Take an inflexible beam (no such thing, even if made of concrete) simply supported at each end. Put a piezo device at each support end. A wheel rolls over the support at the near end. Let's say your example is correct and the surface lowers, causing the vehicle to roll up an incline. The incline becomes progressively less as the vehicle nears the center. Now the wheel passes the center of the beam. The piezo at the far end starts taking progressively more of the load, the one at the near end takes progressively less, and the vehicle starts going progressively more and more down hill. Since the uphill and downhill distances are the same, there is no net loss as compared to the surface that did not change inclination. And the rise and fall of both the near end and the far end cause a similar energy output since a rectifier can be used to gain electricity from both extension and contraction of each piezo device. And we were able to retrieve "free" electricity (that would have be en wasted otherwise) from the event. Concrete roads have expansion cracks. Simply put the piezo devices there. Not as effective as other methods but, then again, we are gaining energy from an otherwise unutilized (and wasted) resource. Even better, line the entire underside of the concrete support structure of the concrete strip (instead of just the simply supported ends) this way and you have potentially multiplied the energy gain significantly. (Or not, if the energy gain per deflection is linear and only the two piezo devices can handle and transmit the entire energy transfer).
> I am quite sure that more than 99% of that > energy will come from the cars traveling that road experiencing a higher > loss, especially when we are talking about a concrete freeway surface." This entire proposal is utilizing the VERTICAL forces of the vehicle! These exist even if there were no rolling resistance and do not rely on any significant changes in HORIZONTAL forces (or rolling resistance) to capture. These exist by nature and are currently being completely wasted. When you (or a vehicle) goes on and off a scale, how much energy is "wasted". The energy I lose stepping up on the scale is gained back when I step off (shame extensive energy isn't lost, it would make my weight loss challenge MUCH simpler). This is the same principle. Wow... 99%?!? Guess you don't happen to have any data to back that up, do you? Since your mind is already made up, the energy of me typing further is wasted and can better be utilized elsewhere. Finally, is this approach cost effective? Heck, I have no idea, I haven't even read the linked paper. But dismissing this offhand seems no different to me than all the anti-EV people I meet that off hand claim EVs are a stupid idea with no real data or information to back up their preconceived conclusion based 100% on personal opinion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20160826/5ae4aa2b/attachment.htm> _______________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org Read EVAngel's EV News at http://evdl.org/evln/ Please discuss EV drag racing at NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
