'd design it to have a lot of
rotational drag, so it tends to lag behind the wheel speed. The
relative motion could drive the tiny pump. At freeway speeds, the
force would be large. Stop-and-go, it would work in inertia mode.

According to my calculations, bothe th energy available from stealing
1% of the inertia-based speedup/slowdown *or* the energy available
from airflow using a very simple fan-like mechanism are far more than
what is needed to keep a tire topped off -- which is a really, really
small amount of energy. The energy from a bottom-heavy eccentric
weight has even more available energy, should more be required.

 

[Guy Macon]

Macon?? That's almost as good as having "...bored..." do it ;-)

....and your reason for engaging in an unprovoked personal attack is?

 

[Guy Macon]

If someone is going to get a bit creative and make a spinner-powered
tire pump, why not make the piston diameter 1/8 inch? That takes .37
pound. For that matter, how about 1/16 inch? That takes a bit over .09
pound of force.

Now, let's say you have .3 G braking and a ring-shped flywheel "spinner"
of diameter 60% of that of the tire. More like a big ring than "bling",
but this is for function and angineering calculations - it could
concievably be "blinged up" afterwards.

Ring with points accelerating (even if negatively) by .18 G only needs
to weigh a little over half a pound to have such
acceleration/decelleration provide enough force to push a 1/16 inch
diameter column of air 30 PSI above atmosphere.

Let's say the pump has a stroke of 1 inch, a bore of 1/16 inch diameter,
meaning volume of about 1/325 cubic inch. Let's say that a 35 to zero
braking at .3 G occurs 4 times a day, a 25 to zero braking occurs 6 times
a day and a 55 to 20 MPH braking occurs twice a day, 6 days a week. (Of
course I am pulling numbers out of a hat, probably on the conservative
side, for "typical driving".)

This adds up to 55 seconds a day if braking at .3 G, with average speed
reduction of 30 MPH per braking. I would consider the available kinetic
energy from the flywheel to be 1/2 times its mass (if in form of a ring)
times square of speed reduction of braking. So I would use half this 30
MPH braking figure for effective flywheel speed for calculating average
RPM of a pump shaft during braking.

15 MPH and 6 feet means 3.67 revolutions per second. Times 55 seconds
of braking a day, is 201-202 revolutions. Even if the pump has only
one cycle per cycle of flywheel outrunning the tire, that is 201-202
strokes. This is roughly 5/8 cubic inch of air for 1/16 inch diameter
bore, 1 inch stroke.

If the flywheel output to the pump is only 1.5 or so inches from the
centerline of the axle, a half pound ring flywheel, it will deliver enough
force to push a 1/8 inch diameter column of air 30 PSI above atmosphere.
That means 2.5 cubic inches a day. If the pump has so much drag with a
small bore to need force double or triple that required just to push the
air, make the flywheel a ring of 1 to 1.6 pounds.

If my back-of-the envelope calculations are correct, 2.5 cubic inches
a day should be sufficient to make up a leak loss of 10 psig per year.

Most of the following patents have calculations showing the
feasability of extracting energy from wheel rotation and using
it to inflate tires.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/[ Patent Number].html

United States Patent 5409049 April 25, 1995
Tangential tire pressurizing and regulating apparatus
US Patent Issued on April 25, 1995

United States Patent 5452753
Vehicle tire management system including wheel with
self-contained tire inflation/deflation apparatus
US Patent Issued on September 26, 1995
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5452753.html

United States Patent 5355924
Vehicle wheel including self-inflating mechanism
US Patent Issued on October 18, 1994
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5355924.html

United States Patent 5556489
Wheel-mounted tire inflator
US Patent Issued on September 17, 1996
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5556489.html

United States Patent 5558730
Vehicle wheel including self-inflating tire pump
US Patent Issued on September 24, 1996

United States Patent 5591281
Flywheel tire inflation device
US Patent Issued on January 7, 1997

United States Patent 5667606
Tire pressurizing and regulating apparatus
US Patent Issued on September 16, 1997

United States Patent 5707215
Tuned resonant oscillating mass inflation pump and
method of extracting electrical energy therefrom
US Patent Issued on January 13, 1998

United States Patent 5941692
Tuned resonant oscillating mass inflation pump and
method of extracting electrical energy therefrom
US Patent Issued on August 24, 1999

United States Patent 5846354
Tire pressure maintenance system
US Patent Issued on December 8, 1998

United States Patent 5947696
Wheel mounted tire pump with a reciprocating piston
US Patent Issued on September 7, 1999

United States Patent 5975174
Rim mountable tire inflation maintenance device
US Patent Issued on November 2, 1999

United States Patent 6474383
Automotive wheel with improved inflation system
US Patent Issued on November 5, 2002

United States Patent 6744356
Tire pressure maintenance and monitoring system
US Patent Issued on June 1, 2004

United States Patent 6994136
Wheel end tire air pump
US Patent Issued on February 7, 2006

United States Patent 7237590
Tire pressure maintenance device
US Patent Issued on July 3, 2007

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

are far more than
what is needed to keep a tire topped off -- which is a really, really
small amount of energy.\

I have a 6 inch long, 150 psi hand pump used to pressurize the rear
shock on my Mnt bike. When it is filled, it takes nearly a full stroke
on the pump, compressing the 6 inch by .75 inch bore all the way to the
bottom of the travel, before it adds just a tiny spurt to the shock. You
guys are idiots to think that high pressure "topping off" is a low energy
task.

 

[Guy Macon]

WRONG! It is like series current. The current is the same everywhere.

HERE, at sea level, ALL the gasses in the atmosphere HERE is at the
same pressure!

How could you possibly think that the air, since it is only 20% of what
we breathe here, only has one fifth of the pressure on it?

The entire atmosphere weighs in on us all! Same with sea level, and
pressure.

Where did you pull that one from?

He "pulled it" from the basic fact that oxygen is roughly 20% of the
atmosphere and thus the partial pressure of oxygen at one atmosphere
is 20% of one atmosphere -- 3 psi. He clearly specified oxygen, but
you replied as if he was writing about air. Please note the context:
the discussion was comparing combustion inside a tire (higher oxygen
partial pressure, combustible gasses accumulate) with combustion
outside a tire (lower oxygen partial pressure, combustible gasses
dissipate). So the partial pressure of oxygen is relevant and the
total pressure of all atmospheric gasses is not.

If you look at the posts in most technical newsgroups, you will find
that (with certain notable exceptions), the posters who calmly present
arguments and calculations are almost always right, those who use a
lot of ALL CAPS and exclamation! points!! are less often right, and
those who call people idiot, moron, etc. are almost always wrong.
You may wish to either modify your communication habits so as to
contain fewer personal comments or use a pseudonym to shield yourself
from negative consequences.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

...and your reason for engaging in an unprovoked personal attack is?

It may be a personal attack, but the current value of "unprovoked"
would depend on the time constant.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

If my back-of-the envelope calculations are correct, 2.5 cubic inches
a day should be sufficient to make up a leak loss of 10 psig per year.

You're an idiot. 2.5 inches of HIGHLY compressed air is a LOT more
than that at ambient pressure. It's like a battery. You have to have
more pressure than the fill pressure to overcome the valving and actually
get the volume INTO the tire.

Try again.

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Most of the following patents have calculations showing the
feasability of extracting energy from wheel rotation and using
it to inflate tires.

Using wheel rotation STEALS fuel mileage! BAD IDEA!