A Promethean Thought Experiment

[Floor]

I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is situated at the edge.
> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

There are differing meanings to the word efficient. 

In terms of science and   energy   the word efficient, means getting the same
result, by expending    less energy    than would be expended in some other
way of getting that same result.

It could also mean expending less time.

It is not leverage making something  more efficient.

This is just one way (a very common way) to do something which is
often more practice able.  Neither is situating most of the weight at the
edge "more efficient".

I looked at one of the pdf files. It, like your posting in general,
seems to indicate that you do not know a lot of the basics of which
you are speaking.  Much of what you have said doesn't make sense
in terms of the words you are using.  I do not mean, simply that they
do not make sense to me.  I mean that they do not make sense /
are incorrect usages of the words / are wrong assumptions on your
part.

[IggyZ]

Thanks again Floor.

Please be more specific. Which assumptions and why are they wrong?

For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?

The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

[Floor]

Your reply began with

"I have been told it is not only leverage that makes powering something at its
circumference efficient. It is also more efficient because most of the weight is
situated at the edge. "

                                  You state "I've been told".
How is this a basis for any understanding at all. 
                                       It's not, that is how.
What the $%&* does "powering some thing at it's circumference is more efficient mean" ?
It is just about a nonsequitur of a statement. 

Yes I have seen the drawing and the wheels are at the edge.

                                       Think about this.
Although the locomotive is generally thought of as a device which moves along a
track in more or less a linear manner, do you think it would be more efficient if it were
running around in circles because the track was laid out in a circle instead ?
After all, half of the drive wheels would then be at the circumference.

Then run a string from the center (front to rear) of the locomotive, to a pole
at the center of the circular track.  Consider this arrangement to be one single
device (it is), as if the locomotive were bound to the pole by the string being tied
loosely around that pole.

Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now become more efficient ?
                                             I don't.

Is that not, what you mean by being powered at its circumference ? 
                       Think man, think !

We all some times get a kind of tunnel vision. It happens. 

There are lots of people here, who work with "gravity powered" ideas, rotational / inertia
ideas and so on.  I myself at times experiment along those lines.  If nothing else, we
may learn some new things.  We may even find a more efficient way or even a free energy
device.  So don't get me wrong.  Lets Keep on looking / studying.

[IggyZ]

Thank you Floor.

Please be so kind to answer the two questions I put to you in my previous tweet. I really appreciate it!

Question 1 :
For instance, if a power-to-weight ratio of 12 watt per kg is enough to give a 140 tons electric train a speed of 200 km/h than why is the same power-to-weight-ratio not enough to give a generator's rotor (as depicted in fig. 1 to 6. attached pdf file or web page) a speed of 45 km/h?

Question 2:
The power flow diagram of generator (attached file) shows that most of the mechanical input power is converted into electrical power. Is this not correct? For instance, if the mechanical input power of a generator is 1000 watt, than how much of that input power is lost to overcome eddy current loss?

> www.prometheusturbine.info/prometheus_eccentric_direct_drive_or_geared_generator.html

[Floor]

1. A waste of time but, 25 watts is also enough to acclerate 140 tons
to a speed of 200km/h.
2. Also a waste of time.

My question was "Do you see any reason why the locomotive has now
become more efficient ?"

done