Slashdot Mirror
Ramp Creates Power As Cars Pass
Ant wrote to mention a BBC News report on a ramp that generates power via passing cars. From the article: "Dorset inventor Peter Hughes' Electro-Kinetic Road Ramp creates around 10kW of power each time a car drives over its metal plates. More than 200 local authorities had expressed an interest in ordering the £25,000 ramps to power their traffic lights and road signs, Mr Hughes said."
Takes generating electricity to a new level of inefficiency...
I suppose it might work on a ramp going down, but level or up, and the "free" energy is coming from the gas tanks of the drivers.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
Ramp up production, but make sure you have an exit strategy.
Does a tractor trailer give it? Or would that break it?
I don't get it.
That's not even the bad part. Those damn government bastards have installed "friction" all over the place and it is WARMING THE PLANET. It's a plot I tell you, a plot.
I wonder how long it takes to pay off a 25,000 pound piece of equipment plus installation and maintenance with savings in electricity for street and traffic lights? I'm guessing a really long time.
Is it even worth it?
when there is a red light ahead. so instead of wasting peoples gas, these things would save consumers brake pads?
so you could have a field of them that pop up some distance before each light to absorb all the wasted energy that goes into brake heat.
Although the cost would be astronomical, it would be nice to implement this on highways/roads to keep them heated during the colder seasons (ie, Northern Ontario). Snow only stays on the ground because the ground temperature is below freezing. So, keeping the roads at 1 Degree Celsius would keep snow and ice off the roads.
Also, because the ice couldn't melt then freeze and expand, this would be an excellent cost savings measure over the long term: no more cracking or pot holes (which are mainly caused by freezing water.)
The other option are solar panels, but this method might be more cost effective.
...or perhaps I should say, taxing gasoline *more*. After all, the power is coming from somewhere... you know, conservation of energy, and all that jive?
So, instead of tearing up the road, installing this infrastructure, and then paying to maintain it, why not just add 1 cent more of taxes to a gallon of gas, and earmark that money for the purpose of paying the electric bill? Seems a lot simpler. Besides, the taxes levied really ought to accurately reflect the full cost of utilizing the municipality's infrastructure... if this cost is something the bean-counters have overlooked in the past, just add it to the tax bill.
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
You'll have to drive your car on a giant hamster wheel attached to a generator for two minutes.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Here's the inventor's website: http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/
There's some videos on the site, but the "Technical" section is laughably vague.
What do you base your belief that this is "wasted energy" being used?
It's only wasted if the driver would have applied his brakes turning the forward motion of his automobile into heat. This would make sense on off ramps or downhill slopes. On a flat road, however, this will convert some of his forward motion into energy that this mechanism will leach.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I assume you mean you don't want to drive on the roads with these 'ramps'.
Heres an idea, since I was already taxed for purchasing the gas USE THAT MONEY TO POWER THE LIGHTS.
That brings up an interesting point. Maybe, I'm paying tax on gas to power traffic lights in your town? (I know taxes are a little more complex than that, but....) How about the people who are using the traffic lights pay for them? That sounds pretty fair, right? If you live on a street that has few traffic lights, why should you pay taxes for three streets over to power x5 the number of traffic lights when you never drive there?
This would make the lights powered by the people who are using, rather than by people who are not using them.
M0571y H@rml355.
Apparently, physics was not your major. The same goes for the clueless mods that modded you up.
Fine--but is there any indication that these ramps would replace gasoline taxes? More likely they'd be in addition, as most Americans wouldn't understand that they're losing gas mileage.
Here's a diagram of how it works. Be sure to wipe your mind after you're done looking at it though, it's labeled "STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL".
Home Page: http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/ with other photographs and some short & long video clips.
Basically, put these things in places people would always slow down anyway (eg. off-ramps), and it's a win-win. Free energy production for the city, and reduced wear on brake pads for the citizens.
Particularly since the company's promo video specifically says that the devices don't use extra gas. The average citizen/politician with little/no understanding of physics will believe him.
From the pictures, that ramp appears to stick up at least 3 inches above the road surface. I don't know about you, but if I saw anything remotely that large sticking up, I'd be hitting the breaks or changing lanes to avoid it. That could be a real danger unless 100% of the drivers were already familiar with it. I would be very surprised if they tried to use it on roads with speed limits greater than 35 MPH or so.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
They say it generates, on average, 10kW of power each time a car crosses. OK, great, but a watt is a measure of energy over time. So, for how long does it generate 10kW of power? Is it 10kW for a half second? 10 seconds? An hour? A millisecond?
If I have a 100W light bulb, how long can I power it off of the energy generated by one car crossing this ramp? With the information given, I have no way to calculate this. The "10kW" number is completely meaningless.
Energy is measured in joules, dammit. A watt is one joule per second.
So, this ramp generates 10kW when 'active'. Let's say you have a continual stream of cars so that it is active 50% of the time (since there must be gaps between the cars). This mean it's generates 5kWh of energy per hour.
/might/ just pay for itself.
/millions/ of cars passing over it.
Assume that the standard cost for elecricity is US$0.10 per kWh. So this thing can generate US$0.50 of electricity per hour. Over the course of a year it will generate about USD4000 worth. So after about ten years it
And that's not even considering maintaining the thing. Road wear out, and they're just simple concrete. This is a mechanical device, which will have
The whole things stinks of INVESTOR SCAM.
Based on my local cost of electricity ($0.06/KwHr), and assuming a ramp generates 10Kw continuously, each ramp generates $0.60 worth of electricity per hour. Neglecting installation costs and maintenance and using Friday's currency exchange rate, each ramp would have to operate 8.4 years to recoup the initial $44300 cost. Looks to me like they are far from being cost effective.
This article (like all-too-many others) confuses energy and power (i.e. energy per unit of time). It's nonsense to talk about generating "10kW of power" "each time" something happens.
Naturally this is leaving aside the question of whether speed humps are worthwhile or not.
Depends on how drunk you are and how ugly she is.
An automobile is a wonderful thing, and modern ones even give a smooth ride. The reason we get a smooth ride is this wonderful energy absorbing system called 'suspension', which absorbs about 95% of the energy of a road bump before it actually transfers to the vehicle occupants. The reverse is also true. The suspension has a few major components, the first being the sidewall of the tire. When you hit a bump, the tire deforms, and aborbs a significant portion of the impact energy. Typically, tires are designed so they can continue absorbing such bumps long enough that the tread wears out before the sidewall fails, but, if you spend a lot of time driving on real bumpy roads, you'll know, sidewalls fail long before the tread is worn. The second portion of the suspension is the shock absorber, and like a tire, it has a life expectancy. After absorbing some finite number of impact shocks, it ceases to function. It is quite possible to calculate a 'cost per bump' based on the replacement cost of tires and shock absorbers.
So, in the overall energy transfer equation here, we start with an internal combustion engine, that takes gasoline as an input, provides torque as an output, and is approximately 35% efficient. That torque is then transferred thru the drive train to provide propulsion, a process that typically runs 95% efficiency. Now, for a vehicle in motion hitting this bump, the vehicle suspension will absorb 95% of the impact, so the transfer of energy from the car to the bump is only about 5% efficient, with the vehicle suspension absorbing most of the impact. Tally up all the efficiencies along the way, 0.35 * 0.95 * 0.05 and you get 0.0166. So, to generate 1 kw of electricity from this device, you have to burn the equivalent of 60Kw of gasoline, and then let it flow thru the inefficient transfer mechanisms. To top it all off, you are purposely introducing extra bumps into the system, ie causing mechanical wear on the vehicles, which will in the long run have a measureable cost, probably substantially higher than the value of the electricity being generated.
If this is a 'step forward' for renewable energy, I'd sure like to know how that comes to being. To me, it looks like the most wasteful mechanism I've seen yet to convert gasoline into electricity. I cant remember EVER seeing any hair brained method of generating power thats LESS efficient than this one, with the exception maybe of the cartoon method of driving a windmill with an electric fan.
I can see one, and only one application where this is potentially 'viable', and thats to power traffic lights at locations that are so far out of the way, no grid power of any kind is available. I know of a few tunnels in the remote parts of northern british columbia where that would be the case, it would mean they dont have to keep the generators running on diesel 24x7 to light them up. Then again, from a pure pollution point of view, it's probably wiser to run an efficient generator 24x7 than to consider this kind of low efficiency energy transfer device.
Then again, if i was in the business of selling tires and shock absorbers, I'd probably consider the idea of offering a subsidy to towns looking to purchase this device. One of these at every traffic light in the jurasdiction would likely do wonders for my tire business, probably give full payback in a couple of years. Then when folks do come for replacements, upselling them to good quality steel belted tires that can withstand the extra abuse would be a trivial upsell, just point at all the artificial bumps in the road, and make sure they understand, normal tires just wont survive on these roads....
Let me chime in from the other side of the Nay-Sayers for Electro-Kinetic Road Ramps. How rugged are these things? What kind of road debris will it take for these to jam up? What will it take for someone to try to stop their cars, and lock the wheels on the ramp. What if the ramp ices over? With our litigous society, how long of a wait will it be before the inevitable occurs...
... And for what?
Okay, okay. I get the idea, this is essentially a means by which electricty can be derived from the same energy that drives your vehicle. However... isn't this energy that would just be wasted, anyway? This thing doesn't exactly slow down your car. It's not like it's sucking power right out of your engine. This is kinetic energy combined with the force of gravity and the weight of your car, energies that would just be wasted and poured into the ground otherwise. Ten kilowatts, depending on your perspective, may or may not in fact be 'drops in the barrel' energy wise, but it's more than enough to power devices like stop lights and road signs, granted it's stored efficiently and the devices attached to it are similarly efficient.
On a well traveled road, energy that is essentially being wasted can be recaptured and used to power lights and signs for several intersections without placing any load on the local power grid. Sure, these things are pricey, but as their price decreases with time and their efficiency and output both climb, doesn't it make sense that these things just might pay for themselves? That reduces the cost of maintaining roads in the long run by cutting out virtually all energy expenses in areas that are frequently traveled - and if the system becomes efficient enough, it could cut out the energy costs for an entire community's roadways and intersections.
This isn't 'another gas tax'. This is one less reason to have gas taxes. On a highway like ol' I-69 here in Indy, a couple handfuls of these ramps could power every lighted roadside sign and traffic signal within the city of Indianapolis, with energy to spare. Higher traffic translates directly into greater energy gains. If these things are durable enough to take the punishment, they'd pay for themselves within a matter of weeks. Now let's think about even more heavily traveled roadways, like those in New York City or LA. 10 kilowatts per panel times a few thousand automobiles a day, that's megawatts and megawatts of power being generated every day. The excess could be put into the city electrical grid, however small an amount it may be by then, and used to power other things. Street lights, low-demand municipal facilities, etc... All of this from WASTE. This is an excellent idea, and I hope to see technology like this move forward.
And before anyone replies to this, no, this is not 'just another way for the government to control our cars'. I won't be concerned about that until they start installing spike strips in these things. (And with or without ramps, that could be done at every intersection anyway....) This is hardly ripping off the taxpayer, either, if a comparatively small expense saves a ton more money. Sure, right now that expense isn't small, but it'll get smaller if enough communities buy into this stuff - perhaps even going from a few thousand dollars to just a few hundred. Money in the bank, and back in our pockets, folks... No problems here.
In this house we obey the laws of THERMODYNAMICS!!!
Who is this Jimmy character, and why was he cracking corn in the first place?
You need power for the lights, which need electricity, which costs money, so: you take electricity it from cars, which have kinetic energy, which they get from chemical energy (with losses) which their drivers get from money. If only there were a way for the government to get money directly from it's citizens...
no need for name calling, here. Maxwells equation will show that you do generate some energy, after all this how metal detectors and those street sensors work. What seems to have been forgotten is how little electricity it manages to produce. The amount is detectable, but barely useful (in a non detection sense). However if you could create a large enough coil to prodce a noticable current the drag effects on the cars would begin to be noticable whne driving (a flat section would be like driving up hill) if this wasn't cost probitive it could make for safer downhill grades. Odds are a coil of this magntude would be very expensive. This machine would be cheap in comparison.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
How high do the metal plates stick up from the surrounding road?
Looking at the photo, this could be quite dangerous for motorcycles or cars with low profile tires, especially at night.
Do road signs at least warn about the plates in advance?
I question how much energy my motorcycle and I (260 kg together) are really going to generate.
That, and every bit of power generated by anything like this will be power removed from your car, so ultimately you'll pay for it at the gas pump.
Ultimately, the whole idea of car powered lights and such only makes sense if 1) it's in a rural location where power is hard to come by and/or 2) you want to slow the cars down anyways, like a speed bump (and others have already mentioned it.) Beyond that, implementing this sort of thing would not be cost effective.
From the look of the top picture in the FA, it won't do your tires or wheel-alignment much good either.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Probably lights that aren't even on, but light up red as you approach them. Once the power from your passing is used up, the red light goes out, and you can proceed.
Now we actually can have traffic lights that always turn red as you approach. Or, at least, more of them.......
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
My first gut, wet finger in the wind estimate as a thinking human with a technical eduaction is that this thing is total snake oil.
:-)
... to a rough approximation, this is constant regardless of speed, unless there is a traffic jam, because the inter-car gap is a roughly constant amount of *time* regardless of traffic speed - recall the mantra "Only a fool breaks the two second rule". Let's take that number....
.... drumroll .... 637W. For my fellow petrolheads, this is 0.85 horsepower :-)
:-)
Two issues with your approach:
1. You're forgetting the numbers are from a crazy optimist inventor who believes his own propoganda, is given to quoting unscientific data, and is trying like hell to sell his crap
2. I suspect your 50% duty cycle is way, way overestimated. My gut is that the 10kW is a theoretical peak for the fraction of a second an axle is actually passing over the ramp.
Take a different approach - let's figure out n upper bound on how much energy per car this thing could yield from first principles (reminds me of the Physics Part 1A Tripos at Cambridge, the short "back of the envelope" questions):
Suppose each axle ramps up and falls 0.1m when passing over it, that's roughly equivalent to the whole mass of the car doing so.
An average car in the UK masses 1300kg.
Gravity is 9.81 m/s^2
Total available energy per car is thus 0.1 x 1300 x 9.81 = 1275J
Now, let's figure out how many cars can pass over it in a given unit of time
1275J per car x 0.5 cars/sec = theoretical maximum output ceiling of
Average over a 168 hour week is going to be less than 1/4 of this, due to variability in traffic -> 150W or so.
Regardless of what timebase the inventor is measuring his 10kW peak over, he admits he is at only 800W on his own scale, or less 8% of what he considers maximum possible efficiency.
Applying that 8% to the above calculated theoretical maximum, we are down to a net average of 12W yeild from this thing, which is less than the heat being given off by the idle kitten sitting on my lap as I type this.
Conclusion - as we expected at first gut, total snake oil
Sure, some parts of the year it's sunny and beautiful, but you need the streetlights to work all year around, *especially* when it's foggy, raining, and dark. So you might need some pretty big panels.
On the other hand, these ramps probably cost a big enough pile of money that it's still cheaper to use mains power than "free" power siphoned off passing cars.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's not a win-win for people driving cares that already have regenerative braking.
The cake is a pie
As for the amount of gas it's going to use... A little bump like that should be nothing in comparison to some of the pot-hole filled roads I've driven through. It's no larger than a speed bump, and this sinks into the ground when you hit it.
:3 rawr.
How does he get 10KW out of this? That looks like an automotive alternator in the picture. Automotive alternators range from 300W to about 1.5KW, and that looks like one of the smaller ones.
A more reasonable mechanism would be to make a heavy duty rubber mat, like the ones used on railroad crossings, but with internal chambers, like a tire. When a vehicle drives over it, you'd get some compressed air. Put in a check valve, an air tank, and a small air motor driving a generator, and you'd have a rugged little power source. A hydraulic version of the system might produce more power output than a pneumatic one. The bump felt by the vehicle should be easier than that at a railroad crossing. And no big, expensive machined parts that get beaten up by traffic.
Realistically, get a solar panel, like CALTRANS uses to power much of their roadside infrastructure.
They talk about kilowatts, but for how long?... 1 second? 1/2 second? 1/100?
if it's 1/40th of a second as I would estimate each passing car would generate 0.069444 KWh and it would take about 50 cars to produce the equivalent of a fully charged AA rechargeable (if we take a 2500mAh battery). But I guess their marketing department wouldn't want us to learn those number first...
10000Watts / (40 x (60 secs/minutes x 60 mins/hours)) = 0.069444 Wh (and not KWh as I wrote above, sorry)
1.5 Volts * 2.5Ah = 3.75 Wh
I just wrote a K too many, but besides that all the numbers are valids as for the 50 cars to make the equivalent of a 2.5mAh AA battery.
This is NOT energy that'd just be lost. And it's NOT waste.
If they put this out on open roads or uphill grades (ramps, etc), then it IS theft.
If they put this on downhill grades (also ramps, etc), it's STILL theft. On places where people need to stop, people using regenerative braking will lose some of their fuel savings (when they're already having problems recouping the price-premium of a hybrid). On straight downhill stretches where no stopping is needed, they're increasing the wear and tear on the suspension, tires and requiring the car to expend energy it would otherwise not spend (coasting) to traverse the same distance.
All this energy is coming directly from increased fuel consumption. So it's NOT good for the environment (increased emissions and all).
So no. It's NOT money in the bank. It's money out of our pockets FOR GOOD.
Unless you want to somehow claim this device violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics....
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Doesn't matter. You still have to lift the car those 3 inches. This still consumes energy. Maybe difficult to measure, but once you've generated 100Kilojoules, you've taken at least 100Kilojoules of energy away from the cars that has to be regenerated by inefficient internal combustion engines.
I remember being as arrogant as you.
If it's 10 kW, it must average 10kJ for 1 second.
That's not the point. For what period of time does it pump out 10kW?
Most likely, it 100kJ for 0.1 seconds or so.
100kJ in 0.1s would be 1000kW, or 1GW.
Your electric meter doesn't measure things in J, it uses kW.
My electic meter measures energy in neither joules nor kilowatts. My electric meter measures in kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is how much energy you use if you use one kilowatt of power for one hour. A kilowatt hour is exactly 3.6 megajoules.
Honestly, if you have no understanding of the subject, why do you post?
Where do you live? Mexico?
Power has gone out two, maybe three times in 20 years here.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.