Re: [Phys-l] [ncnaapt] another crackpot idea from the Californialegislative assembly

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

What is needed are expansion joints, but reducing up an down flexing might
improve auto efficiency by a miniscule amount.  I just don't think there is
that much recoverable energy in the road movement.  Actually making roads
level might also slightly improve efficiency of autos.  Another thought for
improving auto efficiency would be to provide some sort of passive method of
making the wind blow in the direction of the traffic.  Passive air diverters
in areas where the winds are steady might be able to do this.  Of course
this would not be practical on 2 way streets.  This might have some cost
effectiveness.

One of the big factors in train efficiency is the fact that the wheels do
not flex.  Others are that the wind resistance is only high for the engine,
but very low for the cars so that factor is vastly reduced.  Trains also are
designed to run on very level grades.  The 2% railroad track grades minimize
the power needed to keep the train in motion.  In addition trains do not
start and stop as frequently.  So anyway cars can be more like trains, they
will have increased efficiency.  And of course hybrids only get rid of the
problem of hills and partially alleviate the stop/start problem.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

> Just a thought---Is it necessarily a good idea to reduce road flexing?
> If the roadway is less elastic, then wouldn't temperature changes
> cause more cracks than before, leading to increased repair costs? Not
> sure how much of roadway flexion is purposeful in the design.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 3:41 PM, John Clement wrote:
>
> > And finding a way to reduce
> > road flexing might be much more cost effective and cheaper than using
> > piezoelectric generators.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l