backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 36 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 24 at 3:21 PM

Waste energy is still energy

Capturing and utilizing waste energy has long been an avenue of scientific study, but has become even more so recently with fuel and other energy costs rising steadily. By capturing waste energy, most likely to be heat or fluid dynamic (air and water movement), direct energy requirements for everything from home electronics to automobile and other transportation craft may be reduced, thus reducing the cost in petroleum or bio-based fuels all around.

DailyTech has focused on thermoelectric compounds in the past, covering work like Mildred S. Dresselhaus, a professor with MIT’s work with composite materials to increase heat to energy efficiency using molecular structures. Thermoelectrics create electricity when heat is applied to them, or create opposed hot and cold surfaces when electricity is applied.

Kinetic waste energy, however, must be captured by more mechanical means. This could be as simple as attaching a wind turbine to the roof of a car. Of course, no one wants to be seen driving around in such an automobile, and there are other factors involved that would decrease the overall efficiency of such a system.

A team from the City College of New York has come up with an interesting compromise between aesthetics, aerodynamics and power generation. They have presented their device and research today at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society’s Division of Fluid Dynamics, titled “Harvesting energy in the wake of a circular cylinder using piezoelectric materials.”

The device in question measures about one half inch by one inch. It uses a piezoelectric cantilever system to generate electricity from the turbulence created by air passing over a cylinder in motion. This cylinder could be a car or an airplane. To attain a maximum power output, the vibration of the cantilevers in the air stream is tuned to the device’s resonant frequency.

The units could be placed en masse on an airplane fuselage or built into the tail areas of motor vehicles. They would then generate additional energy for the vehicles’ systems. This power would definitely not be enough to replace the normal engine driven power generation system, but it could lighten the load from the main battery for things like display panels or charging stations for phones and laptops.

Combined with thermoelectric devices that capture waste heat energy from combustion engines, these kinetic energy traps could provide a possible significant boost to a vehicle's electric systems. Though hybrids could also benefit from the technology, it stands to reason that fully battery-powered vehicles wouldn't see a reasonable gain from the same combination. The piezoelectric devices alone, though, could be a great addition.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By Iridium130m on 11/23/2009 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 5
you don't get something for nothing...
increased drag = increased fuel consumption.
we'd have to assume that this would be a more efficient way to generate electricity vs. direct drive alternators off the motor in order for this to make sense.




By Sanity on 11/23/2009 12:12:44 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, this makes no sense to use on something like a vehicle that we have to move using engergy. Now, on something like a house, that's just sitting there, this might be applicable.


By scrapsma54 on 11/23/2009 12:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
it uses turbulence in the air for gain, which results from drag. besides the energy output is from the engine, not the batteries itself.


RE: wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By Amiga500 on 11/23/2009 12:13:52 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe... maybe not.

If they are really smart, they can try and tune the whole lot to damp down the Tollmien-Schlichting waves that induce boundary layer transition.

So... you either keep the boundary layer laminar for longer - less drag, or recoup some of the energy lost to the extra drag of a turbulent boundary layer through the piezo.

Of course, if the presence of the piezo causes increased boundary layer growth, then your safer without the thing at all.

If it can't be tuned to serve this dual purpose (boundary layer control as first priority), I do not see it going on aircraft.


RE: wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By Ammohunt on 11/23/2009 2:08:47 PM , Rating: 5
Thats all fine and nice but how would you acount for the Fragaria-Musa shake created when you add Bos primigenius fluid?


By HVAC on 11/23/2009 2:40:56 PM , Rating: 5
42


By Hare on 11/23/2009 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think those are only valid in World of Warcraft.


RE: wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By HotFoot on 11/23/2009 2:12:20 PM , Rating: 3
What's described in the article are devices orders of magnitudes larger than the T-S waves. Any active device working on that scale will be impractical for surface application on a real-world vehicle due to contamination issues.

I remain unconvinced of practical boundary layer control outside of pressure gradient (or equivalent) effects. So, body shape, suction systems, and the like. Suction systems are generally complex and heavy, and so are ruled out as impractical. Body shape - well there are constraints but it's used effectively. Another option I'm interested in is electrostatic propulsion. Create an effective negative pressure gradient using electrostatic force. That should keep most modes of the T-S waves well damped much longer than they usually would be over the length of the body and delay transition.

Still, electrostatics require very high voltage, and are probably not practical for many applications.

For capturing energy at the aft portion of a device, this study chose the worst-case scenario on which to improve. Vortex shedding off cylinders is very strong, and will easily induce a flapping motion. Of course energy can be obtained from that! But what they ought to compare this 'generated energy' to is the savings that would be realised by having a fairing over the rear portion - one that will significantly reduce the vortex shedding in the first place.


RE: wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By Amiga500 on 11/23/2009 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's described in the article are devices orders of magnitudes larger than the T-S waves. Any active device working on that scale will be impractical for surface application on a real-world vehicle due to contamination issues.


Using current technology, yes, I would agree with you.

The most likely means of improving lift independent drag in the short term is use of riblets.

quote:
Another option I'm interested in is electrostatic propulsion. Create an effective negative pressure gradient using electrostatic force. That should keep most modes of the T-S waves well damped much longer than they usually would be over the length of the body and delay transition.

Still, electrostatics require very high voltage, and are probably not practical for many applications.


Take a closer look at the B-2 ;-)

It uses electrostatics to add momentum to the BL and reduce separation.

(Not that many know it - most of the tinfoil hat brigade think its anti-gravity)


RE: wouldn't drag counteract power gains?
By HotFoot on 11/23/2009 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'd read on some less-than-reputable websites that the B-2 is supposed to use some form of leading edge/trailing edge electrostatic propulsion, with voltages around 50k V. However, I wasn't too sure if there was anything behind it.

Riblets come up, but again I just don't think they will be practical. Has a discovery been made with respect to how to alleviate contamination? The last I was involved in a serious discussion about riblets was over five years ago.


By Ammohunt on 11/23/2009 3:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
has it been 5 years since McDonalds quit selling its riblet sandwich? my how time flies.


By Amiga500 on 11/24/2009 3:06:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Riblets come up, but again I just don't think they will be practical. Has a discovery been made with respect to how to alleviate contamination?


Not yet... at least, that I am aware of.

However, as you know well, it will be a trade off of maintainence versus fuel burn... if fuel prices become high enough, the airlines will be more receptive to more maintainence.

A few of the engine makers are already proposing shortening maintainence intervals to further improve fuel burn and reduce overall aircraft DOC. Riblets would be another side of the same coin.

Airbus and Boeing are looking to approximately half zero lift drag by 2030... they are gonna have to do something fairly radical to get there.


By MrPoletski on 11/24/2009 4:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
Those things in the pic look like they'd snap at aircraft level velocities...


By mars2k on 11/23/2009 5:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
How about on on all those farting cows, or on the rails of a roller coaster, to bad they didn't have some when they shot that famous Marilyn Monroe scene over the subway vent.
The mind boggles


By Sooticus on 11/23/2009 6:30:07 PM , Rating: 1
I can see that the potential gains might be hard to justify for cars, trucks or even planes. But what about in water. Surely you could tune these devices to function in the wake of a supertanker or similar large ocean vessel?


Seems like a waste
By Sanity on 11/23/2009 12:10:05 PM , Rating: 3
Wouldn't it make more sense to make a vehicle more aerodynamic (with less turbulence), and save the energy on the front end, rather than trying to recover it on the back end? You'd also be adding mass that would require energy to move.

Now, if you could make some sort of surface finish that harnessed the friction between itself and the air and turn it into electricity, without adding drag or weight, that'd be neat.




RE: Seems like a waste
By chromal on 11/23/2009 12:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was going to make some sort of similar point; the author of this article doesn't appear to have a very firm grasp of the concepts represented by thermodynamics...

Their proposed 'windmill on a car' makes about as much sense as an electric-powered generator. (Electric-powered generators do exist, usually in the form of mechanical AC to DC conversion in, like, old elevators, but they are an inefficient curiosity today.)

My jaw dropped when they went on to suggest adding protuberances to an airplane for purposes of low-grade piezoelectric power generation--- whose main design consideration is almost always minimizing aerodynamic drag in production design. To some extent, this has been true of automotive design these past two or three decades as well.

There are far better ways to leverage kinetic energy than windmills in ground vehicles, anyway-- hybrids have made things like regenerative braking commonplace, and that is far far FAR more efficient power production than a few square inches of piezo flapping in the wind, in practical real-world terms.


RE: Seems like a waste
By Amiga500 on 11/23/2009 12:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was going to make some sort of similar point; the author of this article doesn't appear to have a very firm grasp of the concepts represented by thermodynamics...

My jaw dropped when they went on to suggest adding protuberances to an airplane for purposes of low-grade piezoelectric power generation--- whose main design consideration is almost always minimizing aerodynamic drag in production design.


I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I'm certainly not dismissing it out of hand, and I've a fairly good grasp of thermodynamics... and an even better grasp of aerodynamics.

Aerodynamcists have been playing with piezos and compliant surfaces for years as a means of reducing drag. Its not beyond the realms to kill two birds with one stone.


RE: Seems like a waste
By mindless1 on 11/24/2009 3:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it really is. Given equivalent attention to design you cannot capture this energy without increasing drag. Might be useful on a parachute, but on a plane or car not so much except when it decelerates.


RE: Seems like a waste
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/23/2009 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to harvest all the "wind" generated by a car, for example, put the turbines along busy highways. No additional drag from the car, and their turbulence is re-captured as energy. Of course, cost becomes an issue. How many of these would be needed per mile, for example. I am thinking low profile, car-level devices.

I like the idea of making the car more aerodynamic to start with.

Although, I have seen a design study of a sailboat powered by an electric fan. Perhaps some of the forward thrust from that system could be recaptured to power the fan... </if you have to ask if its sarcasm...>


RE: Seems like a waste
By mindless1 on 11/24/2009 3:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
False. What is drag on a car? Quite a bit of air resistance, air being pushed in the direction of the car and air which if it's flow is opposed, to a greater extent than the energy produced while cause additional energy expended to overcome this drag unless the automobile has a far far less efficient conversion.

Even as bad as an ICE car is, it's still far better than trying to capture *wind* on a power in:out basis.

Sailboat powered by a fan is also lossy, drop the sail.


RE: Seems like a waste
By dwhapham on 11/23/2009 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
It appears that many here do not undertand aerodynamics. The article isn't suggesting the devices be placed directly in the flow field. The devices are designed to be placed in the wake where they will have no negative drag effects. Even so, I don't see these devices generating enough energy to make it worth while on an automobile.


RE: Seems like a waste
By HVAC on 11/23/2009 2:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Changing properties in the wake area does have an effect upstream. It is not a zero effect.

Similarly, putting turbines along the side of a road (to capture energy from passing automobiles) is not a no-load situation.

Forward propagation people! ... forward propagation!


RE: Seems like a waste
By JediJeb on 11/23/2009 4:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not a typical passenger car, but what about a Semi Truck? Put these at the back end of a trailer and you could probably harvest enough energy to run the brake lights and GPS systems. Not a great amount of energy use reduction but over a million miles as some of these trucks rack up in a couple years it could make a difference. Also I wonder how much energy you could harvest from trains? The turbulence from 100 train cars should add up quickly.


RE: Seems like a waste
By HotFoot on 11/23/2009 5:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
It might even add up to approaching the amount of energy required to manufacture, install, and possibly even carry around the extra weight associated with these systems... but I doubt it.


RE: Seems like a waste
By mindless1 on 11/24/2009 3:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, front or back, top or bottom, it will cause drag. It is worse than not having it at all.

The idea is to reduce turbulence, not stick something in that turbulence to make drag even worse.


Please tell me it is a joke
By Kakao on 11/23/2009 12:17:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kinetic waste energy, however, must be captured by more mechanical means. This could be as simple as attaching a wind turbine to the roof of a car.

What? Do you really mean that? The energy necessary to overcome the induced drag would be bigger than the recovered energy. How could someone with a minimum scientific education come up with such nonsense?




RE: Please tell me it is a joke
By SoccerCore11 on 11/23/2009 12:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I was like whaaa?


RE: Please tell me it is a joke
By AnnihilatorX on 11/23/2009 2:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
The reason more precisely is a result of an open system (air is allowed to carry energy away and is not confined) and the inability of energy conversion efficiency to achieve 100%, except for heat generation or heat engines with temperature gradient containing an absolute zero sink.


RE: Please tell me it is a joke
By fic2 on 11/23/2009 3:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think a better (i.e. non-stupid) example would have been about the shocks created by a student group that had a built in generator. They were able to get 10% better fuel economy by replacing the alternator load. I am pretty sure it was reported on daily tech. Found it:
http://www.dailytech.com/MIT+Students+Create+Energ...


By LeviBeckerson (blog) on 11/23/2009 5:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Of course it's a joke. As I continued on to say, no one would actually do it because it would be ludicrous. The excess drag alone would kill any sort of gain (loss?) from trying to do something like that.

Not that things being ludicrous have ever stopped anyone from doing them in the past...


Over Unity
By barrychuck on 11/23/2009 1:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
"This could be as simple as attaching a wind turbine to the roof of a car."

Wow, I'm amazed this came out of the scientific community. These "Green" idiots need to breath the oxygen from their HHO generators before posting an inovation like this.

They would believe it's logical to put solar cells indoors to capture "wasted" light and thus could power a few more CCFL's. Or yet another great idea, forget the plug in Prius, just get a couple of large bike headlight generators rubbing on each wheel to recharge the batteries.




RE: Over Unity
By fic2 on 11/23/2009 2:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
I could sort of see the indoor solar cell if solar cells were way cheap and much more efficient. As it is most people use indoor plants to capture this wasted light...


RE: Over Unity
By mindless1 on 11/24/2009 3:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ever seen a room painted dark and observed how many additional light bulbs it takes to light it reasonably?

A solar cell works by absorbing, indoors you typically want as much light reflected as possible so you can light areas with sunlight instead of turning on lamps. That is, until it becomes unsightly with glare so we often opt for semi-gloss or matte instead of gloss paint.


It's spelled turbulence, not turbulance.
By goz314 on 11/23/2009 12:02:22 PM , Rating: 1
LOL




By drewsup on 11/23/2009 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Someone needs and ambulance for their turbulence.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki