> My point is if you can capture some of that loss by adding piezos without > increasing the overall loss then, and this is the important part, you must > have the ability to reduce the loss somewhere else. If you can do that, then > I claim you come out ahead by simply doing that and not adding piezoelectric > crystals.
But that is the fallacy to the opposition to this... It is simply deriving energy from the transfer of weight that naturally occurs in going from point A to point B. The only way to reduce that energy is to reduce the weight. While that might be possible, it has absolutely nothing do do with harnessing the energy. It no different that putting a hydroelectric power source in a flowing body of water. Gaining energy from a source where it was previously water. But, according to what has been posted, that's impossible since no measurable heat is generated from flowing water. The key to this is that it is harnessing the energy from the (previously wasted) energy t in the change of the vertical force vector. Some are incorrectly assuming that this HAS to somehow negatively impact the energy exchange in the horizontal force vector. The two forces are perpendicular to each other and are completely independent. Stretches in proposed approaches are incorrectly tying these together to unnecessarily make them dependent on each other. _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
