e-tyre innovation

Status
Not open for further replies.
ggunn said:
Your throwing of the dictionary at me notwithstanding (a cheap shot, BTW), the word "innovation" does not appear anywhere in what you posted. An innovation in my eyes is a game changing development, one which changes the course of technology and invention. The assembly line was an innovation. The steam engine was an innovation. The iPhone, iPad, and Macintosh computer are innovations. To call this an innovation, even if it's patentable and even if it works, is IMO at best premature.
Click to expand...

I wasn't throwing anything. Citing a dictionary is a cheap shot?

Innovation wasn't my word, it was introduced by you then attributed to me and knocked down like in any strawman argument. Perhaps you wish to substantiate your claim on the meaning of the word?
 
weressl said:
I wasn't throwing anything. Citing a dictionary is a cheap shot?

Innovation wasn't my word, it was introduced by you then attributed to me and knocked down like in any strawman argument. Perhaps you wish to substantiate your claim on the meaning of the word?
Click to expand...
Nah. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.
 
srinivasan said:
yes it may not be highly efficient but it is part of energy can be used for the electrical vehicle know
Click to expand...
There seems to me to be a bit of a basic flaw here.
To propel the vehicle, you need to put energy into rotating the wheels rather than extracting energy from them.
 
Besoeker said:
There seems to me to be a bit of a basic flaw here.
To propel the vehicle, you need to put energy into rotating the wheels rather than extracting energy from them.
Click to expand...

Depends on the way you're looking at the issue. I don't think the intent was to propel the vehicle, but to use part of the mechanical energy that drives the vehicle to generate electricity for whatever auxiliary use, such as lighting, instruments etc. The question would be is this conversion method more efficient than an alternator? The idea may not appear to be practical, but that is where engineers come in to help the fellow scientist out....:happyyes:

Keep thinking, tinkering, keep trying. Edison had thousands of ideas before one finally worked.....
 
weressl said:
Depends on the way you're looking at the issue. I don't think the intent was to propel the vehicle, but to use part of the mechanical energy that drives the vehicle to generate electricity
Click to expand...
Puting energy into the wheel and then subsequently extracting some of the energy you have put in seems a little illogical to me.
 
weressl said:
Isn't your dynamo on your bycicle works the same way?
Click to expand...
I think not.
When you cycle you are the prime mover. If you slap a bit of load on your back wheel to power lights you are still the prime mover and have to pick up that load.
The dynamo doesn't provide any extra input.
I think the OP was suggesting that his idea does.
 
Besoeker said:
Putting energy into the wheel and then subsequently extracting some of the energy you have put in seems a little illogical to me.
Click to expand...
That was my point before I got distracted by the Dictionary Squad. :D

Likewise, spinning an alternator with an electric motor is pretty silly as well, IMO. Every energy conversion has losses; the most efficient way to power electric accessories for an electric car is to pull power from the batteries to do it. Any conversion to electrical energy of mechanical/kinetic energy that was converted from electrical energy to begin with is going to be lossy.
 
weressl said:
Depends on the way you're looking at the issue. I don't think the intent was to propel the vehicle, but to use part of the mechanical energy that drives the vehicle to generate electricity for whatever auxiliary use, such as lighting, instruments etc. The question would be is this conversion method more efficient than an alternator? The idea may not appear to be practical, but that is where engineers come in to help the fellow scientist out....:happyyes:

Keep thinking, tinkering, keep trying. Edison had thousands of ideas before one finally worked.....
Click to expand...
thanks lot for supporting new thinkers. as my calculation from the four wheels, the generating electricity will be 2 to 3 kw. as you said like that, it can be used for the auxiliary use.
 
Besoeker said:
Puting energy into the wheel and then subsequently extracting some of the energy you have put in seems a little illogical to me.
Click to expand...
actually i'm going to use the crystal in a layer of tire . applying the electrical energy can modify the size of the crystal. so i'm not going to apply electrical energy to drive a car.. its method of just harvesting energy from tire
 
srinivasan said:
actually i'm going to use the crystal in a layer of tire . applying the electrical energy can modify the size of the crystal. so i'm not going to apply electrical energy to drive a car.. its method of just harvesting energy from tire
Click to expand...
If you remove energy from a tire while the car is rolling, then you are going to have to put more energy into the system to move the car. There is no free lunch.
 
weressl said:
The same argument stands for the alternator or the bicycle dynamo. This is what is called a strawmen argument.
Click to expand...
I know what a strawman argument is and this isn't one. For electric cars, it is more efficient to just pull the power for the accessories off the batteries rather than convert electrical energy to mechanical energy and back to electrical energy. It would be silly to put an alternator on the prime mover of an electric car, and this is the same thing.

With an automotive alternator or a bike generator, all you have is mechanical energy upstream of the generator and if you want electrical energy you have to convert some of it. The same principles apply, though; I have ridden a bicycle with a generator, and it's harder to pedal and coasts to a stop quicker if the generator is engaged. No free lunch.
 
ggunn said:
I know what a strawman argument is and this isn't one. For electric cars, it is more efficient to just pull the power for the accessories off the batteries rather than convert electrical energy to mechanical energy and back to electrical energy. It would be silly to put an alternator on the prime mover of an electric car, and this is the same thing.

With an automotive alternator or a bike generator, all you have is mechanical energy upstream of the generator and if you want electrical energy you have to convert some of it. The same principles apply, though; I have ridden a bicycle with a generator, and it's harder to pedal and coasts to a stop quicker if the generator is engaged. No free lunch.
Click to expand...

...and who introduces the issue of 'electric car' only to knock down the double conversion insensibility? Or were you just trying to demonstrate that you DO understand what a strawman argument is.

NOBODY claimed a free lunch, with ANY of the arguments.
 
weressl said:
NOBODY claimed a free lunch, with ANY of the arguments.
Click to expand...

I went back and re read the posts. You are correct. No one claimed a free lunch. Just a different way to make electricity.

Why we may need such a thing or not was not part of the OPs discussion.

However, there just may be an application for this idea.

Take a look at the valve stems for any vehicle made after '08. See the big, expensive, black box that goes on the inside of the rim? That is a pressure sensor with a radio in it. The radio sends signals to the instrument panel for tire pressure and most importantly, to activate the low pressure warning light. These devices have to have a power source. They are called dTPMS devices.

From Wiki:

Most originally fitted dTPMS have the sensors mounted on the inside of the rims and the batteries are not exchangeable. With a battery change then meaning that the whole sensor will have to be replaced and the exchange being possible only with the tires dismounted, the lifetime of the battery becomes a crucial parameter. To save energy and prolong battery life, many dTPMS sensors hence do not transmit information during standstill at all or apply a complex and expensive two-way communication which enables an active wake-up of the sensor by the vehicle.
Click to expand...

So, you can see that battery life is a major design concern. No battery lasts forever, and the sensors are $70 each, not including installation.

Using electricity generated from the tires would mean that the batteries could be eliminated. A capacitor could store enough energy for one or two read outs while the vehicle is stopped. Once the vehicle starts to move, the tires could re-charge the caps and supply energy for monitoring while in motion.

Since the tires are not moving relative to the sensors, this makes them a great source of energy that would not require any form of sliding contact, brushes, etc. to get the energy to the sensors.
 
K8MHZ said:
I went back and re read the posts. You are correct. No one claimed a free lunch. Just a different way to make electricity.
Click to expand...
Yes, but where does the energy for that come from in the first place? The vehicle propulsion system maybe?

K8MHZ said:
Using electricity generated from the tires would mean that the batteries could be eliminated. A capacitor could store enough energy for one or two read outs while the vehicle is stopped. Once the vehicle starts to move, the tires could re-charge the caps and supply energy for monitoring while in motion.

Since the tires are not moving relative to the sensors, this makes them a great source of energy that would not require any form of sliding contact, brushes, etc. to get the energy to the sensors.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. The original posted is claiming 2-3kW. If true, that would be in the region of 200A at 12V. Far more than the sensors would require. So, if you wanted to harvest it for other uses, you would need to extract it from the rotating wheels and into the car somehow and that would require some form of sliding contacts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top