Fortescue - another "free energy" scam? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: JoeMuc2013
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 08:41:31 am
content: Hiya,anybody heard of this?https://electrek.co/2025/06/21/fortescue-infinity-train-electric-locomotive-never-needs-fuel-or-charging/A train never needing any fuel or charging, and recharging itself from braking energy along the way? Doesn't sound too serious, right?@Dave can you contextualise this for us all, EEVBlog style? Would be so great!Cheers,Joe

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 09:14:31 am
content: Quote from: JoeMuc2013 on June 24, 2025, 08:41:31 amI doubt thatengineeringenterprise would be deceived by free energy scams.Consider the potential energy of a mass (of ore+train) at the mine and at the other end of the line. As the mass "falls" down the line, it loses potential energy - which can be used to charge batteries. That energy can be used to power the train back up the line to the mine.There will be energy losses in that round trip, of course. Provided the difference in mass (ore+train : ore) is larger than the inefficiency (which seems likely), then the return trip could be powered by battery alone.Another question is how fast energy can be dumped into the battery. That can't be easily estimated, but it isn't a fundamental problem; it can be addressed by sound engineering.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 09:16:35 am
content: Ackshooly, it sounds plausible: it's an ore train that runs fully loaded downhill (from 300m elev. to sea level), charging its batteries along the way, then runs back uphill empty.The article does point out that this "mak the train almost entirely self-sufficient", so they don't seem to be pitching "free energy" here.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 12:19:40 pm
content: Isn't that already done with large transport trucks in some mines?I remember reading about ore trucks utilizing regenerative braking a couple of years ago. Though i don't remember if they were fully self-sufficient.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 12:32:52 pm
content: You don't even need electricity.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 12:48:29 pm
content: was how the very first railways worked,loaded wagon rolled down hill pulling the empty trucks back up

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2025, 01:11:10 pm
content: I only skimmed it, but seems plausible.As Ranayna said, this technique has already been done. Electric dump trucks collecting rocks from an elevated site.They fully charge the batteries when descending using re-gen and by the time they get to the bottom the battery is fully charged.This is enough energy to get back up to the top given they are so much lighter after unloading all the rocks.Obviously it only works because you are using the gravitational potential energy of the thing you are transporting from a high to low position. It's a bit more convenient to use that energy to electrically power a transport vehicle than it is to manufacture round objects out of the rocks at the top so you can let them roll down the hill to the bottomIf you think of a huge round solid cylinder of rock rolling down a hill getting faster and faster. Once it gets to the bottom its moving very fast and is very heavy. Imagine you extract out all its energy, now it's stationary. That's the energy you have available to move a lighter object back up to the top. How much lighter that has to be to get back to the top depends on the efficiency of the system.I wonder how much of the train is dedicated to battery. You'd need a lot to move a train long distance even when empty.But i guess trains can be super long.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 05:33:57 am
content: Quote from: Psi on June 24, 2025, 01:11:10 pmReferenced material is easy to find:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortescue_railway_line2.8km long!

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 10:07:41 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 24, 2025, 12:48:29 pmOne example being theDeniston Incline, full coal wagons going down, empty ones going back up.One interesting feature, shown onthis photo, is that it appears to have used only three tracks, presumably with a four-track bypass section halfway down where the wagons would otherwise have collided.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 02:15:40 pm
content: Quote from: 5U4GB on June 25, 2025, 10:07:41 amInterestingly, it is possible for a heavy ship to go uphill where the only power required is to overcome friction.150 year old example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderton_Boat_Lift23 year old example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkirk_WheelTo simultaneously raise 4 fully-laden 20m canal boats requires only 22.5kW and 1.5kWh.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 06:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on June 25, 2025, 02:15:40 pmI'm quite a canal enthusiast, and appreciate both those engineering feats. It gets a mention in passing in the Wikipedia article, but a crucial factor in their success is that the "tubs" of water which lift or lower the boats weigh exactly the same whether there is a boat in them or not. Thus the system is inherently balanced regardless of what size and weight boats they are raising or lowering. Energy is primarily required to operate the moving machinery parts and overcome friction.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2025, 06:42:24 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on June 25, 2025, 06:31:51 pmYup. And both are worth going to see, if you are in the area.As I'm sureyouare aware, there were other mechanisms, e.g. sticking a section of canal on rails and lifting that up/down.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxton_Inclined_Planewas built to reduce the transit time from 90 minutes to 12 minutes.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2025, 03:49:26 am
content: Maybe Fortescue should have hired someone like M.C. Escher to design their ore transport scheme:

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 06:08:24 am
content: Too optimistic and non-numerical.You forget that the losses are greater, from the heavy train going downhill on tracks, from friction. You cannot figure the potential energy loss, as a gain, that somehow can be utilized. It's gone to heat the surroundings, from friction.So, now you are starting back up the hill, sure with reduced weight, but let's not get carried away, and call that 'ZERO' as it's work now needed.Sweet talkin only works with dates and new jobs...

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 06:24:03 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 19, 2025, 06:08:24 amDon't forget that this scheme has actually been implemented and it works.Of course it's not "net-zero energy": it'd be crazy to try to claim that. There is friction, as you point out.However, it does reclaim energy.It's the same as the design of some subway systems, like the one in L.A., where the line slopes down between stations so they can use positive gravity when accelerating and negative gravity for braking at the next station. Smart.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 10:00:05 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on July 19, 2025, 06:08:24 amNonsense, as has been demonstrated in many places and many times over the past couple of centuries.Do the physicswith numbersfor each component.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 10:18:37 am
content: As a teen I put a rusty train freight carriage (empty one) in a movement by my own tiny force. So the friction cannot be so extremely dramatic, even when we talk 244 carriages here..Would be great if somebody makes the math. You may estimate almost every input needed, incl. that 280km long track profile..

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 01:13:57 pm
content: Of course the principle works fine, and in the case of ordinary gravity trucks on an incline probably has energy left over to burn the brakes. The only thing that worries me with the OP link is the 685 mile run for the locomotive. There's no mention of multiple locomotives regeneratively powering each other, everything is in the singular.685 miles (downhill / uphill) is alotof battery.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 02:00:49 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on July 19, 2025, 01:13:57 pmThere are, of course, to aspects to that: 685 miles horizontally, and how far vertically, h?Vertically the energy change is (m+M)gh downhill and mgh uphill, where m is mass of rolling stock and M is mass of cargo.Horizontally the main energy losses are rolling friction (proportional to distance), velocity change 0 to V, and air resistance proportional to V2in still air. For a train, the rolling resistance is very low, it won't be going very fast thus minimising drag losses (plus drag losses are lower for trains than uncoupled vehicles), and the1/2mV2probably only happens once.So, can enough Mgh be captured and stored in batteries to provide for mgh plus the horizontal losses in the other direction? Clearly it can!

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 03:01:52 pm
content: The original ‘L’ line in Chicago, built in 1893 for travel to the Columbian Exhibition world’s fair, used small steam locomotives before the line was electrified. Each station is at a higher altitude than the main line to decelerate the train when arriving and accelerate when departing. Before electrification, no attempt was made to capture the energy balance, but it allowed for wimpier locomotives and brakes.When the line was re-built in 1994 to 1996, I believe the elevation difference was retained.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 03:26:00 pm
content: What chatgpt tool "thinks" about (the first answer without any fine-tuning):Quote

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 09:29:02 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 19, 2025, 03:01:52 pmThe same arrangement was / is used on the London Underground, similarly to aid deceleration and acceleration - important for closely spaced stations. It has the added benefit that, in an emergency, the tunnels will flood before the stations.