A new, absolutely [not] revolutionary donkey

[Christophe]

You are generous with the 3600 j by vehicle, just to recover this energy, the donkey no longer fulfills its function.

This is possible if we consider that we recover 10 to 15% of the kinetic energy (> 20 J). See calculation here: inventions, innovations / new-a-dos-d-ane-absolutely-revolutionary-t15779-140.html # p346268

But yes I try to be nice to Arturo ... I'm the Devil's advocate in sum!

[phil53]

The stroke of the axial turbine, manufacturers are striving to improve the cx .. You do not believe that in this case the recovered energy is not at the expense of cx and therefore increases the consumption of vehicles?

[Christophe]

No because the viscosity of the air is not important enough for the wind turbine to brake the vehicles ... even if the game was very weak.

It would be necessary to roll in a kind of slime so that it brakes

[Leo Maximus]

... Did you find performance figures on this system? ...

In fact, I did not look too much for lack of time (I have other priorities). A priori the recovered energy would be ridiculous, it is not surprising ...

Nevertheless, even if the recovered energy is derisory, the system may be of interest in certain situations, for example the lighting and / or the signaling of a construction site on the road. One can imagine a system placed on the ground, so installed in a few minutes. It is possible that it already exists.

[Christophe]

There we agree but it remains anecdotal power ...

Here I think we definitely went around the question!

[Did67]

This is possible if we consider that we recover 10 to 15% of the kinetic energy (> 20 J). See calculation here: inventions, innovations / new-a-dos-d-ane-absolutely-revolutionary-t15779-140.html # p346268

As I wrote in my "ladle calculation", it is not the kinetic energy that is at play: SUR the speed of the donkey, the vehicle does not slow down because of the speed of the donkey; the driver brakes before and accelerates after.

By "flattening" the speed bump, it is potential energy that the vehicle loses (to "mount" on the speed bump, which it flattens in this type of assembly). Whether the vehicle is moving at a walk, or at 120 km / h (provided that it still flattens the speed bump at this speed), energy maximum that can provide the vehicle is the same. It is the weight of the vehicle multiplied by the stroke of the system. Power, it differs.

To recover kinetic energy, it would be necessary to put treadmills before the speed bump; braking, the vehicles would cause this carpet, which would rotate an alternator; arriving at 80 km / h on the carpet and coming out at 50 km / h, there would be a perte recoverable kinetic energy (only the variation counts); subject to blocking the brakes so that they play their usual role (dissipate kinetic energy in the form of heat).

We could patent that, no ??? A collective patent in the name of econology ????

In the case of the donkey, classic, or trap, unfortunately the brakes, except kakou emeritus, do their job before!

The reality is a little finer: it is the kinetic energy (inertia) which makes the vehicle "climb" on the speed bump; therefore there is indeed kinetic energy lost, instantly transformed into potential energy, recoverable by the compression system (whether it is with rod and flywheel or compressed air does not change anything in the available potential; this can then change to the yield level). I found it easier to approximate the maximum amount of recoverable energy via the calculation of the variation of the potential energy, childish calculation.

Those who would still like to be convinced of the "little" energy recoverable: imagine a car coming in freewheel, at 50 km / h, on such a flattening donkey bone. How much, in your opinion, would the speed of the vehicle decrease if we did not brake ??? Here, I'll try, flat, on a classic speed hump this afternoon. This will give another approximation of the maximum recoverable energy ("calculation from above").

[Christophe]

Yes and no Didier: There are 2 phases in energy recovery.

Phase 1: During the "approach" on the speed bump (one second of a second), the vehicle will automatically slow down and will provide (one second) of its kinetic energy to the system = Ec, another part of its Ec is transformed into Ep (100% of Ep comes from Ec)
Phase 2: crash = recovery of the Ep

I have estimated the share of recovery of the Ec at 10% ... but since it is 10 times more important than the potential energy these 10% count as much, or even more, than the potential energy. But as I said it would require a precise modeling to know what is the share of kinetic energy recoverable.

In any case all our approaches remain in the same orders of magnitude: the kilillème of kWh ...

[Leo Maximus]

The system of treadmills speed bumps has been tested, there are patents, videos, ...

We also sought to recover energy from the vehicle suspensions. There, it is 100% potential energy. BMW, Renault, and others have been working on the subject about ten years ago from the time of oil at> $ 100 a barrel.

[Christophe]

How much do you think the speed of the vehicle would decrease if we did not brake ??? Here, I'll try, flat, on a classic speed hump this afternoon. This will give another approximation of the maximum recoverable energy ("calculation from above").

Do not forget to film they did it:

Do not try at home!

ps: for the maximum energy, do not take too much real risks, I did it above: 7 kWh per day for 1000 vehicles (20km / h and 1500kg) assuming we get 100% of the Ec (utopian)

[Remundo]

But yes I try to be nice to Arturo ... I'm the Devil's advocate in sum!

how dare you still insult him!?!? What the hell !!