Advantages of pedal-powered machines ?
Hello everyone,
I'm currently interested in the re-evaluation of pedal-powered machines, as described in the article from Low-Tech Magazine 'Pedal-powered farms and factories: the forgotten future of the stationary bicycle.' (URL : https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/05/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-the-forgotten-future-of-the-stationary-bicycle/).
These arguments are often found in favor of direct mechanical drive over electric drive:
* Simplicity and robustness: mechanical systems are often simpler and more robust, requiring less maintenance and being easier to repair in the field.
* Energy efficiency: less energy loss due to the absence of conversion from electrical to mechanical energy.
Do you agree with these arguments ? What do you think ?
Thank you in advance for your answers
Accepted answer
Hello Quentin Plisson!
I think your search is very interesting. Like any other idea or initiative, it can be beneficial in the right contexts.
One of the issues to consider is that a human, as a source of mechanical energy, has a very limited (and not negligible!) power. I believe that even a weightlifting athlete, in his best attempt to lift a certain weight to a certain height, in a certain amount of time, will not get close to 1/2 HP. Most of us I suppose are below 1/4 HP. But there are many applications where these powers are very acceptable.
The other limitation we have as humans is "the time" during which we can provide said energy. Although it is a capacity that can be improved by training, in absolute values we cannot expect to "release a lot of energy." This could be limited by thinking about how much energy we introduce into the body through daily nutrition. That is, we not only have low power, but also low total energy. But I insist, none of this disqualifies us as a source of energy but simply makes us "competitive" in certain very particular contexts.
Regarding the robustness and reliability of mechanical versus electromechanical systems, it is possible to give some credence to the statements you expressed. But all this can change drastically when you make the fairest comparison by including "the human" as an energy source, with all its "biological problems and needs for rest and maintenance/repair." Even if we talk about "ecology" at first glance it seems that "blood traction (human or animal)" is very respectful of the environment... but that can change if we analyze "how ecological" we are for the planet when we feed ourselves , we consume resources and generate waste of all kinds.
In summary, I think the initiative can be very good as long as it is applied to cases "well within the range" of the human energy source.
