|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > new regenerative ideas for EVs
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
new regenerative ideas for EVs
|
|
| Psiclone 2006-02-19, 4:21 am |
| i've been thinking about a regenerative shock absorber system that spins a
little flywheel to recharge the battery everytime you hit a bump. also i've
been recently seeing rims that continue to spin after the car stops moving.
why not make these generate power back to the batteries
--
....Set phasers on tickle!
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-19, 2:21 pm |
|
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
news:hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> i've been thinking about a regenerative shock absorber system that spins a
> little flywheel to recharge the battery everytime you hit a bump. also
> i've
> been recently seeing rims that continue to spin after the car stops
> moving.
> why not make these generate power back to the batteries
>
Hmmm, why bother with the flywheel?
If the weight of the car is supported by springs, then one could have a form
of 'electric shock absorber'. Large permanent magnets in the cylinder,
surrounded by coils of wire. The output from up/down motion could be
rectified and dumped into the EV battery. Could also have the benefit that
if the output is electronically controlled, the relative 'stiffness' of the
shock could be computer controlled.
But how much power are we really talking about?
daestrom
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-19, 2:21 pm |
| Some can make their cars dance on the road for effect.
Just think of all the power we could harness to make it
perpetual motion...ooops. there is that phrase
again...LOL
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in
message
news:tT1Kf.10023$Zl1.1370@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> Hmmm, why bother with the flywheel?
>
> If the weight of the car is supported by springs,
then one could have a form
> of 'electric shock absorber'. Large permanent
magnets in the cylinder,
> surrounded by coils of wire. The output from up/down
motion could be
> rectified and dumped into the EV battery. Could also
have the benefit that
> if the output is electronically controlled, the
relative 'stiffness' of the
> shock could be computer controlled.
>
> But how much power are we really talking about?
>
> daestrom
>
>
| |
| Nick Hull 2006-02-19, 4:21 pm |
| In article <hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote:
> also i've
> been recently seeing rims that continue to spin after the car stops moving.
> why not make these generate power back to the batteries
Those spinning rims are a hazard to drivers!
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
| |
|
|
"daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tT1Kf.10023$Zl1.1370@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
> news:hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Hmmm, why bother with the flywheel?
>
> If the weight of the car is supported by springs, then one could have a
> form of 'electric shock absorber'. Large permanent magnets in the
> cylinder, surrounded by coils of wire. The output from up/down motion
> could be rectified and dumped into the EV battery. Could also have the
> benefit that if the output is electronically controlled, the relative
> 'stiffness' of the shock could be computer controlled.
That's quite a good idea. Beyond my construction capabilities but definitely
interesting.
>
> But how much power are we really talking about?
>
Aye, there's the rub.
--
Malc
"Ah, that did it. Spare brain in action, I'm ready to go again!"
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-19, 6:21 pm |
| But much harder to get a incomplete stop ticket.
"Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:nhull-CD227F.11560419022006@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article
<hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.n
et>,
> "Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote:
>
after the car stops moving.[color=darkred]
batteries[color=darkred]
>
> Those spinning rims are a hazard to drivers!
>
> --
> Free men own guns, slaves don't
> www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
| |
| Vaughn 2006-02-19, 7:21 pm |
|
"Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
news:hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> been recently seeing rims that continue to spin after the car stops moving.
> why not make these generate power back to the batteries
Think about where the energy comes from to spin those things and you
probably won't need to read any further.
Since all of the power to spin them comes from the car that they are on, and
they could only return a portion of that power to the battery, it would be far
better to just leave them off.
Vaughn
| |
|
| >> i've been thinking about a regenerative shock absorber system that spins
[color=darkred]
> Hmmm, why bother with the flywheel?
> If the weight of the car is supported by springs, then one could have a
> form of 'electric shock absorber'. Large permanent magnets in the
> cylinder, surrounded by coils of wire. The output from up/down motion
> could be rectified and dumped into the EV battery. Could also have the
> benefit that if the output is electronically controlled,
> the relative 'stiffness' of the shock could be computer controlled.
Bose Labs are already busy developing an "active suspension" system,
similar to that, and have already demonstrated it's usefulness on cars.
It uses a linear motor/generator to act as a shock absorber and to
actively lift and lower the wheel to smooth out bumps and eliminate
body roll in turns. It should be appearing soon in luxury cars.
Yes, it's the same company that makes stereo equipment and speakers.
CM
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2006-02-19, 11:21 pm |
| Remember that the energy expended in the suspension going over a bump
comes from the forward motion of the vehicle. A stationary vehicle
doesn't bounce on its springs, without some external energy input, at
any rate.
In other words, going over a bump slows the vehicle to some extent.
So if one were to drive a vehicle equipped with "regenerative
suspension", it would consume slightly more energy than otherwise
while running at a steady speed or accelerating. Decelerating, or on a
downgrade, it would indeed be able to store some energy as bumps were
hit, but I suspect that overall the effect would be a wash, but tilted
a little bit to the loss side of the ledger, since you can be sure
that the recovery/storage mechanism won't be 100% efficicient, and at
all adds to the weight the vehicle has to tote around.
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-19, 11:21 pm |
| Shock absorption already wastes the enrgy involved. We
suggest using it to an advantage.
"Gordon Richmond" <richmond@telusplanet.net> wrote in
message
news:086iv19gbs406k7uqnpuvu8947rk91till@4ax.com...
> Remember that the energy expended in the suspension
going over a bump
> comes from the forward motion of the vehicle. A
stationary vehicle
> doesn't bounce on its springs, without some external
energy input, at
> any rate.
>
> In other words, going over a bump slows the vehicle
to some extent.
> So if one were to drive a vehicle equipped with
"regenerative
> suspension", it would consume slightly more energy
than otherwise
> while running at a steady speed or accelerating.
Decelerating, or on a
> downgrade, it would indeed be able to store some
energy as bumps were
> hit, but I suspect that overall the effect would be a
wash, but tilted
> a little bit to the loss side of the ledger, since
you can be sure
> that the recovery/storage mechanism won't be 100%
efficicient, and at
> all adds to the weight the vehicle has to tote
around.
>
> Gordon Richmond
| |
| Tony Wesley 2006-02-20, 1:21 am |
|
Vaughn wrote:
> "Psiclone" <nunya@biz.net> wrote in message
> news:hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[color=darkred]
> Think about where the energy comes from to spin those things and you
> probably won't need to read any further.
I have a better idea! Put an alternator on the EV car. Use the output
to charge the battery. 
(I once had a discussion with someone who really thought that would
work.)
| |
| phatty mo 2006-02-20, 6:21 am |
| CM wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Bose Labs are already busy developing an "active suspension" system,
> similar to that, and have already demonstrated it's usefulness on cars.
> It uses a linear motor/generator to act as a shock absorber and to
> actively lift and lower the wheel to smooth out bumps and eliminate
> body roll in turns. It should be appearing soon in luxury cars.
>
> Yes, it's the same company that makes stereo equipment and speakers.
>
> CM
>
Oh god,as if thier audio wasn't bad enough,but actual car parts?
Some older cars already have "active" electronic suspension setups (an
option on Mazda RX7's,for one.),Some newer cars do too.
In the case of the RX7's,I think it stiffened up a bit at higher
speeds,and lowered the car above 70,or 80? MPH.
Probably not quite the same thing as what's around today,but close,and
pretty "high tech" for the time (late 80's).
| |
| phatty mo 2006-02-20, 6:21 am |
| Tony Wesley wrote:
> Vaughn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I have a better idea! Put an alternator on the EV car. Use the output
> to charge the battery.
>
> (I once had a discussion with someone who really thought that would
> work.)
>
Dude! that would totally work! ;-)
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-20, 2:21 pm |
|
"Gordon Richmond" <richmond@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:086iv19gbs406k7uqnpuvu8947rk91till@4ax.com...
> Remember that the energy expended in the suspension going over a bump
> comes from the forward motion of the vehicle. A stationary vehicle
> doesn't bounce on its springs, without some external energy input, at
> any rate.
>
Absolutely. This is no PPM idea. Just recover some of the energy normally
dissipated in the suspension.
> In other words, going over a bump slows the vehicle to some extent.
> So if one were to drive a vehicle equipped with "regenerative
> suspension", it would consume slightly more energy than otherwise
> while running at a steady speed or accelerating.
Why more? If the 'electric suspension' is tuned to the same stiffness as an
ordinary one, then the energy normally dissipated in ordinary shocks would
simply be recovered (at least partically). Granted this is not any kind of
PPM, just a form of regenerative suspension to recover the energy normally
wasted.
But just how much are we talking about? Any idea how much energy is
normally lost in a suspension? Considering that conventional shocks don't
need any sort of special cooling system to dissipate the heat they generate
from dampening motion, I suspect the numbers are way too small to make worth
doing.
daestrom
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2006-02-20, 3:21 pm |
| On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:26:25 GMT, Gordon Richmond
<richmond@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Remember that the energy expended in the suspension going over a bump
>comes from the forward motion of the vehicle. A stationary vehicle
>doesn't bounce on its springs, without some external energy input, at
>any rate.
>
>In other words, going over a bump slows the vehicle to some extent.
>So if one were to drive a vehicle equipped with "regenerative
>suspension", it would consume slightly more energy than otherwise
>while running at a steady speed or accelerating. Decelerating, or on a
>downgrade, it would indeed be able to store some energy as bumps were
>hit, but I suspect that overall the effect would be a wash, but tilted
>a little bit to the loss side of the ledger, since you can be sure
>that the recovery/storage mechanism won't be 100% efficicient, and at
>all adds to the weight the vehicle has to tote around.
>
>Gordon Richmond
Where is the energy coming from that is expended raising the wheel
against a mechanical/hyraulic suspension? Same amount of energy, so
no, the regenerative system would not use more power driving the
vehicle.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2006-02-20, 3:21 pm |
| On 19 Feb 2006 20:14:18 -0800, "Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Vaughn wrote:
>
>
>I have a better idea! Put an alternator on the EV car. Use the output
>to charge the battery.
>
>(I once had a discussion with someone who really thought that would
>work.)
It will if you only energize the field when attempting to decellerate
--------.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-20, 3:21 pm |
| Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: individual.net EUf1nxpZWjNE4vFkrOljMgt8JuaAMBd7s4zRAKqrIOVgUUcFpY
X-Orig-Path: news.pointerstop.ca!news
Mail-Copies-To: never
User-Agent: KNode/0.10.1
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:125510
daestrom wrote:
> But just how much are we talking about? Any idea how much energy is
> normally lost in a suspension? Considering that conventional shocks don't
> need any sort of special cooling system to dissipate the heat they
> generate from dampening motion, I suspect the numbers are way too small to
> make worth doing.
Perhaps in an auto. I recall talk, years ago, about the amount of damage
done to roads by transports with regular shock absorbers as opposed to the
air-shocks that were only just then becoming standard, and they talked
about huge differences (more than an order of magnitude, but I don't recall
specifics). That must take a considerable amount of wasted energy.
--
derek
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2006-02-21, 4:21 am |
| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:40:18 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.115.232.65
X-Trace: edtnps90 1140507618 209.115.232.65 (Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:40:18 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:40:18 MST
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.energy.homepower:125554
"Where is the energy coming from that is expended raising the wheel
against a mechanical/hyraulic suspension? Same amount of energy, so
no, the regenerative system would not use more power driving the
vehicle."
If you drive over a bump, the suspension springs are compressed,
storing energy. Descending the other side of the bump, the springs
relax, and energy is released. The resultant of the spring pushing the
wheel down against the "downhill" side of the bump would act to
accelerate the vehicle slightly; exactly the inverse of the
deceleration it experiences when the wheel is ascending the bump.
I'm sure you could capture SOME energy from the movement of suspension
components. But since all the movement of the suspension components is
a result of the vehicle's forward movement causing it to interact with
surface irregularities, I submit that any such system would manifest
itself as a form of drag, and would increase by a slight degree the
horsepower required to maintain a steady speed.
Now if you could turn it off while accelerating or cruising, and turn
it on only when decelerating, you might have something, but I still
have to wonder if the added weight and complexity would ever pay for
itself. Maybe we should simply make the roads smoother, so that ALL
vehicles waste less energy flexing their suspensions.
The idea certainly has been around for a long time. I can't provide
you with a cite, but I know I saw an illustration of a patent drawing
for a bicycle with an air pump built into the seat post; intended to
capture energy from jounces, and store it as compressed air to run a
small air motor to drive the bike. Must have been suppressed by the
oil companies :> )
Gordon Richmond
| |
|
|
Gordon Richmond wrote:
>
> I'm sure you could capture SOME energy from the movement of suspension
> components. But since all the movement of the suspension components is
> a result of the vehicle's forward movement causing it to interact with
> surface irregularities, I submit that any such system would manifest
> itself as a form of drag, and would increase by a slight degree the
> horsepower required to maintain a steady speed.
>
Why would it increase the drag over a conventional shock absorber
system? You're looking at dissipating the same amount of energy and
providing the electronic system extracted no more energy then it
wouldn't increase the drag. In fact it could be used to tune the cars
ride to different surfaces. Citroen use a powered hydraulic suspension
system in their cars and it doesn't seem to adversely affect the fuel
consumption. Although this is straying from the point somewhat.
--
Malc
| |
| Nick Hull 2006-02-21, 12:21 pm |
| In article <6cqdnTdFybTBeWXeRVn-sQ@golden.net>,
"Solar Flare" <sfla@hutmail.invalid> wrote:
> But much harder to get a incomplete stop ticket.
Havent got one of those in 30 years, I slow down to 2nd gear at stop
signs unless there is cross traffic. Except in the country, where I
shift down to 4th gear ;)[color=darkred]
>
> "Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
> news:nhull-CD227F.11560419022006@news.east.earthlink.net...
> <hAVJf.40312$id5.10524@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.n
> et>,
> after the car stops moving.
> batteries
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-21, 6:21 pm |
|
"Gordon Richmond" <richmond@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:23glv155ekjs4p7h2k4gcj9il0foe2l2g8@4ax.com...
> "Where is the energy coming from that is expended raising the wheel
> against a mechanical/hyraulic suspension? Same amount of energy, so
> no, the regenerative system would not use more power driving the
> vehicle."
>
> If you drive over a bump, the suspension springs are compressed,
> storing energy. Descending the other side of the bump, the springs
> relax, and energy is released. The resultant of the spring pushing the
> wheel down against the "downhill" side of the bump would act to
> accelerate the vehicle slightly; exactly the inverse of the
> deceleration it experiences when the wheel is ascending the bump.
>
> I'm sure you could capture SOME energy from the movement of suspension
> components. But since all the movement of the suspension components is
> a result of the vehicle's forward movement causing it to interact with
> surface irregularities, I submit that any such system would manifest
> itself as a form of drag, and would increase by a slight degree the
> horsepower required to maintain a steady speed.
>
Not so. In a conventional suspension, as you go over a bump, yes some
energy is stored in compressing the spring. But some energy is also
dissipated in stroking the conventional shock absorber. Similarly, when the
wheel returns to the 'normal' position, the energy stored in the spring is
returned, but the return stroke of the conventional shock absorber
dissipates some more energy.
Replacing the conventional shock absorber with an 'electric' shock absorber
that is computer controlled to apply the same amount of drag to the up/down
motion as the hydraulic shock did means the drag on the vehicle is exactly
the same.
But instead of dissipating energy in the conventional shock absorber through
viscous fluid flow, it is converted to electricity via induction and
returned to the drive system.
So no increase in drag, and a tiny amount of energy returned to the drive
system instead of dissipated as heat in a conventional shock absorber.
But frankly, I suspect the energy recovered is too small to really be
practical. The bigger benefit might be in having a computer controlled
shock absorber. Most shocks nowadays use various valve/tapered shaft
designs to control the amount of dampening, this one could be controlled to
change characteristics even in the middle of a single bump in the road.
daestrom
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-02-21, 8:21 pm |
| They probably just can't catch you or were you on America's Most
Wanted?
"Nick Hull" <nhull@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:nhull-C7ED91.07532221022006@news.east.earthlink.net...[color=darkred]
> In article <6cqdnTdFybTBeWXeRVn-sQ@golden.net>,
> "Solar Flare" <sfla@hutmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Havent got one of those in 30 years, I slow down to 2nd gear at stop
> signs unless there is cross traffic. Except in the country, where I
> shift down to 4th gear ;)
|
|
|
|
|