Can we design vehicle for animal self powered?

[ThainaYu]

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

 

[russ_watters]

 

[ThainaYu]

Thank you. That seem promising but are there any really workable design for working animal?

 

[Danger]

I hope you realize that no matter how efficiently you get the little buggers pedaling, their steering will be atrocious.

 

[ThainaYu]

Yesterday I have though the simple design maybe... The treadmill that slope and power rear wheels. The steering would be front wheels like normal car

Maybe design it like side bike. The steering is controlled by human. Just harness the power of animal

Also if we can train. Howabout... if animal tilt its body then it turn that way? Something auto calculate the center of gravity like Honda electric unicycle?

 

[Danger]

With the state of computer systems and control equipment, I suppose that anything is possible as far as the animal driving and steering the vehicle goes. What I do not understand, however, is how you plan to steer the animal.

 

[ThainaYu]

In my idea right now...

Animal was on stand on the vehicle. And steering with the same as car steering system. Just take engine out and use animal walk on treadmill to power rear wheel instead

If we let animal ride this vehicle by themselves. Maybe train them to use it like we train ourselves to use bicycle
If we want to control vehicle. Then it would be another model that we sit on the side of treadmill and use normal steering wheel
Animal would stand on vehicle. Not touch the ground. Just harness their power
So what is the problem of steering?

 

[Travis_King]

How would a treadmill add any efficiency to the system?

Not to mention why you'd want to do this... Even if you somehow got an animal to use a device that made better use of their mechanical energy (which I highly doubt is possible or practical), the gains made in efficiency would be ridiculously overshadowed by the costs due to the complexity of the system as compared to having the animal simply tow you with its feet on the ground. I'm not saying give up, but maybe take a step back for a moment and reanalyze the problem.

 

[ThainaYu]

I just guess that if we can add wheel to animal it would be more efficient to harness
But to add wheel directly would be too hard to control. So the treadmill is just medium, like human use pedal for bicycle, not pushing the ground by foot
Using treadmill would decrease efficient a bit but it would be more convenient to draw the power from animal to wheel. Which wheel and freewheel would increase efficiency in return. It could also add gear and other utility for decrease animal fatigue and strain

As I said at start. I guess it from the fact that we human use bicycle as the most efficient tool in traveling. Pedaling also able to harness human power for many mechanical task like grinding. Compare to working animal we use treadmill for the same engine

But I really don't have solid idea. Treadmill is just something come up to my mind. It can be anything that could increase overall efficiency than direct drafting

 

[Averagesupernova]

Dogs have been trained to run on treadmills to do tasks. I believe laundry.
-
As far as training the animal goes, I doubt it is possible. It is VERY possible to train them with a driver, but I doubt you could stick a dog in a self powered vehicle and say: "Ok Fido, go get the mail."
-
I have seen videos of a dog riding a skateboard and navigate corners very well. But it was all down hill.

 

[Hercuflea]

Animal-powered hybrid land-marine vehicle:

 

[berkeman]

One thought would be to have a wheeled supporting cart that fits under a horse and supports 50-75% of their body weight. As long as there was enough traction between their hooves and the road to be able to propel the horse and rider forward, the unweighting would make walking and trotting easier on the horse. The horse might even be able to be trained to "glide" by lifting its hooves off the road after getting to speed on the flats, or on downhills. The rider would control the steering and braking of the supporting cart.

Wonder what the horse would think of that -- no idea if it could be made comfortable for them. This would probably only work on smooth roads (maybe smooth dirt roads too...).

 

[Danger]

the fact that we human use bicycle as the most efficient tool in traveling.

Walking is the most efficient tool in traveling; bicycling involves mechanical losses.

 

[berkeman]

Walking is the most efficient tool in traveling; bicycling involves mechanical losses.

I don't think that's true, Danger. You can't coast while walking...

 

[Danger]

I don't think that's true, Danger. You can't coast while walking...

But you have to have built up momentum in order to coast, at a mechanical loss.

 

[etudiant]

Bicycling is much more efficient than walking on a joule/km basis.
The catch is that it requires a reasonably level surface, whereas walking is much more flexible.
The power wasted in walking gets captured for forward motion by the bike.

The OPs idea is an interesting one and entirely feasible.
Here in NYC, many people walk aging pets with paralyzed hindquarters that are supported by a wheeled frame.
The concept could surely be extended to the entire animal, in line with berkeman's idea. Steering would work by flexing the carrier vehicle.
Horses are more difficult, they might have trouble breathing properly while suspended from a carrier.
Still, it would perhaps allow for much faster horses, just as bikes enable much faster humans.

 

[Danger]

The catch is that it requires a reasonably level surface, whereas walking is much more flexible.

I guess that therein lies the basis of my disagreement. I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. There's no such thing as a level surface. Two of the hills leading to and from my town are 8% grades, and the third is 6%. One east-west road is fairly flat, but has a southward slope.

 

[etudiant]

I guess that therein lies the basis of my disagreement. I live in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. There's no such thing as a level surface. Two of the hills leading to and from my town are 8% grades, and the third is 6%. One east-west road is fairly flat, but has a southward slope.

My mistake, I meant even rather than level.
Biking preserves momentum much better than walking does. That saves energy.
The calorie burn for walking is about three times that used for biking, according to this:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4057

 

[ThainaYu]

Walking is the most efficient tool in traveling; bicycling involves mechanical losses.

Walking loses more mechanical. You build energy and lose most from break of foot touch the ground. The momentum you gain from pushing forward is just near half. Compare to pedaling and gear it loses too but less than walk

At least the kick scooter is more efficient than walk. Because the wheel draw power that normally lose from walk

Flexibility in most system come from efficiency drawback

 

[Averagesupernova]

All I can say with efficiency concerning biking vs. walking is how far do you think you can walk in a day compared to how far you can bike?

 

[nitsuj]

All I can say with efficiency concerning biking vs. walking is how far do you think you can walk in a day compared to how far you can bike?

The only additional benefit to cycling over walking that I can see is gravitational potential. letting my weight propel the bike forward, or rolling down hill.

biking is faster,

 

[Averagesupernova]

The only additional benefit to cycling over walking that I can see is gravitational potential. letting my weight propel the bike forward, or rolling down hill.

biking is faster,

Are you able to walk 75 miles in a 10 hour day?

 

[nitsuj]

Are you able to walk 75 miles in a 10 hour day?

That is your retort speaking to the comparable efficiency of a bike over walking?

well then, no I can't walk 7.5 miles an hour since my kickers are only little, must mean the bike is more efficient...or is it more effective. Shoot! now I forget/

There is no question a bike is more effective at getting from a to b compared to walking.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So do you think it takes less energy for your body to walk X miles in Y hours than it does to bike X miles in Y hours?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So do you think it takes less energy for your body to walk X miles in Y hours than it does to bike X miles in Y hours?

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.

 

[nitsuj]

So do you think it takes less energy for your body to walk X miles in Y hours than it does to bike X miles in Y hours?

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

all things idealized as favoring the bicycle, yes its more efficient; & vice-versa.

resting on the seat/handle bars probably reduces the energy used by a fair bit,

 

[berkeman]

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.

 

[nitsuj]

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 is convincing! however, I suppose a brisk walk is not a very good control for seeing if bicycling is more efficient compared to walking. Still vague but perhaps a "casual" walk instead?

 

[berkeman]

That is convincing! however, I suppose a brisk walk is not a very good control for seeing if bicycling is more efficient compared to walking. Still vague but perhaps a "casual" walk instead?

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

 

[nitsuj]

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

yes well to your point about what is convincing

 

[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.