Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday October 30 2016, @07:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the Shocked!-Shocked-I-say! dept.

Boosting the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles by "harvesting" the energy generated by their shock absorbers and feeding it back into batteries or electrical systems such as air conditioning has become a major goal in automotive engineering. Now, a University of Huddersfield researcher has made a breakthrough by designing a new system and constructing a prototype that is ready for real-world testing.

Ruichen Wang carried out the project to obtain his doctorate at the University and has published his findings. The article, in the journal Energies, is titled Modelling, Testing and Analysis of a Regenerative Hydraulic Shock System. It provides a summary of current progress in the field of vehicle energy harvesting and a detailed account of the theory and the practical development of his device, designed for installation in a heavy good vehicle.

An abstract is available: DOI: 10.3390/en9050386

Why not also a stirling engine to make use of solar gain in parked cars on sunny days?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday October 30 2016, @04:27PM

    by Francis (5544) on Sunday October 30 2016, @04:27PM (#420544)

    They're not impossible standards. How many of the people buying penis trucks are actually buying them because they need to move large heavy stuff on a regular basis?

    Not many are, the reason this has become such a problem isn't because those trucks have poor fuel economy, it's because you've got a lot of people buying them that just wanted something big, not because they're actually using them for moving large things. The light truck category had lower standards because they weren't expected to be used for things other than commerce. Then gas got inexpensive again and they got really popular.

    My dad has a '95 Chevy S10 and you can't find a truck that size on the market anymore. None of the manufacturers make trucks that size so it's not just a matter of people compensating, you've got people who need a flatbed for one reason or another, and the smallest option is freaking huge.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @03:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 31 2016, @03:58AM (#420769)

    Oh, hey, I have a penis truck!

    This week I moved roughly (actually rather more) two metric penis - I mean tons - over roughly (actually rather more) fifty penis - I mean miles - with my penis - I mean truck.

    Next week I expect to do something similar, although the numbers may vary. Life is variable, you know, just like your penis - I mean mileage.

    But I'm sure you're right. Making it harder for me to penis so that I can penis my penis while penising my penis on the penis, will surely save the atmosphere. Or whatever we're saving this week. Is it penis? I want to save penis.

    But wait, I have a better idea! Let's have everyone pass a test to get a truck. Buy a truck? Prove that you have a current CDL, that you have probable cause to use one (contractor's license, farm owner, delivery company, gigantic penis, contracts for your farm of gigantic delivery penis) and problem solved! Your fleet average drops like a rock because your suburban mom with six kids is going to buy a Smart car.

    .... penis.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 01 2016, @01:12PM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @01:12PM (#421233) Journal

      Your fleet average drops like a rock because your suburban mom with six kids is going to buy a Smart car.

      Are you implying that these suburban moms are currently buying *pickup trucks*?
      Do pickup trucks with *seven seat cabs* even exist outside of custom builds?
      Wouldn't an old Subaru wagon be a FAR better choice?

      My suburban mother recently got an SUV. All she wanted was something that could occasionally move some lumber and take the dogs swimming. She wanted a wagon. She couldn't find a single one for sale anywhere in the area, so she got stuck with a big SUV instead. If these companies are so desperate for a lower fleet average, perhaps they need to start making and marketing more practical cars that actually make sense for people to buy instead of pumping out nothing but big gas guzzling behemoths or overpowered sports cars...

      • (Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:53PM

        by iamjacksusername (1479) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:53PM (#421374)

        Sounds like she could get a Ford Ranger but I understand why she wouldn't. And that's why quotas are stupid: they remove consumer choice and create economic inefficiencies, as your mother has demonstrated with her getting stuck with a big SUV she never wanted.

        My retired mother bought an AWD Lincoln MKX which ends up getting about 18MPG on a good day. She bought it because it has every luxury option you could think of and is reasonably priced if you buy it certified pre-owned. However, gas does not cost her much because she only drives the car ~300 mile / month. So, yeah the gas mileage is terrible but that does not matter so much when never you go anywhere.

        The point is market quotas cannot respond to market preferences like my mother's- that's why a every economist ever will tell you quotas are a shit idea. Quotas simply drive up prices to the point the regulatory capture becomes inevitable. Example: In the 80s, stationwagons disappeared from the market and were replaced by minivans because minivans were not subject to increased fuel efficiency requirements.

        If you want to raise overall fleet mileage while maintaining a sane market structure, tariffs are pretty much your only effective option.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday November 02 2016, @12:09PM

          by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday November 02 2016, @12:09PM (#421610) Journal

          Sounds like she could get a Ford Ranger but I understand why she wouldn't.

          That thing is a hybrid truck/SUV -- both of which are exactly what she was trying to avoid. She was really looking for a Subaru Outback, but couldn't find anyone selling any of those so she ended up with the Forester.

          And that's why quotas are stupid: they remove consumer choice and create economic inefficiencies, as your mother has demonstrated with her getting stuck with a big SUV she never wanted.

          That doesn't make any sense.

          Surely it's easier to build a high MPG wagon than a high MPG SUV. Less weight, less air resistance. If they were really having a problem meeting the fuel efficiency standards, wouldn't it make more sense to try to market more wagons instead of SUVs to as many customers as they could? But they barely even make those anymore, and they certainly aren't putting the marketing dollars behind them. Because you aren't paying for gas when you buy a car, and "this will slowly save you money over the next five years" isn't as easy to sell as "BIGGER. STRONGER. FASTER." So that's what they produce, that's what they sell, and that's what you're getting whether you like it or not! Fuel economy standards just means they can either keep doing that and do some real innovation and engineering to keep it efficient too, or they can offer additional models that don't follow that pattern and are a bit more practical.

  • (Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:25PM

    by iamjacksusername (1479) on Tuesday November 01 2016, @07:25PM (#421361)

    They are not impossible in the technical sense of "faster than light travel" but impossible in the economic sense of "every computer user in America should have a 24x7 onsite response helpdesk for all their computer problems." It's economically destructive as costs are artificially pushed upwards for everybody, with those at the bottom suffering the most; the car companies are having their output restricted by what is effectively a quote. This will drive the equilibrium price upward. The practical effect is that those who can afford to purchase a new car will likely continue to be able do so, albeit more basic models. Those who cannot afford new cards and purchase used will be be pushed further down car quality scale.

    Those at the bottom may simply be unable to purchase a car. To see a real-life example of this, look at the used car business after cash-for-clunkers. The most poor buyers were paying twice as much for cars of poorer quality as cash for clunkers removed nearly 3 million vehicles from the market. The sub-$4K car market virtually disappeared. Additionally, all of those "clunker" cars had to be destroyed (by law) so all of their spare parts were wiped from the market. See the link below for more detail on what happened to the poorest buyers.

    http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/01/how-cash-for-clunkers-hurt-both-the-poor-and-small-business-people/ [againstcronycapitalism.org]