Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Ouch, a traditional drivetrain on a bicycle is 96% efficient.
|
And an alternator is~10% more efficient at 1600 rpm exactly, if I'm reading the graph in the the linked alternator paper correctly. Do take a look.
That may not be true for all alternators, but I'm guessing; Similar graph - Different rpms..?
That's a narrow peak versus the rev range normally used in driving.
So we're back up to 95-ish %.
(Only half the amps but definitely an eco mode that would be sufficient a lot of the time.)
If the gearbox and clutch is on the driving (not driven) pulley?
People are reporting 10% with 'alternator delete' due to additionally eliminating belt inefficiency.
(If the belt's missing until you start slowing down and have energy to burn, you have the alternator delete... and free charging.)
(Naturally there are in-between settings and the battery never gets too low)
Also; if it's 'to wheel' efficiency; the bending chain/belt on teeth inefficiency of the baseline straight chain is already in that 85%.
It just adds up.
BUT
This idea's way expensive, and why start there if there's so much room for improvement in the stock alternator itself. Thinner laminates and fancy new diodes (was it?) etc.
So it's just nice to be able to go : "Hmmm!? Interesting numbers!" occasionally.
(I've expounded again!
I suppose I write for all readers)