Slashdot Mirror
IBM's Patent-Pending Traffic Lights Stop Car Engines
theodp writes "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let your engine idle. The USPTO has just published IBM's patent application for a 'System and Method for Controlling Vehicle Engine Running State at Busy Intersections for Increased Fuel Consumption Efficiency.' Here's how Big Blue explains the invention: 'The present disclosure is directed to a method for managing engines in response to a traffic signal. The method may comprise establishing communications with participating vehicles; responding to a stop status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: receiving a position data from each participating vehicles; determining a queue of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal; determining a remaining duration of the stop status; sending a stop-engine notification to the list of participating vehicles stopped at the traffic signal when the remaining duration is greater than a threshold of time; responding to a proceed status indicated by the traffic signal, further comprising: sending a start-engine notification to a first vehicle in the queue; calculating an optimal time for an engine of a second vehicle in the queue to start; and sending the start-engine notification to the second vehicle at the optimal time.' IBM notes that 'traffic signals may include, but are not limited to, traffic lights at intersections, railway crossing signals, or other devices for indicating correct moments to stop and to proceed.'"
...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."
I agree that that this isn't really a fully-disclosed invention. Generally, IBM is more interested in patenting as much as possible just to create patent thickets and later shut out or tax real innovators with bullying tactics. The blog post I just linked to also mentions IBM's claim (made in early 2009) to have a number of patents "larger than those from Microsoft, HP, Oracle, Apple, EMC, Accenture, and Google combined." The blog post also mentions research that shows the average commercial value of an IBM patent is fairly low as compared to the portfolios of such competitors as Microsoft. The patent that gave rise to this slashdot article may be another example.
IBM has also been a long-standing aggressive force in pushing the envelope concerning the scope of patentable subject matter in the field of software. Courts can't be lobbied the way politicians are lobbied (which is something at which IBM is also extremely aggressive) but companies can try to bring up court case after court case pushing the envelope with new arguments in order to find loopholes to extend the range of what's patentable. The recent landmark decision in Germany, effectively lowering the bar for software patentability in the largest EU member state, was related to a Siemens patent, but other landmark cases in the US as well as in Europe (at the level of the European Patent Office as well as in individual European countries such as Germany) related to legal recourse sought by IBM in order to obtain patents on "inventions" of an ever lower standard.
At the lobbying front, the FFII (a European non-governmental organization fighting software patents and pushing for open standards) listed IBM as one of the four IT companies pushing hard for an overall patent and patent court reform in Europe aiming to strengthen the rights of patent holders and the legal basis for software patents.
This doesn't mean to say that IBM is the only company doing it, let alone the only one with an interest in this, but others entered the game relatively late and IBM has a history of decades of pursuing that agenda of an ever broader scope of patentable subject matter.
Hmmm, a computer at a railway crossing that can remotely disable a car's engine. To use the parlance of our times "What could possibly go wrong?"
Besides the possibilities of "what could possibly go wrong?" the simple fact is, I am hoping IBM has done their research on this.
Some car manufacturers claim that stopping and restarting the engine will use more gas, and cause increased wear on the starter. Others claim it will save as much as 10% in gas and not cause wear on the starter. I wonder where the truth really lies? Jeep recommends (for some of their vehicles) at least 1 minute of idle time expected before one turns off the engine to save gas. The government says (basically) "do it every time" - but the government also says that modern cars only need 20 seconds to warm up to a usable temperature in the winter. For those of you who have an actual temperature gauge in your car, you know that is not true... so I am not sure how accurate the rest of the government's data/speculation is (or quite simply, they did not test enough cars).
That aside, there are other problems I have not seen mentioned, for instance dead batteries. If you are a city driver, and barely get over engine idle rpm during your drive, constantly stopping and restarting your engine can drain your battery. There are times I've had to drive in NYC and been on a two way main street going against the flow of traffic lights, meaning I've gotten stuck at a bunch of traffic lights during my trip. As anyone who has had engine (or lack of fuel) problems has noticed, if one repeatedly tries to start their engine, the battery will eventually get below "restart power levels" - meaning a bunch of people stuck at a traffic light without enough power to restart their engine. Add a cold winter day into the mix and this definitely should apply. As it is, I have experienced "uber cold" days on my visits to upstate New York where it sounded like if I had two or three attempts to start my engine, I would be lucky. Fortunately, my car only requires one. But driving a few hundred feet, shutting it off and trying again, then repeating that 5-10 times in under a mile would probably run me into problems as the car wouldnt have been running long enough at high enough RPM (1800?) to (a) recharge the battery enough for another start at those temperatures and/or (b) heat the battery enough for it to be able to deliver more starts.
Also, unless starter technology has changed recently, the starter has a cool-down period between start attempts. Something mentioned in only a few car manuals simply because one starts the car, drives it, then shuts it off - usually exceeding the cooldown period. If you are needing to stop at a traffic light every city block, and restart your engine, then chances are, you aren't reaching the end of the cooldown cycle. The more the starter is turned on without reaching it, the hotter it gets. Anyone who has played with an electric motor knows what happens if they overheat.
And as for the engine wear part of the equation, as anyone who knows a little physics can tell you, starting an engine does wear it more than normal driving... something to do with overcoming inertia (ie: the massive flywheel, and the internal inertia of the engine itself). Yes, above-normal driving (and to a much lesser extent, normal driving) still has similar factors to overcome, but there are other differences involved, namely that the flywheel is before the torque converter or clutch and the torque converter/clutch "absorbs" some of the "stand-still" force being overcome in driving/accelerating (ie: not as jarring to the engine - in comparison to "wrenching" a standing still flywheel into motion).
And of course, all of the above could entirely be speculation... but that's not really the point that matters... the point that matters is, it's all based off one or more combinations of vehicle manufacturer information, various studies on the matter, and various real world applications of the situation (cold s
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
On top of that, some cars already do what IBM wants, albeit without actually checking if you're at a stop light, and without potentially giving control of your engine to a remote computer.
My Civic Hybrid will shut off the engine if you're stopped on level-ish ground for more than a few seconds, as long as you're holding the brakes - as soon as you let go of the brakes, the engine kicks back on. It seems to me that this is a cheaper and more general solution to the problem IBM is trying to solve, since IBM's solution doesn't save any gas if you're sitting at a regular old stop sign for ten minutes waiting for traffic to clear up.
IMHO the biggest problem with traffic lights isn't synchronization; it's the behavior of the drivers. At least in my area the lights are attached to inductive sensors placed in the tarmac, and the way they're supposed to work is that they sense the presence of the car approaching the light and, after a suitable period of wait time hysteresis (which starts from the last time the light switched, and so may already be expired), switch the signals and allow the car to pass.
Unfortunately, drivers (again, at least in my area) aren't very clueful about the presence of the sensors, and will stop way, way back of the stop bar, before they get to the sensor, or pass over it and stop halfway into the intersection. The sensors are huge, roughly 2m by 8m, so it's not like you have to be precise to hit them, and they are visible as grooved loops in the tarmac just behind the stop bar, but I can't count the number of times I've been stuck behind a long line of cars at a light, with the first car stopped before it got to the sensor. As far as the light can tell, there's nobody stopped at the light, so we wait and wait.
I've driven with people who have stopped before the sensor and then complained about how poorly the lights are "synchronized." Apparently, traffic light sensors are not common knowledge.
Your explanation doesn't fully communicate the ingenuity of the automatic engine stop/start system. If the engine just stopped, the additional load on the alternator to recharge the battery after starting could conceivably negate any benefit from the short stops that it would mostly be used for.
Modern stop/start systems actually use the ECU to halt the engine in a configuration where one or more of the cylinders have a primed and compressed fuel/air mix sitting right there ready to be ignited. All the engine needs to do to start again is give those cylinders spark. No starter motor needed, no energy wasted, and the engine starts almost instantly. It's incredibly smart, one of the few environmental car things which is an improvement in every objectively measurable way. There's no reason not to have it on any car, and that's a rare thing.
This patent is retarded.