It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
KellyPrettyBear
reply to post by Astyanax
Exactly.
Basic science.
But on the other hand, things like wave power are
legitimate ways to 'capture gravitational potential'
(the sun is the main source of energy for Earth, but
the moon's tugging on the Earth gravitationally
does cause waves).
It certainly is just providing a preferred path for
entropy, but that's pretty much how directed
energy production works.
KPB
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
ImaFungi
reply to post by smurfy
I dont know why they would collect all that energy on the moon, and then send it to earth how the sun sends the same energy to earth. Why wouldnt they just build that on earth and collect solar energy on earth, deserts for example.
Asktheanimals
The relative worth of system such as this would be the cost of installation vs return plus the average cost of repair/replacement and life of said system.
What might seem a great deal is negated if you have to tear up the road every 7 years to replace hoses. Even a bellows has moving parts which are bound to break eventually.
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
727Sky If you think about all the forces wasted without effort to recover them this might be a grand plan. Better than ocean wave electric generation IMO .
AliceBleachWhite
May as well do the same thing on every urban sidewalk, and doorway.
bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by 727Sky
I have often pondered on the use of ambient energy. Back when I authored threads, I had several that discussed ideas similar to this.
One that I still think should be explored is the usage of nanogenerators that can utilize various frequencies such as Schumann Resonance, which generate minute amounts of electricity individually. But if you had billions embedded within building materials......
bigfatfurrytexan
If you use nanogenerators, you are essentially just capturing kinetic energy that is already being sent through the asphalt/concrete.
There is no shortage of ambient energy. From the audible to the completely inaudible. We just need to get the correct wavelength in the capacity off the generators levers to be able to tap into that ambient energy.
727Sky
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
you may be correct but in city traffic I find it hard to believe a five centimeters above street level would out weigh the cost of fuel burn. If that is the case from the little electric speed bumps then IMO pave the whole street with the cells in a continuous smooth overlay.
I would think Improperly inflated tires sage more than 5 cm together and while true there is some fuel efficiency loss it is not noticeable to most drivers . Guess we will have to wait and see who installs this setup which may be Mexico city and look at the numbers it produces.
theantediluvian
reply to post by 727Sky
As one poster remarked, there is a limit to something like the floor tiles as well but as long as the contact forces between the foot and the tiles are equivalent to those of walking on a normal floor, there's no extra energy required by the person walking to generate electricity.
Astyanax
Simple it is, but it doesn't apply here.
Astyanax
reply to post by Bedlam
Not sure I see why. Presumably the extra fuel consumption would be occasioned by the car engine having to compensate for the momentum lost to the obstacle that is formed by the 'lip' created when the bellows compresses under its wheels?
This could be avoided by installing the bellows on a downslope. It would then act as a kind of moving step to lower the car from one level of the road to the next. Any momentum lost would then be made up by gravity acting on the car.
ImaFungi
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
So you are saying on an area of street where there is no car, and an area of street where there is currently a car, the area with the car is not experiencing the weight of the cars mass? Or you are saying in order to absorb that energy it would be taking away energy from the car, that is not taken away in normal circumstances when a car is just on the street? If there was technology, a material that when you placed the weight of your hand on it, the material had mechanisms and wires under it that it could absorb the energy of your hand and send it to a storage, somehow this was possible, you are saying it would have to take more energy away from your hand and body, then if you were to just place your hand on a table, or sponge?
badgerprints
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
Not if the system were set up on the downhill side of sloped roadways.
The car has to expend energy to get to the top of the hill or overpass. It has excess power on the downhill side.
Bedlam
badgerprints
Bedlam
It makes the vehicles burn more fuel than you get back from the system. By far.
Not if the system were set up on the downhill side of sloped roadways.
The car has to expend energy to get to the top of the hill or overpass. It has excess power on the downhill side.
Not really. On the downhill side, you either let the car build up speed for the next hill (constant throttle), or you throttle back and use less fuel on the downside of the hill. Either way, you get back some of the energy that was pumped into the car going up the hill. Or, you ride the brakes on the way down and turn it into heat if you don't have a hybrid. A hybrid car would put some of the energy back into the battery.
But with this system, none of this would apply, you'd just lose it to the inefficient generation system in the roadway.