this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
611 points (98.7% liked)

LinkedinLunatics

5609 readers
68 users here now

A place to post ridiculous posts from linkedIn.com

(Full transparency.. a mod for this sub happens to work there.. but that doesn't influence his moderation or laughter at a lot of posts.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (6 children)

This is dumb as shit ofc, but it gave me an idea that's probably nearly equally dumb as shit:

Regular bicycle, but with an extra gear that can selectively connect to the chain or wheel or w/e, that's connected to a coil torsion spring on a kind of ratchet release.

Basically you flip the switch when it's a good time to rob some energy like when you're on level ground or going down hill. That energy makes you a tad less efficient (but you don't care cuz it's level or downhill), and uses that energy to wind up the coil torsion spring up until a max amount of torque is stored.

Fast forward a bit: now you're approaching an incline, so you flip the switch the other direction and that torsion spring regurgitates that energy back into forward motion, giving you a nice forward burst when going up a hill.

Not free energy by any stretch, but a strategic use of what you're already spending.

Feel free to explain why this is a horrible idea - I'm about as far from a physicist as it gets.

[–] Amir@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago

That's effectively what hybrid cars do.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Essentially regenerative braking. Should work, though the question is how coat effective.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wrong question.

Right question: When the fully torqued spring inevitably fails, who is liable for the deaths of the rider and nearby pedestrians?

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 13 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Wrong question. That one is answered with a EULA.

Right question: how often can we make that torque spring break, forcing the buyer to buy another one, without them realizing it's failure by design?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] the_mighty_kracken@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

F1 has been using this principle for years

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's just regenerative braking on a bike. Without batteries.

In theory that idea isn't actually bad although I suspect in practise the mechanism would be extremely complicated and would be liable to jamming it in opportune moments. That said doing this electronically is already a thing, although not really in e-bikes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

It's almost as if one object perpetually moves something that creates a form of motion perpetually to continuously move that first item. Like a continuous motion machine or perpetual movement apparatus. Something like that. I feel like my naming is close, though.

[–] fckreddit@lemmy.ml 47 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Bro forgot to pay attention to thermodynamics.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 8 points 2 days ago

I once had an exam question that began with the phrase "ignoring thermodynamic principles...". That question really threw me, it basically asked what would happen under XYZ situation if physics didn't exist. How the hell am I supposed to know that?

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 31 points 2 days ago

Newton? Never heard of him.

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

I have a better one: charge from temperature gradients as it moves through new areas.

[–] shawn1122@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Seems like satire to me. Pretty funny too.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 17 points 2 days ago

The Law of LinkedIn:

If you think it's satire, it's probably actually just a really stupid individual.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

don't forget to add quantum tunneling between the batteries for extra efficiency

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›