Slashdot Mirror
MIT Team Creates Shock That Recharges Your Car
An anonymous reader writes "If you had a GenShock, you may not mind those potholes in the road any longer because this new prototype shock actually harvests energy from bumps in the road to save on fuel. A team of students at MIT have invented a shock absorber that harnesses energy from small bumps in the road, generating electricity while it smooths the ride more effectively than conventional shocks. Senior Shakeel Avadhany and his teammates say they can produce up to a 10 percent improvement in overall vehicle fuel efficiency by using the regenerative shock absorbers. They also already have a lot of interest in their design, specifically the company that builds Humvees for the army are already planning to install them in its next version of the Humvee."
Looks like MIT just gave us a little picklet, will we repair our roads or use the potholes to power our cars?
Is this actually legal since it hurts the oil industry ?
I hope you are being silly. The most efficient way to travel would be a perfectly smooth road, one that didn't suck energy out of the vehicle, in the form of a bump, in the first place.
To truly express the dilemma, you have to weigh the amount of energy used to maintain a smooth road versus the new found energy return from these shocks.
Recharging the batteries using movement of the shock absorbers is ingenious!
That they would smooth the ride more than conventional shock-absorbers is bullshit. You can get all kinds of traditional shock-absorbers. American ones for instance are typically softer than European which leads to poor handling and increased fuel consumptions. European ones are harder, and sports-models even harder yet, given the cars better handling at the expense of ride comfort.
If the new absorbers are smoother than traditional ones, it just means the car can't corner, and rides like a pimp car.
...you may not mind those potholes in the road any longer...
You mean "as much." The GenShock isn't going to be 100% efficient and even if it was it can only harvest the energy that actually gets to it. Pot holes will still result in a net loss.
you have to weigh the amount of energy used to maintain a smooth road versus the new found energy return from these shocks.
The former is infinite, even if you were to strip the federal government back down to its constitutional powers so that it would HAVE to build and maintain the post roads in order to spend its money, it still wouldn't do it.
Once the team found the wasted energy, they were focused on harnessing the loss energy. Their prototype shock absorbers use a hydraulic system that forces fluid through a turbine attached to a generator. The system is controlled by an active electronic system that optimizes the damping, providing a smoother ride than conventional shocks while generating electricity to recharge the batteries or operate electrical equipment.
In other words, this would be a useful retrofit for existing vehicles, but it will never happen; And instead of continuing to build lots of big heavy vehicles we need to be making smaller, more efficient vehicles which will not only lose less energy during damping due to reduced mass but also where the shock absorber generator system's additional weight will be a significant drawback. Finally, the incredible added complexity as compared to an ordinary shock damper means that such a system will have incredible cost and will substantially reduce the reliability of a vehicle.
In summary, I can see using this system on heavy trucks, buses and APCs. However, NONE of these (unless APCs are diesel-electric now, as they probably should be) can actually make use of that much electricity! They say they're getting up to 1kW per shock off a six-shock truck. That truck has an alternator that probably puts out 55A peak at 12V, most likely only 30A for long periods. That's only 660 watts! You can't even USE this much electricity without a hybrid vehicle. So this is only going to be useful for very heavy electric or hybrid vehicles. Who's going to make use of this again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think it must be noted that riding on a smooth road will ALWAYS require less energy than rising on a bumpy one with energy harvesting.
Which is why this makes sense for off-road vehicles, such as military hummers.
But I agree that poor road maintenance is not just a suck on fuel efficiency, but results in increased costs on the upkeep of vehicles as a whole. (and it takes energy to make and ship those new sway-bar struts that I had to have replaced because of hitting too many bumps)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
should s/shock/shock absorber/ so we know WTF you're talking about right away.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Would not having smoother roads do more to benefit economy as well as reduce maintenance costs?
Besides you have to evaluate the whole of the suspension system to get an accurate measure of how well it rides and handles. Shocks used to be a bigger part of it ages ago, today they are just one component in many that determines how a car rides. If anything you can cause more issue by just having too much air pressure in the tires.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm not so sure about that. I mean I know on a theoretical level it should be that way, but in reality it's just not the case. I live in a place with good roads now, but I grew up in Detroit where one day I was driving down the pothole and *bam* there was the road! Anyway, I've had the exact same truck here and there and I haven't noticed any significant difference in gas mileage -- and I track it using my trip odometer. Maybe that's due to other factors (weather being one of them) but for all intents and purposes the mileage is the same.
My blog
This is pretty good.
In their testing so far, the students found that in a 6-shock heavy truck, each shock absorber could generate up to an average of 1 kW on a standard road.
The total insolation at the equator is about 1kW per square meter, so if your solar cells are 20% efficient that's the equivalent of 30 square meters of solar panels.
("up to an average", though... wtf does that actually mean? Oh well, your solar cells only get "up to an average" of 1kW too...)
I take it you don't live in a cold weather climate or in a large city. Snow/ice + salt + plows = pot holes. Large cities have notoriously bad roads, it's too hard to repair them with so much traffic.
And it's not just bumpy roads that shocks help with. Every time you turn a corner the shocks are used to keep the car stable.
Personally, I think it's a brilliant idea. The easiest way to become more efficient is to turn the wasted energy into something useful.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Not exactly, military vehicles need to be robust and should be capable of being rapidly serviced. This applies to ground vehicles more than aircraft. The US military has lot of current equipment that is unnecessarily complicated or poorly modified (such as the up-armored HUMVEE).
However, I didn't RTA, so I don't know how complicated the system is.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I've been saying for 5 years now that we should use all the available energy to power electric cars. Shock absorbers are one step, but combining it with solar cells, small wind generators deployed while coasting, regenerative braking, coupled with supercapacitors and a plug to recharge when necessary, that would be truly innovative.
I think that this is the way of the future, and MIT did one step.
That they would smooth the ride more than conventional shock-absorbers is bullshit.
Take a look at this demo and see if you still think it's bullshit.
That comment was moderated insightful?!
Computers obey me.
Cars are brought back to their parents on prom night with a full tank of gas.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Shocks generate that 1kW only at peak actuation, whereas solar is continuous. I would find it hard to believe that even a heavy truck would have the ability to generate a continuous 9HP (about 6kW) on shock alone, unless it were in some off road condition.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Maybe leaving them in the bad state they are (really bad compared to what I'm used from Europe) could cut down the US oil bill.
But being serious, how can one possibly generate more energy from a bump in the road than one needs to get the car through/over it?
So we'll know when California is about to experience 'the big one' as the pre-shocks will overcharge the batteries and everyone will be diving for cover amidst assploding vehicles?
AT&ROFLMAO
Why not try to harvest this energy by feeding the static electricity back into the batteries?
I recently bought a new Challenger SRT8 that has carbon fiber stripes, you know carbon fiber can conduct electricity, so on a hybrid car you could put the fiber stripes (maybe doped with something to even create better static electricity charges) in leading edges of the vehicle, and on the roof and hood, and trunk.
It may only produce a couple hundred volts or maybe if the carbon fiber stripes/patches were designed to produce more static charge.. even more,
What's a couple hundred volts here and there right? Well it can add up!
Is this thing on? Check. Check.
The total insulation at the equator is about 1kW per square meter, so if your solar cells are 20% efficient that's the equivalent of 30 square meters of solar panels.
I don't understand your maths. If they are 20% efficient, It's not 30 square meters but 5!
washboard road. That's where these shocks could generate some serious juice.
Or for fun test these shocks on the corduroy roads this country had as an early form of paving.
There's more to it than this.
I can now justify the way I drive :)
Funny, that doesn't seem like a Mexican name...
It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.
That is one company that is BEGGING to be let go from GM. It is wasted there. I am not a real fan of hybrids, but it has its uses. It would be good in cross-country trucks and vehicles like the Hummer. This is the PERFECT place to put a serial hybrid. A hummer with electric drive, batteries for 5 miles and 2 small motor/generators would be a winning vehicle.
I still feel that the best way out for the car companies is to break them up for those that accept fed. money. Otherwise, you have the same idiots in place making the choice about what product lines lives or dies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry my bad, didn't see you talked per shock and there are 6 shocks.
I'll take the "poorly modified" up-armored vehicles over a canvas passenger compartment on my patrol of Baghdad any day. When we were in Iraq in 2004-5 my brigade lost a few soldiers, but at least as many and probably more were saved by vehicle armor as were lost. The armor provided some maintenance headaches for sure, but I'd rather (and the mechanics, would rather, especially since they ran in the same vehicles when they went outside) the mechanics have to work a bit harder than having the fatality rate double. Would it have been better if we have an existing light armored fighting vehicle deployed to all of our troops? Yeah. Was the solution a damn sight better than the problem it fixed? Ohh yeah.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
So having a tete-a-tete in your car will refill it
Several cars in Montreal Canada had their internal battery explode. Drivers said that they weren't able to avoid many potholes and overloaded their batteries.
City officials still maintain that they are on the tip of the tide, had this technology be invented ten years ago, no more electric dam would be required.
"I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary." Through the looking glass and what
You can see a more detailed description at: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/shock-absorbers-0209.html
At first glance this sounds like a good idea, but let's do the math.
Assume you're driving over an evenly and heavily potholed road, such that all four wheels are rising and falling four inches four times a second. That's a very generous assumption. And assume a rather pudgy 400 pounds of unsprung weight. To move that stuff 1.33 feet per second takes 900 ft-lbs.sec of power, about 1.5 horsepower. But you don't want to absorb all that power or the whole point of a flexible suspension is lost. Let's guess we want a Q-factor of about 3, that is, we absorb 1/3 of the energy per cycle. We're down to 0.5 horsepower, and that is under optimally bumpy conditions. And small random jiggles are hard to capture as electricity. Overall it does not seem to be worth harvesting.
If one is going to be driving on such surfaces a lot, it makes a whole lot more sense to fit the vehicle with larger flotation-type tires. Those tend to flex and span potholes, so the car and passengers don't jiggle at all.
Well in my city, given the number of potholes, I could pretty much power up my car to hit the lunar surface in 6 seconds something I couldn't do on a smooth road. QED There. Fixed that for you.
On the other end, we have energy generating roads.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. --Ben Franklin
Take it to its logical conclusion... the roads get worse and worse, until they're actually worse than going off-road altogether.
At some point, it has to become less efficient than driving on a smooth road.
And I think that point occurs as soon as the road stops being smooth...
Consider the energy lost (noise, heat, up/down motion) by travelling over a pothole. This energy is effectively* lost from your forward kinetic energy, and this is the only energy source that these shocks can access.
Even if they were 100% efficient in some conditions, they couldn't actually produce a better outcome than if the pothole wasn't there in the first place. Ergo, smooth roads are still better.
* Ok, so it comes from your gravitational potential energy you lose as you fall down into the hole... but then unless you come to a complete halt, you have to exchange your forward kinetic energy for more potential energy to climb back out again. And this process whole process will produce more heat than simply travelling along pothole-free road.
braking regeneration, check
suspension regeneration, check
exhaust gas regeneration, check (in form of turbos)
need to get heat out of the exhaust system/cooling system and regenerate that... need some more weight efficient peltiers...
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
$@#%@$%@#$^@%&#%....Stupid....MIT....STOLE MY IDEA....now......I have to keep working for a living.......OH WHY DIDN'T I patent it when I thought of it!!!...KAAAAAAHN
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Here is some things to consider, in 2006there were a little over 135 million registered passenger cars in the US. Now that's not counting pickup trucks that had to be registered as commercial vehicles but are still used as personal vehicles. Since 2000, not more then 2.5-3 percent of new car registrations have been to hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles until 2007 which saw around 5%. This means that this can effect less then 10% of the passenger vehicles on the road and more likely that number is much lower.
The second thing is, if these shocks produce a gain of around 10% in energy recovered, then we can do some math on the economics of it. If a hybrid electric car gets 60 MPH, Some say on 40, and they travel an average of 1500 miles a month, then we can find how much 10% is worth. So 1500/60 and 1500/40 respectivly come out to 25 and 37.5 gallons of fuel. At $2.00 a gallon, that would be about $50 a month for the 60MPH and $75 a month for the 40MPG. A 10% savings of them would be $5 and $7.50 per month savings. Regular shocks wear out after about 5 years or so of driving, some last around 10 years before they are noticeably shot. So $5 * 12 months * 10 years means this device would only save about $600 and $900 over ten years. That's the price point they have to beat in order for there to be a savings. If they can't get the cost of this stuff under those dollar figures, then they are probably costing more then any savings.
My guess is that their effectiveness is going to go as the shock absorption abilities go and will only be effective for that typical 5 years then severely degrade after that like regular shocks and struts seem to do. The concept doesn't seem to be much different then a wave generator but applied to an existing gas or oil filled cylinder instead of hydraulic pistons connecting floats. This means that they will have to create a valve system and generator and a way to connect it to the cars power inputs. They might be able to do that for less then $6-900 every ten years. But I doubt it.
I bet that's why Obama wants to build new roads. Perfectly smooth - no bumps.
The linked article says "Their prototype shock absorbers use a hydraulic system that forces fluid through a turbine attached to a generator."
This sounds overly complicated and ineffective to me.
I would rather use linear motors. These are more effective, have close to no friction.
They could be controlled in a more direct manner to improve the smoothness of the ride by acting more "actively" in certain situations.
They could even improve lowrider hopping.
Apparently you have never driven an interstate highway or local road in Kansas (or the Midwest in general). You would easily get some power just on a drive around town or to the next.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
I am going to guess that in the future, these will use perm mags, rather than a small turbine. When that occurs, I think that we will see the upfront costs be a bit more, but they will last for several 100K of miles, rather than just a 100K miles.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
True, the improvement is a lot better than a regular HUMVEE.
If there's anything I can send you while I'm here in CONUS, just e-mail me.
Stay safe.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Wonder if I can have this on my bed.
Honey, I know you have a headache, but think of the planet.
You and your facts and figures. Please don't let sumdumass talk to some dumb ass in Congress else this will never get gov't funding!
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
I did a ton of shock development as part of my race car engineering job.
We had sensors on the suspension to directly measure suspension travel, with a view towards measuring suspension velocity as part of shock development.
Even on what feels like a perfectly smooth track, there's still a lot of humping and bumping going on.
See http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets6.html for example graphs of suspension velocity pulled right off the car.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
OTOH, if you're running low on fuel/power, just cruise up onto the sidewalk and mow down a few unsuspecting pedestrians. *KaThumpKaThump* *KaThumpKaThump* Presto! Enough juice to make it home (after a quick run through the carwash, of course). Thanks, MIT!!
Air conditioning. That's normally a rather significant drag on engine performance and mileage, whereas if the power needed could be scavenged from what would normally be wasted energy lost in the shocks, it would be a net actual gain for the driver. No hybrid drive needed to use the extra juice. You'd probably need an additional battery or two though, so granted, more weight to lug, but with modern lithium styled batts it might not be too bad. The cost purchase ratio would have to be figured in of coursde, then quantifiably you'd have to determine what "comfort" is worth as well, that's a person to person variable. Additionally, I think it would be nice if once in awhile you could set your ride so the AC (or vent fans) would operate when the vehicle was parked, say as you went into a store or something, so the interior stayed cool and didn't re heat back up. Vehicle interior temps can skyrocket sitting out in a hot parking lot someplace.
And it is also a potential safety feature, as an adjunct to keeping the normal battery charged and to run the engine, say if the alternator goes out which happens at inopportune times, or if the belt slips or breaks, etc. Power redundancy is a spiffy idea really. I'd also like to see solar PV incorporated into vehicle roofs just on general principles, again, to add to the available electric supply. It wouldn't run the vehicle, but to keep the batteries full and hot, would help, especially when it is cold out and it is harder to start, and again, for parking and keeping the interior cooler during the summer.
Another use for additional electricity is for workers with pickups to be able to plug tools in at the jobsite. If they had onboard additional battery power, you could just use an inverter instead of cranking up the portable generator. Contractors and RV owners could make use of such tech easily. Now I don't have the electric shocks, but I *did* add a couple of solar panels and additional batteries to my RV, made all the diff in the world, didn't need to run the genny while parked. Lived in that thing for a few years and it was our primary electricity source, just those two panels, worked adequately (we had to learn to live with much reduced consumption though, but it worked)
They're called "dampers" or "shock dampers", not "shock absorbers". The springs on a vehicle are absorbing the shock, and the dampers have the job of damping the resulting oscillation of the sprung mass. In a way, the job the dampers do is almost opposite that of shock absorption.
You need to try driving in the UK. All our major roads and most of our minor ones, including inner-city ones, are flawlessly flat.
I live in mass (called by some masspothole) if I can recuperate the energy generated by potholes it means that I will have a surplus (almost 200% I will say) I am rich :)http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/12/0253204#
"a shock absorber that harnesses energy from small bumps in the road"
It doesn't create energy, it only recovers a certain percentage that would have been lost otherwise.
As such, it'll only be practical on rough terrain, poor quality roads, or when you intentionally drive over potholes . . .
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Given the specific mention of military hummers, which are most certainly NOT hybrids or electic, it must have some benefit for non-hybrids.
Then again, how difficult would it be to replace the starter and alternator with a motor/generator capable of putting power to the drivetrain? Even if it's only a 5hp sustained, that'd be more than enough to take the 1kw each of the six shocks is capable of putting out(1hp=746W). Switch out the lead battery for a LiIon/NiMH of substantially more capacity. Increased cost, but probably actually lighter than traditional systems. For cold areas, there are LiIon that perform *as rated* at -40C. Not the 'put a bigger battery than you could possibly need in warm weather so you still have enough power to start when the oil is like jelly and the battery has 10% capacity left'.
You'd end up with a mild hybrid that can do stuff like shut off the engine at stops. Oh and stick the energy gained from the shocks back into moving the vehicle.
If they can't get the cost of this stuff under those dollar figures, then they are probably costing more then any savings.
The only problem I see with your figures is that they're explicity talking about trucks and other heavy vehicles. So you might want to redo your figures for 12-20 mpg ranges. Their test mule was a heavy truck with six shocks. Indeed, they also mention that it provides a better ride than traditional shocks, so there's a possible selling point there.
20 mpg/15,000 miles=750 gallons. Save 75 gallons a year(10%), that'd be $150@$2 gas, $300@$4 gas. Ten year timeframe? Could save them $3k, more if they've got a really heavy truck or are driving on particularly bumpy roads.
Then again, I've said numerous times that it makes more sense to make trucks and SUVs hybrid before you start making sub-compact hybrids. More fuel to save, more room to put the components, components end up being a lower percentage of the cost of the vehicle, etc...
I mean, look at the typical UPS/FEDEX panel van. Consider it's usage - stop and go traffic all day in the city for most of them. Right now they have a diesel engine that doesn't get turned off when they stop. How much fuel can be saved if you turn the truck into a hybrid? As a bonus, the heavy battery pack in the bottom of the vehicle would help mitigate the tipping hazards of a tall vehicle like that.
My guess is that their effectiveness is going to go as the shock absorption abilities go and will only be effective for that typical 5 years then severely degrade after that like regular shocks and struts seem to do.
Might last longer due to the nature of the energy absorbtion, but you're right. A lot of cost and durability issues need to be resolved.
I don't read AC A human right
So when I am parking with my girlfriend the car is charging up? Wow.
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics
Apparently in your house you don't obey the laws of the 'real' world. Potholes and bumps happen. You simply can't avoid them occurring. Even more so, when you consider cold climates.
Would a perfectly smooth road be more 'efficient'? of course. Will it ever be like that for more than a year? not likely. millions of tons of load will cause wear and tear and material failures.
You will always have bumps in the road. Recouping some of the energy lost to that inefficiency makes them less inefficient. Comparing the cost of adding these shocks vs regular shocks to the gains in efficiency will determine whether its a feasible real world solution, but the concept is rock solid on it's principles.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Sit your car on one all day and you'll get nothing out. That's a crappy way to put it. As an MIT alum, I'd hope the inventors don't describe it that way.
The energy to compress your shocks comes from your gas tank. At best, this is a topping cycle that increases the efficiency of your car engine, not a new source of energy. You could just as well put a piezo transducer on every loose flange and vibrating hose in the engine compartment, and another on the MIT banner flapping off your antenna, and "harvest" the energy from that. It all starts in your gas tank. It's just another variation on harvesting the waste heat from the catalytic convertor.
Given the inevitable losses in energy conversion, I bet you're better off having smooth roads that save you from expending gasoline to oppose the work the bump does on your car to slow it down.
I can see what's next: Regenerative bumpers that recharge your car whenever you get in a wreck. GET ON IT MIT!
Cool! Amazing Toys.
If EESTOR was real, this would be the place to be bidding. Assuming that they are real, I can understand their wanting to keep quiet while working with manufacturers. Otherwise, it would cause TOTAL ECONOMIC CHAOS. But I do not see them in this. Though their Military partner is L-Mart and I see that they are on the final 2 list.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"In this house we are subject to the laws of thermodynamic..."
Fixed that for ya...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
... considering I read about this same technology being used in bicycle seat posts to recharge cell-phones and such.
Ingredients: Turkey, Mechanically Separated Turkey, Water, Salt, Flavour.
Let's respond point by point.
...your 2nd paragraph yields number of cars affected...
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Yes. This will only affect some present and most future cars. Sorry to have disturbed you with it.
Ok, let's agree on less than 10% of passenger cars today. I can add that it affects zero% of my car(s) -- an equally irrelevant fact.
The second thing is, if these shocks produce a gain of around 10% in energy recovered, then we can do some math on the economics of it.
We sure can, and the bottom line is that for 5% of the cost of a $20K car, you can get 10% better fuel economy. [2.5% of a $40K car, 1% of a $100K car, 0.1% of one of these] This "spend 5%, get 10%" thing should already be a clue but here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation anyway: over 150,000 miles, a 25mpg car will use 6,000 gallons of fuel. 10% of that is 600 gallons. At today's price, that is about $1,200, FTW. 5 or 10 years from now it will be higher.
Also, 10% more energy translates to a savings in weight somewhere else. For example, the batteries can be 10% smaller, and a 10% battery weight savings could lead to a further 10% gain. Yes, adding a small "Shock Energy Recovery System" to each wheel would add weight, but most likely not equal to 10% of 68KG. And those 68KG only take a Prius for about 5 miles (currently). The next gen is going for 11 miles of electric-only range, so scale the battery weight accordingly. And that is the point -- if you scale the battery range to 50 miles for example, the weight goes to 680KG, and the SERS savings becomes 68KG since it is not necessary to scale the size/weight/cost of the SERS system.
My guess is that their effectiveness is going to go as the shock absorption abilities go and will only be effective for that typical 5 years then severely degrade after that like regular shocks and struts seem to do.
Bad guess -- electrical systems last vastly longer than purely mechanical systems like a shock absorber. SERS could be an induced system, without physical contact, and thus without wear.
And how about just having an extended vehicle range? If you live 5.5 miles from work, your present day Prius will still have to fire up its gas engine. Add SERS and you don't need the gas. If you presently change the oil every 6 months, now you change it every 6.6 months. And unlike engines, and batteries, the SERS can be designed to not wear out at all -- so you extend the total life of your car, bringing further savings.
I think I'd like to let the marketplace decide, rather than choosing to not offer this product because it might just break even in some initial/present day cases. If SERS causes excitement and optimism, people will want to move toward electric and electric/hybrid systems even more -- and that would bring lower prices and more savings.
The future is in plastics, and SERS-like systems. I find your post well reasoned...for a 1900s buggy whip manufacturer.
I come here for the love
There's this new thing called the airplane. Just about every state that has become a state since it's invention, has ceased to have post roads built.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"Illinois... flat scenery, not so flat roadery."
Could the shock absorbers themselves (which are presumably more expensive than regular shock absorbers), plus the cost of installing them, plus whatever additional electronics are needed for them, actually have a chance of paying for themselves? They said it would be an increase in mileage of 10%, but a lot of cars on the road right now could realize 10% or better just by getting a tune up and checking their tires.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What about cutting out the hydraulic middle man and just have a coil of wire on the shock moving through a magnetic field?
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
-1, incorrect.
A car has lots of things using electricity. Headlights and the starter (via the battery) being two big ones. These are powered from the alternator, which is pulled by the engine, which again burns more fuel to deliver that extra power. Any extra power supply you add in, like these shocks, is going to lessen the load on the alternator and thus lower the fuel use.
In the end, the energy still comes from the fuel, but this is energy that - under the same road conditions - would just be wasted with regular shocks.
So yes, it will improve fuel economy, even on a non-hybrid hummer.
As I drive in Mass everyday, the roads here will surely OVER generate power, and probably blow the whole thing up..
I am pretty sure the surface of the moon would be a smoother drive than that crap we call roads here...
So is that where "up to on average" comes in, or was the author just overdosing on weasel words?
Rubbish, the most efficient way to travel would be a perfectly smooth road going downhill so that we can utilise the power of gravity.
That is why the government should insist that all hills are built downhill and in those states that are flat, convenient hills should be built.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
"You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars, or cars with headlights or running lights or air conditioning, right?"
Fixed. Your welcome.
If you think of it as "wasting less energy", you might be a little closer to what the gp is talking about.
It's neat, but it can't actually power the car, it just reduces the energy dumped (per mile) to the environment.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Net result will likely be little or no fuel economy at all.
I think they forgot to factor in the weight of the additional equipment that the car will need to carry in order to recover the energy from bumps.
And of course, I'd rather have a cheaper car and to drive on a smooth road than a more expensive car and crappy roads.
In fact it will have a net negative effect on your gas mileage. If you put an electric (re)generator on a shock absorber, and hook it up to an electrical load (to capture the energy) then the generator will fight back when the shock absorber tries to react to the pothole. In effect, it will directly reduce the "shock absorbing" capability of the shock absorber, giving you both a rougher ride and slowing your car down more.
Since there are always losses in energy transfer, the amount you "recover" will always be less than the amount put into the system by you having to use more gas as a result of the harder bump.
It's called Back EMF, basic high school physics.
Beware the Wikipedia article on Back EMF, it loosely covers the concept but the article links to a "serious" entry about a perpetual motion machine called Perepiteia, which also would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The "inventor" "doesn't understand how it works" and yet worked "8-12 hour days on it" making a transformer 7000% efficient!
Sigh..
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
The military is all about electric drivetrains. Stuff isn't necessarily deployed, but they burn a lot of diesel and carry around generators, so they are very interested in things that save diesel or put a generator in every truck.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The wife said I was crazy to replace the car's shock absorbers with pogo-stick solenoids.
Now who's laughing?!? *boing*-*boing*-*boing*
They should field test this in Chicago. With so many damn pot holes on the road, they could get years of lab testing done in about a week.
Yes, thats same Bose who invented the namesake sound system. I think his was based on magnetic levitation.
TROLL FIGHT!
My sig can beat up your sig.
planning to install them in its next version of the Humvee.
Cuz with these things fitted, an IED going off underneath you should just about fill your battery!
you had me at #!
Might last longer due to the nature of the energy absorbtion, but you're right. A lot of cost and durability issues need to be resolved.
Think along the lines of the shake-charged flashlights. The only things added to a regular shock are a coil and a magnet. The magnet isn't going to wear out in any reasonable time-frame, and a properly insulated and protected coil won't either (unless the temperature starts to affect the insulator - unlikely, and can be mitigated with engineering). I suspect they would last about as long as regular shocks unless they completely replace the standard shock-absorption part. That seems unlikely - a wire breaks (or nothing needs to be powered) and your shocks turn into springs. The mechanical parts will wear out faster than the electrical parts.
The other thing the GP forgot to mention is, current-technology shocks aren't free. They can be more expensive than current shocks, so long as they pay for themselves in a reasonable time-frame, say 2 to 5 years or their lifespan, whichever is shorter.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Not everything can (or should) be expressed in terms of cost/benefit. First off, what is the cost/benefit of having more than a 1-gallon gas tank in a car? The mileage will only suffer as you fill the tank, so why carry the extra weight? The added convenience is very difficult to calculate.
These shocks will add range to a battery-only car such as the Tesla, and that is a critical selling feature at this point, far beyond cost. They will also reduce the amount of fuel used by a hybrid, so your analysis should include the elimination of some CO2 emissions. What's the formula for that?
Not to mention that the cost/benefit of a motor vehicle for the vast majority of people is a complete bust anyway. You are much better off with a bike, transit, or even taking a taxi everyday.
new military trucks are probably going to be hybrid in some form. Series electric or similar.
Consider how quiet electric vehicles are and how noisy Humvees are...
Now I'm not a military person but I'd have to imagine that they have to bring in generators in addition to vehicles and equipment... If all of their vehicles were generators it'd probably be a great help.
Also, refueling less and increasing the range of travel would reduce the supply chain management strain a bit.
You need to try driving in the UK. All our major roads and most of our minor ones, including inner-city ones, are flawlessly flat.
It's true. I remember one of my visits to the UK, we saw a sign warning motorists of a bump in the road. We didn't actually see or feel the bump, so they must have used some kind of laser measuring system to determine that it was there.
It's a shame the roads don't actually go anywhere though. No matter how far you drive, you still end up in the UK.
In addition, when approaching an 'uphill' hill, back up it so you are still facing downhill.
You are aware that the force of shock is essentially perpendicular to the desired momentum of the car right?
Also the more energy you convert into electricity from this perpendicular force the less kinetic energy there is in that direction. This causes *gasp* a smoother ride.
Your not going to recover 100% of the shock energy true, but because the energy before was totally inefficient making use of any of that energy has to increase the efficiency.
I still wouldn't recommend purposely looking for potholes though...
In Romania, you won't need gas anymore.
will be on the lookout for new shocking disc-recoveries?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Electrical shocks?
No.... it is shoddy use of language. Again. Apparently they mean "shock absorbers" instead of "shocks". Something completely different.
Irrelevant. As someone else mentioned above, your shocks aren't only necessary when driving on bumpy surfaces. Your shocks absorb the rolling and pitching tendencies caused by turning and braking/accelerating as well.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Given the specific mention of military hummers, which are most certainly NOT hybrids or electic, it must have some benefit for non-hybrids.
Au contraire
hybrid HMMWV research right here:
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-0775
I'm actually states-side now. I didn't mean to imply that I was currently in Baghdad. I got out in 2006. Thanks for the offer though and if YOU need anything next time you're OCONUS let ME know.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Actually, you'd be surprised at how much electricity a modern vehicle draws at highway speeds. And as more and more parts move to electric power from engine power to facility things like auto-start-stop without compromising functionality, those power draws will only go up.
For example, a typical car today will draw about 50-60 amps cruising on the highway. At 14.4v, that's over 700 watts.
Now, lets put make the AC compressor, coolant pump, power steering pump, and the oil pump electrically driven instead of driven off the engine, and power draw will go up even more and we'll find that the average of 1kW that these shocks can recover won't be even close to enough power to drive all these accessories.
Luckily, there are also companies working on producing thermoelectric generators that are run off exhaust heat to recover energy that is lost there. So far, it seems that they're able to recover about 1kW while cruising as well.
You beat me to it. Drives me crazy to hear people say shock absorber.
Also reminded me of my Mechanics class and my independent study project titled Chaos and Resonance in a Damped Driven Bouncing Oscillator.
Good times. Physics, Math, Computer simulation...I am such a nerd.
Lol.. You think it needs government funding? I would figure if it actually was efficient as in saved more money they it costs, then there would be a market for it and people would be begging to have it.
Here is the problem with government funding for crap like this. Now keep in mind, I say crap not because it is, but because you assume I think it is. I wasn't attempting to talk anyone out of it, I was attempting to show the practical savings of it. Anyways, if it exists only because of the government funneling money to it, then all your doing is spreading the costs out to people who don't even drive. If you have to tax "Tom the bicycle rider" or Sally, "I'm 16 and just got my first job" in order to pay for you 10% in energy savings that currently can only effect less then 20% of of the registered motor vehicles on the road, your not saving anything, your robbing Paul to pay Peter. And because every tax dollar get wattered down to some extent, when Paul attempts to work harder to make up the difference, he ends up using more energy in the process (creating things cost more energy then saving energy by abstaining from it) so there is no net savings.
On the other hand, if, and there might be a good possibility that if could be true, that these things could be installed at the factory for two or three hundred bucks extra and last a decent amount of time, and actually save in energy as well as money. But if it can't, getting the government to pay for it isn't the way to go because it only means that people no using it will end up paying for it and they will spend more in the process. Look at the entire picture, this thing even if it works will not save the country or the world. If it isn't cost effective, then there needs to be research and advancements into tech and ideas that will be. The only thing stopping people from going alternative or green is the costs is too much. Taxing the people doesn't remove that costs, it just makes people resent it more.
There are a whole lot of components that could be replaced on a non-hybrid vehicle that would save fuel. The alternator being the main one. It runs off a belt off the engine. Use the energy from the shocks to run the electrical system and keep the battery charged. The A/C compressor is another one. Make it run off the electricity generated by the shocks. You might need a different battery system, but it could be done, and it would definitely increase fuel economy.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
didn't Bob Albertson of Alma, WI do this already ....... A long time ago?
http://www.magtransauto.com/index.html
Now if they can make something that captures energy from wiggly little kids, we're set forever.
Not true, while their design *might* be heavy, my group at SUNY Stony Brook has been approaching a similiar problem using linear motors. Our overall design is ~20kg per shock which isn't THAT much heavier than a traditional shock absorber.
One interesting thing is that the idea of using hydraulics at a central turbine/generator combo was one of our conceptual designs that we disregarded due to viscous damping losses...
...to electric hybrids, the Hydraulic hybrid
Which is exactly why our group abandoned the idea of using hydraulics to achieve regenerative abilities. If you use design an electromagnetic system instead, you can concievably have a significantly longer lifespan which allows it to pay for itself. Our electromagnetic shocks are looking at around ~$600 each.
For non electric vehicles, a large benefit is the ability to create a closed loop control system versus a vehicles traditional open loop system.
But you are right, the greatest benefactor of such technology is indeed electric/hybrid vehicles.
No, the MOST efficient way to travel would obviously be down a perfectly smooth road, with a bunch of kids bouncing up and down in the back!
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Electric Truck, LLC of Greenwich, CT has exclusive rights to market the regenerative shock technology developed at Tufts University and announced this some time ago. ET claims 20 to 70% efficiency gains. I wonder if MIT is stepping on prior art?
see the following article in new scientist about deviant research where i referred to kanak das's invention of cycle that generated energy from bumps on the road. Patent has also been filed in India on the same in his name by National Innovation Foundation ( nifindia.org. Also see an article in honey bee at www.sristi.org and at mit site itself www.iddsummit.org/page_attachments/0000/0444/gupta.pdf when i gave a talk last year. to suggest that that MIT students invented this concept now is a bit of exaggeration, may be. I of course welcome work by MIT students because the collaboration between grassroots innovators and institutional scientists and technologists is one of the purposes of honey bee network. so, keep it up folks, and crediting kanak das will not diminish your work, Shakeel Avadhany and team. excellent work, just that sharing credits where it is due will make the world more cooperative anil anilg@sristi.org deviant research Examples of "deviant research", so called because they were developed by amateurs trying to solve problems that dogged their daily lives, rather than to make money, were outlined in New Scientist (22/9/2007, p.56). Ordinary problems, ordinary people: A pedal- powered washing machine, for example, was invented by Remya Jose, who as a 14-year-old schoolgirl from the Malappuram district of Kerala in south India found that the time it took to wash clothes by hand was getting in the way of her studies. Such grassroots innovations were driven by adversity, so they were often created by people who were prevented by problems of language, literacy or geography from getting their inventions into the hands of others who might have a use for them. As if these weren't obstacle enough, deviant researchers risked being ridiculed by their own communities for daring to try to banish their problems in this way, rather than putting up with them like everyone else. Tapping deviant genius: One effort to overcome those barriers and oil the wheels of deviant R&D was the Honey Bee Network, set up almost 20 years ago by Anil Gupta of the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad. It was Gupta who coined the term "deviant research". The network used community organisations, local-language newspapers, multimedia presentations and other channels to find deviant researchers. It then connected them with each other and to scientists and other academics, who could test the inventions and provide help with patents and business plans. The Honey Bee Network was now the repository for more than 10,000 inventions. Deviant roadshow in India: One example was a bike that went faster when ridden on bumpy roads, developed by Kanak Das, who lived in an isolated part of northeast India. Energy from the shock absorbers was used either to help turn the pedals via a set of springs or, in Das's latest prototype, to charge batteries, creating an electric bike. The Honey Bee network also talent-spotted inventors during its twice-yearly Shodh Yatra (Sanskrit for "walk to find knowledge"). These week-long treks took Gupta and a crew of facilitators through remote regions of India at a pace slow enough to stop. New Scientist, 22/9/2007, p. 56
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
Given the specific mention of military hummers, which are most certainly NOT hybrids or electic,
Well not now, but they were trying to come up with a Hybrid Humvee.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000877.html
Geez,
Mexican roads, welcome 1.21 gigawatts...
Time travel, here we come.
The shocks are an energy recovery device. Since roads will NEVER be perfectly smooth, it may make sense to recover the energy lost.
It doesn't matter in the slightest if even more would be saved by smoothing the roads because the losses are 'invisible' but the expenditures would come out of someone's budget in itemized form. We already know that people don't like roads full of craters, and that local governments fail to repair craters in roads.
Yes, exactly!
The Shock absorber my team has been developing is similiar in concept to the shake-light, but obviously optimized for a vehicle. As far as coils breaking, I don't see it happening! The design is fairly durable and since the main contact points are bushings, the design should last longer than a traditional shock absorber.
Our shock absorber is indeed replacing the entire assembly however...
This is just another excuse Seattle will use NOT to fill its potholes.
Have gnu, will travel.
In their testing so far, the students found that in a 6-shock heavy truck, each shock absorber could generate up to an average of 1 kW on a standard road.
I can't even power on my lcd with 1 kw.
Actually, yes, the Military is/has developing Hummers that are hybrids. They are attempting to cut costs and have less of an impact on the environment as well as stretch their mission capabilities in certain situations.
I think the Hybrids are more of the traditional types. I also believe that the Shock generator (that doesn't sound right) will work similar to the wave generators powering hydraulic turbines. How they work is by attaching floats with enough ballast to keep them in contact with the water that are hinged in the middle by hydraulic cylinders. When the waves push one up or gravity pulls the other down, the cylinders have to either pull or push the hydraulic fluids in order to bend at the pivot points. The hydraulic oil is forced through a turbine or pump that creates energy when the waves lift one side or the other of the floats. I highly suspect that they are going to use the same principle as this but fill the shock with the oil and when the tires move up and down, it moves the fluid through the generator. It may be possible to move the regenerative breaking system into a hydraulic setup combined by a electric clutch or something then they would just have to plumb the shocks to it.
However, I'm speculating on this, I didn't see anything in the article that mentioned the specifics in this detail.
While I don't dispute your numbers, I'm not sure if we read the same articles. The one I saw was talking about regenerative breaking and hybrids and used the 6 shock heavy truck as an example of how much energy could be there. Now, I could be wrong on that, and because they didn't specifically name the truck we might not know. I have seen 2 axle 1 ton and 1.25 ton trucks that used two sets of shocks per side in the rear. I have also seen 3 axle trucks that used one shock on each axle for each side. However, I'm not aware of any of them being electric or hybrids. But that does bring up an interesting idea, Trains have been operating by diesel motors that power electric motors (diesel electric) because of the torque and power ratios being the same at all motor speeds. In a sense, this is sort of the original hybrid vehicles (shi
Yep, the more I think about this, the better an idea it seems. Add an electric assist motor with a relatively small battery to smooth out the energy flow, and you have a system where the simple fact that the terrain is less than perfect saves you energy. Of course, if the terrain is perfect, you'll be saving that energy anyway. Far better than using that energy to slosh a gas around to keep you from bouncing. And as far as a physical failure in the electrical system, that's something we've been designing against for the better part of a century. I hope we see more innovation like this in the future.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
You know how much energy you waste coming to a stop from 25-55 miles an hour? What about recollecting the energy that was used to put the car in motion when you brake?
If you had a GenShock, you may not mind those potholes in the road any longer because this new prototype shock actually harvests energy from bumps in the road to save on fuel.
I don't have a car, I go by bike, you insensitive clod!
You do realize that this will only effect hybrid or electric cars right?
First, as others have said, Hybrid HMMWV are on their way to the battlefield. They're quiet, more efficient and IIRC, they have a better 0-60 and top speed compared to the deisel HMMWV.
Second, it could benefit regular cars. Imagine not needing an alternator. I'm not sure of the efficiency of those, but they do put strain on the motor and require fuel to run.
Bullish Machine Tzar
secondlawofthermodynamicsappliesinthisuniverseevenformotorists
They are attempting to cut costs and have less of an impact on the environment as well as stretch their mission capabilities in certain situations.
Trust me, they're not so worried for the environment as they are drooling at the ability to cut down the need to ship in highly flammable, potentially explosive diesel. Importing diesel, or anything for that matter, into a warzone is an expensive activity.
You're right about not having enough info on the test vehicle, I initially wrote '3 axle', but changed it to '6 shocks' because of the trucks with two shocks in the back thing. As for trains, I've been aware of them for years. Standard tech was that they put a resister net on the roof of the train to dissipate the watts resulting from using the motors in a braking mode. Around 5 years ago they started playing around with true hybrid trains with battery storage capacity, but I haven't seen anything on it since.
because of the torque and power ratios being the same at all motor speeds.
It mostly came down to cost and weight. A mechanical transmission capable of handling the torque requirements for starting a train would be far heavier, wear quickly(frequent replacement), plus you'd need to regularly replace brake pads on all the train cars for whenever you stop/slow the train. The motor/generator system essentially is the transmission, with the bonus that it can provide essentially no-wear braking power for most stops.
Imagine a 50 car cargo train charging capacitors when slowing for a corner or going down hill and the sway of the cars be it turbulence from the non-streamlined design or natural wind currents providing half the power or more for the next leg of the trip.
The only problem with this is that we don't really have any capacitors with the necessary power storage capabilities; even ultracaps would be overwhelmed. EEStor claims to have something that should work, but until an independent lab/authority actually tests one, I'm skeptical.
It would probably work with heavy trucks too but my understanding was that the heavier the vehicle, the worse the economy was regardless of being a hybrid or not. Some of the SUV hybrids don't seem to get much more mileage then the gas and diesel counter parts. Sure, there would be a 35-50 percent gain but that isn't much when your not starting out with much.
Most hybrid SUVs are actually 'mild' hybrids, they still have a full size engine in them to support towing heavy trailors, even though most never tow anything, heck the hitch on my truck has only been used so far for hauling my ass out of the ditch*. Car hybrids give up essentially all towing ability. So that limits gas saved. Still, something to realize about mpg figures is that it isn't linear.
Small Car -> Hybrid, 30mpg -> 50 mpg. 15k miles/year.
30mpg: 500 gallons. 50 mpg: 300 Diff: 200 gallons saved
Truck, 20mpg -> Hybrid, 30 mpg, 15K miles/year
20mpg: 750 gallons. 30 mpg: 500 g, Diff: 250 gallons.
You save more fuel increasing the mpg of the truck by 10 mpg than the car by 20.
The Panel vans and so on probably would save quite a bit in fuel just from being turned off at stops and waits in heavy traffic.
Don't forget capital costs and hourly wages - if the time it takes to fire up the trucks after each stop increases the number of trucks/drivers you need to get your deliveries done by 10%, it's not worth it. Thus even a 'mild' hybrid system with an effectively instant-start engine is worth the money. That most panel vans drive mostly inside of town, where hybrids rule and traditional engine vehicles do their worst, makes them an obvious target. Same with school/city buses.
*Went from gravel road w/traction to paved coated in ice from overnight rains. Was turning onto the road, not going very fast, but enough on that slick ice to lose traction and slide across the road into the ditch. The hitch was the best spot to attach the hook to pull me back.
I don't read AC A human right
Wrong on two counts.
No it's not actually. If it were 100% perpendicular I would agree, but the car is moving forward,
the wheel is pushed into the pothole by the car's suspension, and then the wheel hits the lip of the pothole at some angle other than 90 degrees.
If the pothole was deep enough, the tire would hit the front of the pothole dead on without even touching the bottom at all, destroying the car and completely contrary to your description.
Also, no the ride would be rougher, because the back emf in the generator attached to the shock will prevent the shock from doing its job.
What WOULD make a smoother ride is the exact opposite - detect the pothole just before the tire hits it and literally lift the tire up a bit with a solenoid actuator to keep it from dropping into the pothole in the first place. This of course assumes the other three wheels are on solid flat ground and that the pothole is small enough that the car's momentum will keep it from tipping downwards as it sits on the remaining three contacted wheels.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
the company that builds Humvees for the army are already planning to install them in its next version of the Humvee.
And I thought the greatest shock of all, the IED, would also eliminate the need for further energy to move forward.
We need a greener version of insurgents! :-)
P.S.: My apologies for soldiers that might be offended by this joke. You have my respect for putting yourself in harms way.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
Eh? I'm afraid you don't fully understand how a shock absorber works. I'll leave that as an effort for you to figure out on your own. But, in general practice, stiffer shocks are used on performance cars (more damping) and softer shocks on bigger, more luxury cars (less damping). They also get softer as they wear out.
I used to have a 1985 Buick LeSabre with lousy, worn out shocks, and passengers praised the quality of the ride, which was rather comfortable. But it was a terrifying vehicle to drive, with the whole thing rocking like a boat as it went down the road in an uncontrolled fashion and the tires being loaded unpredictably in turns, because the tired old shocks weren't eating as much energy as they should've been.
Current shock absorbers are 0% efficient -- all of the energy they consume is converted to heat. So, shocks get hot. 100% of this energy comes, eventually, from the burning of gasoline.
If they were instead 10% efficient at producing electricity, they'd be (gasp) 10% more efficient than they are now. It doesn't matter that 10% efficiency is horrible - it's still less horrible than 0%.
And let's not oversimplify things, either. There's no compelling reason to believe that this is a simple system with no smarts about it at all. It seems to me that there is ample opportunity to have a controller between the shock absorbing generator and whatever load is attached, and that it would be a straight-forward process to manipulate the loading of the shock in response to road conditions or driver preference.
TFA talks about a smoother ride -- I see this as very practical and straight-forward. The system can simply load the hell out the shock generators on relatively smooth surfaces (stiffer shocks) and decrease loading dynamically as conditions merit (softer shocks for potholes). There are conventional shock absorbers in common use which can do some of this by way of having special valving which reduces damping in response to sudden suspension movements.
Fancy shock absorbers on high-end cars (think 7-series BMW) use a special oil which changes viscosity in response to an electrically-generated magnetic field. These of course have negative efficiency. Turning this same functionality into something which can produce energy instead of merely consume it (or which perhaps does a little of both, depending on the situation) might not ever pay for itself, but it's worth investigating to see if it can.
There's a lot of electrical accessories in a modern car which use a significant amount of energy. Blowers, fans, defrosters, stereos, lighting, heated seats, wipers, so on, so forth. It'd be nice if they were more efficient to operate, wouldn't it?
(I also understand back EMF, and fail to see how it might produce any ill effects that a diode bridge cannot resolve.)
Kid-proof tablet..
Even if this worked, I don't want shock absorbers trying to keep the tires on the road (with springs), control weight transfer, aid in ride quality AND trying to make power.
It's not as bad as regenerative braking, of course. Brakes are a safety system, I don't want them to worry about anything but stopping.
And, of course, there's the weight, which is a substantial drain on fuel economy (depending on how much weight, of course).
You could probably save more fuel making something lighter and less complicated - at a materials cost, of course, for crashworthiness - nothing's free.
Then again, how difficult would it be to replace the starter and alternator with a motor/generator capable of putting power to the drivetrain?
Congratulations, you've just described a hybrid!
Why is everyone acting like I doomed the project just because I pointed out some issues that "might" need to be considered?
Here is the thing, if the idea is to sell the cars with these things, they it needs to add value along with the costs. IF the costs outweigh the value, then the car will be an over expensive car that only people with other motives would be interested in. If there is a value and people see it, they will retrofit their current cars as well as purchase a new car with it. I set out some simple math examples of how it would need to perform to be worth it from an economical standpoint. If you want to talk convenience or saving the environment, then you will have to assess values that fit you in determining if it's worth it or not.
Seriously, think about that. If the car costs X and can get you 200 miles between charges, then your looking at 200/X worth. Now if it costs Y and Y is greater then X, how much greater can it be before you stop thinking it is a good Idea? If X is 10, then Y being 11 doesn't seem that bad. But if Y is 200, does it still look as attractive? As for the going green with Co2 savings, how do we know that the amount of Co2 saved is more then the amount expended in creating the devices and installing them. It could be possible that the copper to wind the generator and the hydraulic oils to make it work or the petrochemicals to make the hoses to connect it all together cause more carbon to be emitted then any amount of savings could prevent. That's even more likely of a scenario with the electric only vehicle where the carbon output is much more efficient then burning gasoline.
Wouldn't a perfectly smooth road be frictionless? Tires only work because they grip on irregularities on the road's surface.
Actually, that makes quite a bit of sense. Well, to some extent anyways. I'm not sure I would trust an electric oil pump for an every day driver but the rest, sure.
QCF QCF P!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
In fact it will have a net negative effect on your gas mileage. If you put an electric (re)generator on a shock absorber, and hook it up to an electrical load (to capture the energy) then the generator will fight back when the shock absorber tries to react to the pothole. In effect, it will directly reduce the "shock absorbing" capability of the shock absorber, giving you both a rougher ride and slowing your car down more. ......
It's called Back EMF, basic high school physics.
You're argument is based on one large assumption, that electric regeneration is *in addition* to the current hydraulic setup.
It's quite an easy job mechanically to reduce the ability of a hydraulic shock and let the electric side take over. An electrically operated modulation valve that links either side of the piston as required would do the trick (basically from one end of the cylinder to the other). Chuck in an algorithm that then adjusts this valve and the electrical load in response to average suspension movement, a mechanical high-flow cutoff that closes the bypass and lets the hydraulic shock catch those really big bumps that the electrical system can't handle in time, and you're good to go.
Wellllll, I'm sure I've been a little bit glib with that description, but that'd probably be the general principle behind it anyway.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
I first read this as some kind of electric shock would recharge the car.
Please change to "MIT Team Creates Shock Absorber That Recharges Your Car"
Not everyone associates 'Shock' with 'Shock Absorber'
If you say that then I'm sorry you really don't understand back emf. It will resist the movement of the shocks.
Put a hand crank on a spare car alternator.
Turn the crank with the output open circuit, then short the alternator output, and try again. It will fight back when you try to crank it.
No energy for free. The laws of thermodynamics insist on it.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
Nah, you're describing Maxwell's Daemon in a slightly new way, but Maxwell's Daemon it is.
There is NO WAY TO BEAT the laws of thermodynamics. ....
It's as solid as the laws of gravity and has been proven over and over and over and
If you don't believe in thermodynamics, then this is a moot argument.
All the energy in the system comes from the gas tank. If you draw more energy out, it will come from the gas tank.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
You do realize that this will only affect hybrid or electric cars right?
There. Fixed that for you!
For various values of 'THAT'. Our shocks weigh 4 kg a pop, a 20 kg shock would add ~20% to the unsprung mass. I am sure that as an aspiring vehicle dynamicist you will recoil with horror from that thought.
I never suggested anything of the sort. My point, which you seem determined to avoid, was that you are applying a strict cost/benefit analysis to something that includes a whole bunch of externalities and variables for which you do not allow or account. You may also have missed the fact that "majority of people" is not equal to "all people". You then go on to do a worst-case analysis, and compare a 65 MPH car commute (Average speed, door to door? Ridiculous!) vs. bicycle only, neglecting transit and taxis as I mentioned. If you're going to slant every analysis in your favor like that, then I suspect you must win every argument in your mind!
Just to nit-pick here. Since you're assuming normal shocks would also need to be replaced every 10 years, the $600 to $900 figure is the incremental cost they need to stay under. If a set of these is $500 more than the cost of regular shocks, it's a win.
The Halfbakery has been all over this and many other microgeneration techniques for years. Call in the lawyers!
Thank you, it really bugs me that I cannot get that straight.
Yea, that was my intentions, costs above normal to save X.
Thanks for making that clearer.
It's all about spending over the normal costs for some savings that are more then the increased costs spent. I guess the easiest way to think about it is, if it will normally cost X, as long as X plus improvements is less then savings, you benefit where if X plus improvements costs more then savings, you have a Rube Goldberg machines that is actually wasteful.
I wish I could express it in some generic formula but my math sucks that bad.
You also gain the capability of providing a closed loop control system for that additional weight.
Yawn... Externalities don't effect efficiency not do they create value. They are typically motivating factors that get people tuned to a specific area, not one that makes a bad deal good. I didn't address them because they are not important. Your comment was illogical and misguided. Here, lets look at it, "These shocks will add range to a battery-only car such as the Tesla, and that is a critical selling feature at this point, far beyond cost. They will also reduce the amount of fuel used by a hybrid, so your analysis should include the elimination of some CO2 emissions. What's the formula for that?"
You see, the problem with that is, if range is such a factor, then why don't they just increase the range and jack up the costs anyways? I mean what is this tech going to do if it is over priced that can't be done already? We can already throw 10 more batteries in the car and get the extra range, if putting shocks on the car costs more then that, then what is the benefit and will it magically work when 10 more batteries for the same or less costs won't? If it was going to costs $30 per 10 miles extra range with batteries or this device, and extra range is the magic bullet that makes people want to buy these cars regardless of the costs, then why havn't the $30 per 10 miles already spent to reach that magic range number that will be "critical selling feature at this point"?
Second, I never attempted to do a comprehensive cost analysis. Where did I say I did. I was attempting to show how narrow the range within there is a benefit other then just increasing the costs of something. You do understand that the cheaper something is, the easier it is for someone to buy right? If it costs X to own a car, and your bright Idea causes Y to be added, then it's just taking it out of the reach of other people. But when Y offsets long term costs, it's just a trade between when those costs are being paid. We currently have the tech for electric vehicles that get 500 miles per change, no one but millionaires xcan afford them though. So costs is an important issue here regardless of how much feel good you want to put into it.
Finally, the 65MPH average speed is just that. If it takes you 10 minutes to get to the freeway, it doesn't matter, I'm only talking about the 30 minutes at 65MPH. Many people in this nation have to drive like that. Sure, traffic and stuff can make it longer and bikes aren't allowed on the freeway but the point still stands. Not everyone can "ride a bike" like you suggested. Of course I already mentioned that there are "a lot of personal factors like how close to work you live and so on" before presenting that extreme example and in the next paragraph I talked about how it was an extreme example.
Given the facts, it seems your disagreements aren't with what was said because of factual issues, it is because they clash with your ideology and perhaps religious dogma. That doesn't make anything I said wrong and most likely it only makes you subjective and biased. So unless you find an error in my calculations or know something that no one else knows of, you might want to think a little longer about what you say before doing so.
You ignore facts inconvenient to your arguments, so you are not worth debating, but also your math is awful.
You say 35 minutes at 65 mph = 4 hrs at 15 mph. Then you ramble on about 'traffic and stuff', and make a lame attempt to justify the whole stinking package by saying you used an extreme example. Sort of proves my point, no? Ever heard of public transit? Blows any cost comparison with a personal car out of the water.
My ideology and dogma? Pot calls kettle black?
Hey idiot, I made the arguemnt and I made the facts of the argument. I'm not ignoring anything, I created the scenario so it follows my rules. I'm sorry if that makes you feel bad or something but that's your problem not mine. The scenario I set up is typical in my area and most of the areas that I have lived in. If you don't like it, get over it, It is what many people do every damn day. You need to let go of the fallacy that the world is how you think it is because it is all you have ever experienced.
It doesn't take an advanced degree in physics to know that public transit sucks or is totally nonexistent in most areas. It's 5 miles from my house before I can even get a cab, we have no public transit outside of that to speak of. There is a shuttle bus that takes people from a parking lot a few blocks away to down town because there isn't enough parking but that's about it. In fact, I would bet that most cities in the US don't have effective public transit system and you need to get away from home and see what the fuck is really out there.
anyways, for the math, from where I live, it's roughly 40 miles to the next big city that has all the decent paying jobs. You can't ride a bike on the freeway, it's illegal so you have to take the longer routes with the stop lights and so on. If your working here, you either have one of the few good paying jobs or your working at restaurants. You have to drive 30-40 miles one way to get the good paying jobs outside that. This isn't unusual either, I know many people in California that commute 100 miles round trip for work with a decent pay. And yes, California does have public transportation, it just doesn't serve every one. In Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and Florida, its the same damn way in many places. That's why the freeways are always clogged.
Now a 40 mile trip on a freeway will be about half the distance as one that has to go around it. I assumed you were smart enough to figure that out. I apologize if I took some liberties with you intelligence. It won't happen again.