I probably should drop this but I'm a stubborn beast. Let me present
this differently, one more time.
Yes, it is "simply deriving energy from the transfer of weight that
naturally occurs in going from point A to point B." And to be precise,
we're only interested in the vertical vector of A to B.
But that isn't point I'm making or arguing with. First, consider that
the existing roadbed is absorbing a certain amount of energy, say R
wh/km. Now, we add a piezoelectric component to the roadbed. That
component, in order to be useful, must also absorb some energy, say P
wh/km.
(As an aside, I suspect R is a very small number, almost useless number.
Out of all the factors going into rolling resistance - tire flex,
friction, slippage - I bet pavement flex is negligible on a concrete
roadbed.)
Now consider the new roadbed is built better, somehow, so that it's non
piezo component absorbs less energy than R, say S. So the total energy
absorbed in S + P wh/km.
Comparing the old road to the new we have
old: R wh/km
new S + P wh/km.
Now, in order for this new roadbed to be useful, it must not absorb more
energy than the old roadway. That means:
R >= S + P
So, here's the point. If that statement is true, that means it is
possible to build a new roadway that absorbs less energy than what we
currently drive on. In other words, for some value P,
S <= R - P.
And if that is true, you can just eliminate P and it would simpler,
cheaper, and more energy efficient just to build new roads with
energy-absorption S. Forget the piezos.
The potential flaw I see in my argument is that I'm assuming you still
need some sort of roadbed in addition to a piezoelectric component. If
it's possible to build a piezoelectric roadbed that usurps S then maybe
this whole idea can work. That I do not know. But I'm very, very
skeptical.
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: [email protected]
To: "Peri Hartman" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion
List" <[email protected]>
Cc: "David Nelson" <[email protected]>
Sent: 28-Aug-16 10:28:52 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Piezo-power> 10mi of freeway could charge all the
EVs inBurbank-CA(?)
My point is if you can capture some of that loss by adding piezos
without increasing the overall loss then, and this is the important
part, you must have the ability to reduce the loss somewhere else. If
you can do that, then I claim you come out ahead by simply doing that
and not adding piezoelectric crystals.
But that is the fallacy to the opposition to this... It is simply
deriving energy from the transfer of weight that naturally occurs in
going from point A to point B. The only way to reduce that energy is to
reduce the weight. While that might be possible, it has absolutely
nothing do do with harnessing the energy. It no different that putting
a hydroelectric power source in a flowing body of water. Gaining energy
from a source where it was previously water. But, according to what has
been posted, that's impossible since no measurable heat is generated
from flowing water.
The key to this is that it is harnessing the energy from the
(previously wasted) energy t in the change of the vertical force
vector. Some are incorrectly assuming that this HAS to somehow
negatively impact the energy exchange in the horizontal force vector.
The two forces are perpendicular to each other and are completely
independent. Stretches in proposed approaches are incorrectly tying
these together to unnecessarily make them dependent on each other.
_______________________________________________
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)
