SRL Archive - The Bashing Club / BBQ Pit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8iFqz1Ogig

Apparently perpetual motion.. no… FREE energy has been invented by Toyota.

Seriously, would they stop running this crap on TV.

They never said anything about free energy?

They said when you hit the brakes, you get some of the energy back…
This also happens when the car is just moving downhill by the way

Thats like kers in formula one.(Kinetic Energy recovery system).

Saying that it would be self-sustaining is a bit of a far shot I think. Perhaps energy saving, but not entirely self-sustaining on the energy converted from braking.

They could just mean (although said in a way that makes it sound cooler than it really is, but hey, that's sales and it was a commercial) that one day the park wouldn't need energy from the power company, and could be sustained on solar panels that belong to the park owner himself. Making the coaster use less energy is a small step in that direction.

From: Zyt3x
They never said anything about free energy?

They said when you hit the brakes, you get some of the energy back…
This also happens when the car is just moving downhill by the way

"So I thought if we put that same system [toyota's 'amazing' breaking->electricity] on to one of these [rollercoasters]. Who knows we might be able to create the world's first self sustaining amusement park. How would you use toyota's technology to make a better world"

Come on now, the first half of the commercial is fine.. gaining a tiny amount of efficiency for turning breaking heat into electricity. But then this overpaid tard goes on to read some lines like 'hurp durp we can use this on a roller coaster to power an entire amusement park'. Anyone who has made it pass the 9th grade will tell you it's impossible because of the conservation of energy. The second law of thermodynamics makes it very clear (and logical) it's impossible to get more out of something than you put into it, or even break even, hell especially retarded to think it's going to power itself let alone an entire amusement park.

Does Toyota really want to sell their products by making such outlandish fantasies for less intelligent people to watch and believe? Just the shier blasphemy of this commercial makes me facepalm.

If we wish to have our vehicles move with near free energy or something even close to that we'd have to completely move away from the current fuel engines as only 10% of the combustion force is used towards actually moving the vehicle.

Feroc1ty, I was told this was deliberate to stop batteries draining if the lights and air-con and all the other stuff was on. its (almost) impossible to get 100% of the energy from a reaction.

IceFire, is is THEORETICALLY possible to retain all of the energy, cause energy doesn't ever leave, its converted into different types, checmical, heat (which dissapates, which is where most energy is "lost") etc. However, it is impossible to retain all energy in the real world. Bottom line, I want to live in the theoretical world, not this one.

From: Bad Boy JH
Feroc1ty, I was told this was deliberate to stop batteries draining if the lights and air-con and all the other stuff was on. its (almost) impossible to get 100% of the energy from a reaction.

It is impossible (even theoretically) to convert chemical energy stored in fuel to kinetic energy used to drive the car (assuming the car is powered by a combustion engine). There always must be some energy converted to heat which, in a car engine, is useless in causing motion.

From: ZephyrsFury
It is impossible (even theoretically) to convert chemical energy stored in fuel to kinetic energy used to drive the car (assuming the car is powered by a combustion engine). There always must be some energy converted to heat which, in a car engine, is useless in causing motion.

What chemical energy do you speak of, there is no such thing as chemical energy in a car. The energy is produced by a chemical reaction (combustion) though, but as I mentioned earlier it's very inefficient.

There might not be a way to efficiently use the energy which burning oil provides, but what I meant by my previous statement is that we won't get that much farther in the vehicle department of technology if we don't figure out another way to store and use the said stored energy.

… does toyota know what an alternator is?

My philosophy:



Mopar muscle all the way!

From: Feroc1ty
If we wish to have our vehicles move with near free energy or something even close to that we'd have to completely move away from the current fuel engines as only 10% of the combustion force is used towards actually moving the vehicle.

Yea and only 3.5% of that 10% is used to move the person (0.035% used to move the person). Considering a car weighs on average around 4,000 lbs.

From: Bad Boy JH
Feroc1ty, I was told this was deliberate to stop batteries draining if the lights and air-con and all the other stuff was on. its (almost) impossible to get 100% of the energy from a reaction.

IceFire, is is THEORETICALLY possible to retain all of the energy, cause energy doesn't ever leave, its converted into different types, checmical, heat (which dissapates, which is where most energy is "lost") etc. However, it is impossible to retain all energy in the real world. Bottom line, I want to live in the theoretical world, not this one.

Theoretically possible in imagination land, but it is not theoretically possibly to gain energy at all, let alone enough to power an entire six flags amusement park.

From: Awkwardsaw
… does toyota know what an alternator is?

It's that round thing that spins and stuff.

From: IceFire908
It's that round thing that spins and stuff.

it gives electricity for the entire car, including engine, and batery.simply it's a mini powerplant :p

this car doesnt have one, which is stupid, and would make this "new technology" useless.

I'm joking, I know what it is.

From: IceFire908
I'm joking, I know what it is.

still, :p

if toyota would add one(or two, since theres 2 engines), it would pretty much do the same thing, if not better than their "heat to power" thing

From: Awkwardsaw
it gives electricity for the entire car, including engine, and batery.simply it's a mini powerplant :p

this car doesnt have one, which is stupid, and would make this "new technology" useless.

if toyota would add one(or two, since theres 2 engines), it would pretty much do the same thing, if not better than their "heat to power" thing

"Hybrid automobiles replace the separate alternator and starter motor with a combined motor/generator that performs both functions, cranking the internal combustion engine when starting, providing additional mechanical power for accelerating, and charging a large storage battery when the vehicle is running at constant speed. These rotating machines have considerably more powerful electronic devices for their control than the automotive alternator described above." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator

From: Zyt3x
"Hybrid automobiles replace the separate alternator and starter motor with a combined motor/generator that performs both functions, cranking the internal combustion engine when starting, providing additional mechanical power for accelerating, and charging a large storage battery when the vehicle is running at constant speed. These rotating machines have considerably more powerful electronic devices for their control than the automotive alternator described above." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator

its still a hybrid alternator nonetheless. i'm talking about the point of the thread, which is turning the heat from the breaks into electricity

From: Feroc1ty
What chemical energy do you speak of, there is no such thing as chemical energy in a car. The energy is produced by a chemical reaction (combustion) though, but as I mentioned earlier it's very inefficient.

The chemical energy in a car is in the gasoline, diesel, battery, or whatever other fuel it uses. That energy is then converted through the reaction (combustion). You can't "create" energy. And as others have pointed out, this conversion will never be 100% efficient, so some of the original energy will be converted into forms you don't want (sound, heat, etc.).

Ideally, a car's engine will convert chemical energy (gas) into mechanical energy, and then convert the mechanical energy into kinetic energy through the wheels. But not all the mechanical energy goes into the wheels. Alternators (which definitely are found on hybrid cars) convert some of the engine's mechanical energy to electrical energy.

I'd like to make it clear that Toyota (or any other car company for that matter) does not covert the heat energy from braking into electricity. What normal breaking does is convert the car's kinetic energy into heat energy (which is then wasted), slowing the car. Regenerative breaking (the stuff Toyota talks about) converts the kinetic energy back into mechanical energy through the drive-train, which then alternator can then convert into electrical energy. Electrical energy produced through the regenerative breaking is usefull, unlike the heat from normal breaking.

But back to IceFire's original statement…

I totally agree with his feelings on the commercial. Toyota makes it sound like they have some special technique for creating energy from breaking. It isn't special as almost all hybrid cars use regenerative breaking. And while regenerative breaking could be used to to lower a theme park's net energy requirement, it definitely could not make a theme park self sustaining because no energy conversion is 100% efficient

So are you guys defining using only solar panels as not being self sustaining because the sunlight comes from outside of the 'self'?

Solar panels aren't self sustaining….-.-, they need the sun to convert energy.

From: kongking
Solar panels aren't self sustaining….-.-, they need the sun to convert energy.

Then is anything self sustaining? What's the point of having the word? I think the reasonable definition of self sustaining is not getting the energy from another 'self' such as the power company (the sun doesn't count as another 'self').

From: Boreas
the sun doesn't count as another 'self'

Are you trying to say that the sun isn't self sustaining?(im really confused)

From: kongking
Are you trying to say that the sun isn't self sustaining?(im really confused)

I'm saying that getting power from the power company does not make you self sustaining, because the power company is another 'self' besides you. I'm saying that getting power from the sun does make you self sustaining, because the sun does not count as another 'self'.

I think it is unreasonable to define self sustaining as: if there was an imaginary bubble around the 'self', no energy would be allowed into the bubble, and it would sustain. Because if you apply that definition to the sun, the sun would not be considered self sustaining (it's just as self sustaining as a battery powered laptop, both will run out eventually).

"Self Sustaining - Maintaining or able to maintain oneself or itself by independent effort" merriam-webster.com

I'd say that technically the sun isn't self sustaining. But I'd say that the inferred definition would be similar to what you're saying. I don't think we're trying to say that solar panels (or the sun) aren't self sustaining. Just that the commercial doesn't say anything about solar panels. The commercial only talks about regenerative braking and makes it seem like they're saying that a theme park could run off the energy from braking alone. In reality, it would take regen braking, plus solar panels, plus a lot more.

He says 'who knows, we might', which indicates a degree of uncertainty about being able to go self sustaining. I'm assuming that uncertainty is due to unknown factors. I'm also assuming that (all or most of) the unknown factors are probably not related to the capabilities of the braking system, but rather are related to 'solar panels, plus a lot more'. So although they did not specifically mention solar panels and other stuff, I don't think they meant to imply that regenerative braking would be the only factor in a self sustaining (inferred/reasonable definition) theme park.

It's still misleading advertisement.

From: IceFire908
It's still misleading advertisement.

I would say it's misleading compared to a technical specs sheet, but it's not as misleading as the great number of adverts that basically show someone with the product and then suddenly they are getting all the ladies, or a great career etc (even if they do say YMMV in small print).

From: Boreas
I would say it's misleading compared to a technical specs sheet, but it's not as misleading as the great number of adverts that basically show someone with the product and then suddenly they are getting all the ladies, or a great career etc (even if they do say YMMV in small print).

It's only misleading if it isn't obviously fake. No one buys Axe expecting hordes of women to come flying towards them like in the commercial (because if they are that gullible then it's not the commercial's fault)

But selling cars in commercials is a somewhat larger investment and making statements that contradict scientific law which some people (not necessarily gullible) will be lead to believe is fact. Furthermore I doubt these Toyota commercials aren't made this way purposefully.

I'm concerned more with the fact of them intentionally spreading ignorance contradicting scientific laws and people believing it.

From: IceFire908
It's only misleading if it isn't obviously fake. No one buys Axe expecting hordes of women to come flying towards them like in the commercial (because if they are that gullible then it's not the commercial's fault)

But selling cars in commercials is a somewhat larger investment and making statements that contradict scientific law which some people (not necessarily gullible) will be lead to believe is fact. Furthermore I doubt these Toyota commercials aren't made this way purposefully.

I'm concerned more with the fact of them intentionally spreading ignorance contradicting scientific laws and people believing it.

I would agree with you on that, if I thought they were making statements that contradict scientific law.

They are making statements that contradict scientific law, saying they aren't requires abstract reasoning and logic which those who would be watching the commercial and believing it are not capable of.