Can we design vehicle for animal self powered?

[Averagesupernova]

Depends on how fast you ride the bike. Aerobic respiration is more efficient than anaerobic, around 16x more efficient, so if your ride is full of tough sections it probably will take less energy to walk.

You are grasping straws here to uphold a certain view. Of course you could say a tough trail would be difficult to bike. I could technically bicycle up several hundred stairs and obviously it would not be easy. This is not the point. I think the discussion is limited to what is reasonable to bicycle in the first place.

I don't know I don't even know what x and y are...is x/y still walking?

X is distance and Y is time in both the walking and biking scenarios. How much simpler do you want it? X is the same distance in both walking and biking scenarios and Y is the same amount of time in both walking and biking scenarios.

 

[russ_watters]

Presumably walking half as fast would burn about half the calories or more, so no help in improving efficiency...

And if we stand still, we burn no calories and die of hypothermia.

 

[berkeman]

And if we stand still, we burn no calories and die of hypothermia.

Watching TV still burns 28cal, so we are safe with some baseline.

 

[russ_watters]

Right, so calories vs speed isn't linear to zero -- and I suspect not even linear at all.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are grasping straws here to uphold a certain view. Of course you could say a tough trail would be difficult to bike. I could technically bicycle up several hundred stairs and obviously it would not be easy. This is not the point. I think the discussion is limited to what is reasonable to bicycle in the first place.

I'm not grasping at straws, just providing a salient piece of information. When riding a bike one ten to ride much faster than walking, depending on how efficient a bike is the level of effort to go that fast could include spurts of anerobic exercise which is less efficient. You raised the point earlier that you ride faster than walk. This is relevant.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, some numbers may help to convince folks...

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Calories-burned-in-30-minutes-of-leisure-and-routine-activities.htm

Walking at 4.5mph (pretty fast walk) burns 186 calories in 30 minutes (155 pound male).

Bicycling: 12-13.9 mph (not fast) burns 298 calories in 30 minutes.

186cal/4.5mph = 41.3 cal/mph > 22.9cal/mph = 298cal/13mph

So riding a bike easy is about twice as efficient as walking briskly in terms of calories divided by speed, or calories to travel a distance.

That's interesting. Shows how efficient a bike is! But in general calorie usage isn't linear with effort due to the differences in aerobic and anaerobic respiration.

 

[ThainaYu]

So you try to efficient by walking slowly as possible? Normal case we would don't want to waste time to go somewhere so we would use moderate speed. Not try to walk slowly to keep energy

Animal too. Would try to walk fast or run in normal life of them. Ground animal is like to walk fast, not slowly move to safe energy. They will save energy when they sit or lay. They are not sloth or koala

You talk nonsense and you waste your time, and now you waste other people's time to make nonsense argument

 

[nitsuj]

X is distance and Y is time in both the walking and biking scenarios. How much simpler do you want it? X is the same distance in both walking and biking scenarios and Y is the same amount of time in both walking and biking scenarios.

lol, umm how much more simple is the question "Is x/y still walking speed?" To simplify, is length divided by time, or the average speed still a "walking" speed?

Or in other words I don't know what x and y are, if said to you maybe better worded as I don't even know the values for x and y.

the other things I don't know about your simpleton scenario are the environmental conditions, which is why I HAD to say if "all things idealized as favoring the bicycle, yes its more efficient; & vice-versa"

why even consider the time measure, this is about efficiency. Or to make it more simple y shouldn't be time, it should be calories burned, calories burned per length. Again efficiency & effectiveness, not the same thing.

brilliant! Averagesupernova,

 

[nitsuj]

So you try to efficient by walking slowly as possible? Normal case we would don't want to waste time to go somewhere so we would use moderate speed. Not try to walk slowly to keep energy

Animal too. Would try to walk fast or run in normal life of them. Ground animal is like to walk fast, not slowly move to safe energy. They will save energy when they sit or lay. They are not sloth or koala

You talk nonsense and you waste your time, and now you waste other people's time to make nonsense argument

Yet you haven't suggested an appropriate speed. surely a brisk walk is called brisk because it's not a "casual" walk.

I'd stand all day beside the point about speed & efficiency of a bicycling compared to walking.

Some hyperbole, let's say the speed should be the "max" is for a bicycle. 30mph, which is more efficient? Walking 30 mph or bicycling 30 mph? Seems like a very stupid question.

Simply define "walk" with a speed. compare calories burned while bicycling / walking at that speed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you try to efficient by walking slowly as possible? Normal case we would don't want to waste time to go somewhere so we would use moderate speed. Not try to walk slowly to keep energy

No because the process isn't linear and you have a basal metabolic rate which is a level of energy needed to stay alive while in a state of rest.

Animal too. Would try to walk fast or run in normal life of them. Ground animal is like to walk fast, not slowly move to safe energy. They will save energy when they sit or lay. They are not sloth or koala

Animals vary in terms of their energy use because there are other factors than just energy efficiency. A sloth can move slowly because it has few predators and subsists on a diet of things that don't move. Animals that have to hunt or run from predators do frequently move faster. It might be less efficient than walking slowly but it keeps you alive. This is an obvious point.

You talk nonsense and you waste your time, and now you waste other people's time to make nonsense argument

This is well established, simple biology. School children learn this. Due to the presence of oxygen in cellular respiration aerobic pathways can be utilised which produce more adenosine triphosphate (the principle molecule of energy transfer in cells) per molecule of carbohydrate than their anaerobic counterparts.

When engaging in light-moderate exercise an average person can supply enough oxygen to their body to maintain aerobic respiration. Above that the lungs cannot take in oxygen as fast as needed and so cells must start utilising a greater proportion of anaerobic pathways to keep up with the energy demand. The most common pathway is glycolysis which involves the conversion of glucose into pyruvate which is later broken down into lactic acid. I'm sure you've experienced lactic acid build up during heavy exercise that makes muscles feel like they are burning? This is why. If oxygen were present this would not occur as the pyruvate would be utilised in aerobic respiration.

As a final illustration compare the simplified process of anaerobic respiration here with the table of aerobic respiration here. You'll see that in the former two ATP molecules are produced per glucose molecule. In the latter that number rises to thirty. You can follow through yourself to learn more if you'd like a detailed reason as to why.

 

[ThainaYu]

It start nonsense when we talk about efficient of speed system and you try to make argument that walking slow would be more efficient than bicycle. That's stupid

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It start nonsense when we talk about efficient of speed system and you try to make argument that walking slow would be more efficient than bicycle. That's stupid

Please point to the exact sentence where I argued that walking slow would be more efficient than a bicycle. Because from what I can see I pointed out that it depends on the level of aerobic vs anerobic respiration. Walking slowly uphill for example is anerobic, riding a bike requires a minimum speed/effort higher than this so is more likely to be anaerobic and thus less energy efficient.

 

[Averagesupernova]

This is quite insane.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This is quite insane.

Why?

 

[Averagesupernova]

It should be implied that efficiency is calculated for both walking and biking at reasonable speeds for each on similar terrain that is reasonable for both biking and walking. It is not reasonable to bike at 1 MPH. Nor should it be reasonable to walk at 10 MPH. It should also be implied that getting from point A to point B should be the primary objective. Arguments like: "But I LIKE to bike at .5 MPH to enjoy the scenery." are not acceptable. Ride the bike at a speed which makes it most efficient and do the same with walking. I realize that I said in a previous post that when walking and biking at the same speed that biking is more efficient and I stand by that statement. But I will say that it would need to be a compromise in speed between the two. Yes there are parts of the bike trip that may not be as efficient as walking like steep hills. But how far are we going to take this? Are we going to break it down into fractions of a step? THIS part of my step doesn't move me forward as much as THAT part of my step. And walking down hill requires some energy to hold me back because if I just let my legs relax when walking down a hill as I do when biking I would tumble down into a pile so some energy is expended there that would not be necessary when biking. What about water? My trip from point A to point B involves wading through a foot of water for a quarter mile. And OMG, the sand at the beach where I come up out of the water is HORRIBLE to bike through. Surely biking isn't easy doing this is it? The insanity goes on and on...
-
On the average, and average is what really counts, biking is more efficient than walking when getting from point A to point B on reasonable terrain.

 

[etudiant]

Getting back to the OPs question, has anyone any experience with an animal oriented self powered vehicle?
It would be interesting to see how the animal adapts to the increased speed and the reduced agility.
For dogs that seem to spend much of their time going from one sniff point to the next it might be an encumbrance. Certainly they don't usually run much, except when just off the leash.

 

[ThainaYu]

I think many animal was able to train to understand about vehicle that they got decreased agility (and mostly speed too) when they used for harness other vehicle that human sit on
Also they can understand about vehicle when they get into it that they stand still but something move them around very fast

So to learn about that they can use their power to make something they stand on move around is about experiencing. I think harness animal would clever enough to get used and understand if it played with that thing

 

[Averagesupernova]

Although I don't have personal experience with it horses have been used to power stationary objects. It was quite common. A group of 4 to 6 horses were arranged to walk in a circle harnessed to pull spokes that attached to a center hub. Through gearing, probably a set or double planetary gears and a bevel gear this power was transferred out through a shaft along the ground which the horses walked over. The end of this shaft drove a threshing machine or feed mill or something of this nature. This setup is known as a horsepower. (Maybe 2 separate words, not sure.) Obviously not the same scenario but I don't see why a horse cannot be set on a treadmill inside the appropriate vehicle. There is no reason the animal needs to see outside. Ventilation to the outside is about all that is required. Oh yeah, maybe a carrot dangled in front.

 

[Danger]

I don't want to derail this thread now that it's back on track, but I want to explain one thing. My reasoning about efficiency of walking vs biking is that for the latter to be more efficient a bicycle would have to be an over-unity device; you would get out more than you put in.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I don't want to derail this thread now that it's back on track, but I want to explain one thing. My reasoning about efficiency of walking vs biking is that for the latter to be more efficient a bicycle would have to be an over-unity device; you would get out more than you put in.

How do you figure? Heat pumps for residential heating are often referred to as more than 100% efficient. This is because you can generate the same BTUs with less electricity running the heat pump than it would take generate the same heat from a resistance coil type heating element. Of course we are not getting more power out than we are putting in, it is more of an advertising gimmick. It is all about reference.

 

[Danger]

Of course we are not getting more power out than we are putting in, it is more of an advertising gimmick. It is all about reference.

Exactly!

 

[berkeman]

I don't want to derail this thread now that it's back on track, but I want to explain one thing. My reasoning about efficiency of walking vs biking is that for the latter to be more efficient a bicycle would have to be an over-unity device; you would get out more than you put in.

Not over-unity at all. Walking and running are just very inefficient ways of moving around. You can't coast when walking or running -- coasting takes the invention of the wheel. When you coast down a hill on a bike, you are only expending baseline calories. When you walk down a hill, you are expending more. Same thing for riding easily on the flat and coasting half of the time.

That's why when I tried to answer the OP's original question, I was trying to think of some way to use animal power, but still be able to coast easily somehow. That's where the horse-supporting-cart thought came from. Kind of like a scooter/Razor-style for horses...

 

[Danger]

You can coast only after building up momentum through physical effort. Likewise for going downhill; you have to have first pedaled up the hill. Are you honestly proposing that a bike not only has no frictional and other losses, but in fact offers gains instead?
Think of hydroelectricity. Do the turbogenerators at the base of Niagara Falls produce more power than the harnessed part of the falls themselves? Not likely. It's a lot more convenient after conversion, as is bicycle travel, but there's still a loss.

 

[berkeman]

You can coast only after building up momentum through physical effort. Likewise for going downhill; you have to have first pedaled up the hill. Are you honestly proposing that a bike not only has no frictional and other losses, but in fact offers gains instead?
Think of hydroelectricity. Do the turbogenerators at the base of Niagara Falls produce more power than the harnessed part of the falls themselves? Not likely. It's a lot more convenient after conversion, as is bicycle travel, but there's still a loss.

There are lots of things that go into the quantitative numbers that I linked to previously in this thread, and the bottom line is that bicycling is much more efficient than walking or running. Credit the wheel and gearing for most of that.

I know from personal experience that I can bicycle at 2x-3x walking speed on the flat with no more effort than walking. And I only need to add in a little more effort to bike at 5x walking speed. I can get to my destination and drink beer for both of us long before you arrive...

 

[berkeman]

I had an interesting thought that would be pretty easy to prototype, and would be fun to see the results of. (And would apply directly to the OP's initial question.)

If you had a cooperative, well-trained and fun-loving dog, you could DIY make a harness coupled to a wheeled cart, so that the dog could hang comfortably in the harness, and either use his/her paws to run along, or lift them and glide. It would be fun to go for runs with your dog in such a harness, and teach him/her that they can glide for a lot of the runs. It would be interesting to see how the dog would learn to use the new gliding skill to improve the efficiency of their accompanying runs.

Then find a horse as intelligent as a dog... Oops, guess not.

 

[berkeman]

Maybe we should post a link to this in The Dog Lovers thread -- bet we would get some DIY takers on the challenge.

 

[ThainaYu]

I think to train animal to use is not problem at all. What I really want is the design that would be sure easy and comfortable for the animal (it would be effect to training too) and about efficiency that should be useful as much as possible

The actual reason I think about this is to resurrect buffalo farming of my homeland. Also horse and cow farming around the world. To have green energy and preserve friendly animal relationship
But to do that. Efficiency is very crucial to benefit people who tame them

 

[nitsuj]

The actual reason I think about this is to resurrect... horse and cow farming around the world. To have green energy and preserve friendly animal relationship

Then focus on the "efficiency" of the animal feed lol, or maybe more specifically on the efficiency of the animal to turn feed into food

How does an efficiently mobile farm animal improve the profitability of farming? Even in wealthy N.America green farming or "Organic" is not profitable (comparatively, often literally), this is food, not politics.

My hungry stomach doesn't give two hoots about how "dirty" it was to get food on my plate; my stomach only cares if and how much food there is, and for me and most people (hopefully) that's $$ related, not good for the environment related.

A long shot of an analogy, but drug addicts don't typically care where the drugs come from or if they were produced in an environmental friendly manner, just that there is an abundance .

"Green" food production is more of a "culture" thing then an economics thing, because abundant food production requires and abundance of "fuel" of all types. In other words until the fuel "issue" is resolved "dirty" will always be much cheaper than "clean", nearly by definition of clean/dirty in this context (a comparative).

...I wonder what the "carbon footprint" difference is between an individual of "healthy" weight and one of obese weight, maybe the "carbon footprint" of food production per capita of your "homeland" is already comparatively "Green".

just a very general spewing of my opinion.

 

[ThainaYu]

And you should put manure into efficiency. Oil or gas fuel was more problem in transport than animal feed. Harness animal eat hay and grass then make a material for generate methane gas. When they died they also give you bone and skin for use

Efficiency for the feed cost is no need to talk about. It the same reason people use bicycle for transportation. To convert energy from food eating yesterday into distance and speed more efficient than walking

The reason I start this thread is because I already know that using harness animal in the same way as old day is less efficient than oil machine
And now I try to find new way to increase efficiency of using harness animal. To convert energy from feed that animal eating yesterday into more work than drafting. So we can use harness animal in the field work again without dropping of productivity that's my purpose

 

[berkeman]

Greeting. This is my first thread in engineering zone. Pleased to meet you all

As the topic said. I want to ask about how possible to make animal powered vehicle for animal
Or simply said, can we create bicycle for animal?

I just think that, Human walk is low efficient compare to bicycle. Even bicycle add weight into overall system. Using bicycle is faster and consume less energy than running

So, can we give animal the same kind of system? Some wheels connected to gear and... Pedal? Threadmill? whatever. Anything and everything that can boost harness power efficiency and lower fatigue of animal

I want to find some way to let human able to use animal powered engine instead of fuel. But just using direct drafting like the old day is not enough anymore. Boosting efficiency with mechanical engineering is my hope
Do you have any idea?
Thank you

And you should put manure into efficiency. Oil or gas fuel was more problem in transport than animal feed. Harness animal eat hay and grass then make a material for generate methane gas. When they died they also give you bone and skin for use

Efficiency for the feed cost is no need to talk about. It the same reason people use bicycle for transportation. To convert energy from food eating yesterday into distance and speed more efficient than walking

The reason I start this thread is because I already know that using harness animal in the same way as old day is less efficient than oil machine
And now I try to find new way to increase efficiency of using harness animal. To convert energy from feed that animal eating yesterday into more work than drafting. So we can use harness animal in the field work again without dropping of productivity that's my purpose

Comparing your first post above to your latest post, you did not make it clear in your first post what your goal was. If it's improving the efficiency of using animals in farming, that is very different from increasing their efficiency for human transportation. If you had made your purpose clear from the start, much of the wasted effort of posters in this thread could have been avoided.

I don't think there is much that can be done to increase the efficiency of using animals in farming. That kind of farming has been around for so long, any tricks or improvements have been thought of already.