Em 15/2/2011 18:04, Olin Lathrop escreveu:
> Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> If you assume the start point is at sea level then you
>> should be right with your numbers 4 - 5 km's.
> OK, let's take this at face value.  Let's say the car weighed about 1 ton=
,
> which is light for a car.  That's 2000 pounds, or about 9000 Newtons.  If
> you take a 9000N car on a trip and it ends up 5000m higher at the end, 45=
MJ
> had to have been expended somewhere somehow.  This has nothing to do with
> how curvey or not the path was, how long it took, or what exactly propell=
ed
> the car.  This is simply looking at resulting potential energy alone.
>
> Now let's look at a car battery.  Let's be generous and say it is rated f=
or
> 100 A-h, which means it can put out 100A at 12V for 3600 seconds.  That's
> 4.3MJ, or less than 1/10 of the absolute minimum it would take to move th=
e
> car up 5000m.  4 such batteries simply can't do that, and that's assuming
> the entire energy of the battery can be converted to potential energy of =
the
> car.  In reality there will be wind resistance (you said average speed wa=
s
> about 80km/h =3D 50 miles/h, so wind resistance is a factor), other sourc=
es of
> friction, and of course inefficiency in converting the battery energy to
> motion.
>
> Clearly something is wrong somewhere.


The site says that the 4 batteries are 150Ah for a total of 25.92MJ,
which is more than half the necessary energy. But still not enough.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.