Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] another crackpot idea from the California legislative assembly



Not only that, but transducers are *notoriously* low energy. You can get a lot
of voltage out of them, but the displacement is miniscule, and therefore the
current*voltage product is miniscule.


/**************************************
"The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown.
Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the
one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the
unknowable." ~~Roger Zelazny, in "Lord of Light"
***************************************/




________________________________
From: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 1:59:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] another crackpot idea from the California legislative
assembly

On 02/27/2011 02:18 PM, David Schuster wrote:
As Boris Korsunsky said on physlrnr, this idea does not sound
'obviously ridiculous' to him, nor to Charles I think, nor to me. I'm
not sure the roadway piezo-electric proposal can be dismissed simply
by appeal to 'conservation of energy', without considering the
various energy transformations involved, both with and without the
roadway piezo-electric transducers in place. Let's assume that some
energy is normally dissipated as 'heat' in the roadway anyway as cars
pass over it and deform it slightly. If some of this were to generate
energy in piezo-electric transducers instead, then energy remains
conserved, just in a more usable form now, without requiring more
energy from the car. The roadway would not get as warm presumably? Of
course I know nothing of the details or mechanism of the proposed
system so correct me if I am missing something, but I'm just
conserving energy without taking more from the car.

Well, it is ridiculous, whether or not you consider it "obviously
ridiculous". Obviousness is in the eye of beholder.

If some of this were to generate
energy in piezo-electric transducers instead, then ....

Is there the slightest reason to think the energy would go into
the transducer "instead" of the road? Why is not the road strain
energy present _in addition to_ the transducer strain energy?

To say it another way: If the road flexes under the tire, why
will it not flex under the tire + transducer?

If you're going to stiffen the roadway before adding the transducers,
why not just stiffen the roadway _without_ adding the transducers,
and go to the bank with the resulting savings in mileage? If you
don't consider this option, you are making a completely invalid
apples-and-oranges comparison.

==========

We could also pretend to be physicists and calculate the amount
of deflection of the roadway (in microns), calculate the energy
in the resulting strain field (in millijoules), and calculate
the resulting upper bound on the power (in millihorsepower).
Actually this is a grossly loose upper bound, because I reckon
90% or more of the energy in the strain field is recovered
elastically.

If you write small, you can do that calculation on the back of
an envelope. You can't quite do it using dimensional analysis
alone, but a rough scaling argument is quite sufficient.
http://www.av8n.com/physics/scaling.htm

Or you can just make the common-sense argument that the energy
in the roadway strain surely must be orders of magnitude smaller
than the energy in the /tire/ strain. Rubber versus concrete is
really not much of a contest. And the rolling resistance of a
properly inflated tire is a small part of the overall energy
budget of the car.

So the idea that there is an appreciable amount of energy available
and that we can prevent it from going into the roadway is at least
two leaps removed from plausibility. The next step is to consider
the capital cost and the fragility of the transducer network. Do
we really need to go there?

=======================

I've got an idea: Let California pass AB 306. Let them allocate
$400,000.00 to the task. Caltrans can give me the money, and I
will be happy to analyze the proposal and write the required report.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l