Forums

Active suspension converts road jolts into electricity

Active suspension converts road jolts into electricity

I know its a fossil car company but Audi has a system that converts the up and down movements of the car into electricity and it's also smaller than the telescopic system on current cars because it does not need those big telescopes, thus making the inside of the car bigger, also it might even be better at damping than the telescopic one.

They say it produces little current on good straight roads like a highway (obviously) but on bad twisty roads it does produce something, this can help the range of the EV's since I don't think it will be added weight to have this system since it takes up less space than the traditional one, cost might be another thing tough.

https://www.engadgetDOTcom/2016/08/11/audi-regenerative-active-suspension/ ----instead of DOT use "."

Silver2K | 11 August, 2016

in the article they mention

"That's not enough for your AC, but it could power other accessories and reduce fuel consumption a bit."

I'm guessing the writer doesn't have a pure electric vehicle. The a/c hardly takes any power in electric cars. the accessories run off the 12 volt battery also. this tech would be very helpful in the winter to reduce consumption of the heating system

Ross1 | 11 August, 2016

It could power your spotlight shooting elephants in Africa.
Or rabbits and roos in Australia, as we used to do from vantage points all over a Land Rover.

Seriously, a progressive idea.
Since much of the waste energy in a shock absorber is turned to heat, if you get under and feel your shockers after a trip you could get an assessment of whether it would work for your own situation, by knowing if they are hot or cold.

Silver2K | 11 August, 2016

I meant as in the energy produced can partially power the heater to save some battery power in the winder.
the 48v alternator is converting kinetic to energy as per article. I'm sure that can be sent back to the battery pack to regen the energy used by the heater.

am I wrong?

nightwolf9ss | 12 August, 2016

@SilverP85plus The Audi system in on 48V because they need to have a separate battery to store that energy and a higher Voltage battery(>48V) would be prohibitive since Audi plans to put it into fossil cars but in a Tesla they could put a higher voltage dynamo to convert the kinetic energy of up and down into electricity, don't know if that will dramatically increase the energy output...

But even as it is, I mean what do you have to lose....you only have to gain by having more interior space and less weight if you don't have the extra 48V battery and directly charge the main battery in EV like the regen brakes do, except cost of course but that is still to be determined.

I think it could be a feasible idea for EV's if the cost can be comparable with telescopic system.

Silver2K | 12 August, 2016

@nightwolf9ss

actually I should have been more detailed. The system is made for fossil fuel as article is stating, I meant it for an EV setup.

codyb12889 | 12 August, 2016

I feel like this is just a gimmick to get the attention of people that live in areas that have crap roads but more energy is more energy. If it can add even a mile of range without drastically affecting pricing then lets see what it does.

Remnant | 13 August, 2016

@ codyb12889 (August 12, 2016)

<< I feel like this is just a gimmick ... >>

The eROT is also smaller, lighter, and gentler (or less rough) than the telescopic suspension. The latter feature could probably be adjusted by the driver as an option in the 48 V alternator.

The overall result could well be a more pleasant ride and an at least 5% increase of range on rough roads.

Ross1 | 13 August, 2016

You coast your car down a rough mountain track, and what with regen braking and regen shocks you have the holy grail of free power and can drive home on a full battery.
Who needs a Super Charger in the wild?

quinney | 13 August, 2016

@Ross: people who have to go uphill to get home.

Ross1 | 13 August, 2016

Yep, attempt at humour.
I used to live on top of a mountain.
Fuel economy was interesting because going up it used a lot but going down was a free ride.
Overall not terribly different from now living on flat land.

But yes I agree, when you have to go, you have to go, and its a battle sometimes to get home in time. I feel for you.

Remnant | 10 September, 2017

@Ross1 (August 13, 2016)

<< You coast your car down a rough mountain track, and what with regen braking and regen shocks you have the holy grail of free power and can drive home on a full battery. >>

We should not conflate the horizontal propulsive energy variations of a vehicle with the energy variations of its vertical bouncing on shock absorbers.

You can try to touch – without a glove – the thin part of one of your telescopic shock absorbers (TSA) after 20-30 minute of a bumpy (or corrugated) ground drive. It's likely that subsequently you wouldn't try that ever again without a glove (the TSA temp can rise to 100-150 degrees Fahrenheit), so caution would suggest you better use a thermometer gun. Note that a shock that's cooler than its mate on the other side of the axle is likely to be defective or damaged and requires replacement.

Energy has built up in your TSA during the bumpy ride, which, if not captured, dissipates into heat, that informs your hand, or thermometer, of high temperature through a burning sensation, or a high reading respectively. We could call it "parasitic energy loss" but some of us know how to capture it.

Unfortunately, capturing the TSA's parasitic energy loss can be fairly expensive. The cost of the highly refined Bose regen suspension system can rise to $2-3K, but it could drop significantly once the production ramps up to thousands of iterations. A much quieter and more comfortable ride plus a range extension of 40 to 100 miles might be worth it to many drivers and their passengers.

DTsea | 10 September, 2017

40- 100 miles from suspension regen? 12-30 kWh in 250 miles?

According to this paper the recoverable energy is 250 W.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.mdpi.com...

So in 3 hours.... 2-3 miles of range.

Remnant | 11 September, 2017

@DTsea (September 10, 2017)

<< According to this paper the recoverable energy is 250 W. >>

However, a corrugated road ride can generate over 600W.

http://insideevs.com/regen-suspension-status-report/

DTsea | 11 September, 2017

Ok sure. 3 hours at 600 W. 1.8 kWh. 5-6 miles.

Hardly seems worth it. Certainly isnt double digit miles.

DTsea | 11 September, 2017

Btw the paper i cited expected 40% capture.... ride quality requires some damping.

600 times .4 is about 250.

Remnant | 14 September, 2017

@DTsea (September 11, 2017)

<< Btw the paper i cited expected 40% capture.... ride quality requires some damping ... 600 times .4 is about 250. >>

Your post illustrates the common temptation of becoming infatuated with one's own errors.

I suggest you do a new reading of the material.

DTsea | 14 September, 2017

Oh well then thanks for schooling me remnant i feel so abashed

DTsea | 14 September, 2017
DTsea | 14 September, 2017

[Eye roll]

DTsea | 14 September, 2017

Regardless it is obvious that even 600 W is not going to recover the energy you quoted in your earlier posts of 40 to 100 miles. In a 3 hour trip that would require 12 to 30 KILOWATTS not 600 Watts.

Just reading your post... perhaps you made a typo.

psusi | 14 September, 2017

Sorry, but this is another idiot hawking a perpetual motion machine. As the wheel goes up, the shocks absorb energy. As the wheel goes back down after the bump, they have to return that energy, resulting in a net nothing. You can't generate energy from nothing.

El Mirio | 14 September, 2017

@psusi this one actually works, does not generat much energy tho. Audi should have it in one of their 2017 models.

System is called eRot

El Mirio | 14 September, 2017

The energy comes from the forward motion pushing the wheel over bumps.

Remnant | 14 September, 2017

@El Mirio (September 14, 2017)

<< The energy comes from the forward motion pushing the wheel over bumps. >>

Nay. It comes from bouncing against the elastic resistance of the shock absorber, similar to one's body bouncing against the elastic resistance of a rebounder (or mini-trampoline).

Perhaps your mindset is more responsive to sport and workout analysis rather than to one based on physics or engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_exercise
http://www.gojumptrampolines.com.au/goJump/images/PDF/nasa_article.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7429911

El Mirio | 15 September, 2017

No bouncing if car is parked and not moving right? unless u r blessed with an earthquake.

psusi | 15 September, 2017

@El Mirio, everyone claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine claims this one really works. They never do.

@Remnant, no, there is no free lunch. The shocks absorb energy going one way ( and that energy comes at the expense of forward motion ), and they have to return that same amount of energy to get the wheel back to where it started. If you try to take some energy away in the process, then it is going to come from somewhere and that somewhere is going to be the forward motion of the car.

El Mirio | 15 September, 2017

@psusi this is not a perpetual motion machine at all, it just harvests the kinetic energy of a suspension system.
Are you claiming no kinetic energy is in play when driving over a bump?

Remnant | 16 September, 2017

@psusi (September 15, 2017)

<< ... [the shock absorbers] energy comes at the expense of forward motion ... >>

Your glaring blind spot is GRAVITY, which on this earth is a downward vector. Shocks are built for the specific role of opposing this vector with the upward vector of their spring-loaded response. The heat buildup in them, while doing this job, is incontrovertible evidence of energy wastage, because the energy return from them is so much smaller than the amount stored there. And that's why we call this buildup, "parasitic energy loss".

The horizontal kinetic energy would also be wasted as heat during braking if we did not have the ABS system to regenerate some of it by opposing the horizontal propulsive vector with the opposing horizontal braking vector.

It is imperative that you review vector physics, when you consider further contributions to this thread.

SCCRENDO | 16 September, 2017

From my understanding you guys are arguing semantics. This is not energy creation situation but a potential way to recapture a portion of wasted energy. A stationary vehicle on a level surface will not "bounce" without external forces. This could be gravity, the energy that produces the motion of the car etc. With the car in motion extra energy is needed for going uphill or the upswing in bumps and energy is gained on the downhill or downswing of bumps. That excess energy can be wasted as heat or recaptured. So we are talking about a mechanism to recapture some of the wasted heat rather than creating new energy from nothing. I guess the real question would be whether it would be cost effective to recapture the wasted heat taking into account that there may be energy loss or cost in recapture.

Rocky_H | 19 September, 2017

Heh, @Remnant is right that people need to pay attention to vector physics, but then he is wrong in telling @El Mirio that he was wrong about where the energy comes from.

The energy does come from the forward motion, but the bouncing is because of turning into angled force responses. When you hit bumps or potholes, it is an angled force that is partially backward against the car's forward momentum and partially upward against the springs.

DTsea | 19 September, 2017

Psusi there is a spring and a damper.

The damper keeps the tire in contact with the road by preventing tire bounce. The spring of course pushes the tire back after a bump compresses the spring.

The only energy available for regen is the energy converted to heat in the damper (ie shock absorber) which is not a lot on anything smaller than a big truck.

psusi | 20 September, 2017

@Remnant, you need to review the laws of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created; it can only come from somewhere else. The parasitic losses would still be there if you are trying to generate electricity, plus the added losses from the energy you are extracting. More loss = less forward momentum.

Remnant | 20 September, 2017

@Rocky_H (September 19, 2017)

<< @Remnant was wrong about where the energy comes from. ... The energy does come from the forward motion, but the bouncing is because of turning into angled force responses. >>

Angled resultants must be resolved by the effective force lines, which are two: the HORIZONTAL (propulsive – braking) and the VERTICAL (tensile shock absorption – its bounce back).

Look up "An Elementary Treatise on Theoretical Mechanics" by Sir James Hopwood Jeans. A free e-book is available online.

Remnant | 20 September, 2017

@psusi (September 20, 2017)

<< @Remnant, you need to review the laws of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created; it can only come from somewhere else. >>

Regen suspension is not some perpetual motion machine project, NO thermodynamics issues. It is already available in patents, prototypes, and production. Some military vehicles have had it for years. It makes exactly zero sense to pontificate that it's impossible, if it's already a functioning reality.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/97177-bose-active-suspension-moves-t...
http://regensuspension.co.uk/
http://newatlas.com/regeneration-no-longer-just-about-braking/10640/
http://www.google.sr/patents/US9030033

psusi | 20 September, 2017

I'm not saying it isn't possible; just that it is stupid because it amounts to your left hand stealing from your right hand. You aren't any better off as a result!

For those who say otherwise, I've got a great deal on some swamp land in Florida for you.

psusi | 20 September, 2017

Ohh, and... SOLAR FRICKEN' ROADWAYS! ;)

SCCRENDO | 20 September, 2017

@psusi. I guess if the motion is happening anyway and energy is being wasted a cost effective technology that recaptures some of the energy lost as heat to recharge the battery may be beneficial. The question would be how much it would cost and how much energy one could truly regain. I am not exactly sure how Tesla recharges the battery with regenerative braking but I guess this would be similar.

Rocky_H | 25 September, 2017

@Remnant, Quote: "<< @Remnant was wrong about where the energy comes from. ... The energy does come from the forward motion, but the bouncing is because of turning into angled force responses. >>

Angled resultants must be resolved by the effective force lines, which are two: the HORIZONTAL (propulsive – braking) and the VERTICAL (tensile shock absorption – its bounce back)."

Apparently you're still not getting it. The _direct_ action that compresses the springs comes from gravity. But a car just sitting still does not have any bouncing going on, does it? It must have some kinetic energy going parallel along the road, which causes it to hit a bump or hole in the road surface, which causes the pavement to express an upward force against the suspension. Have you ever seen a vehicle use a ramp to make a vertical jump? That is changing the direction of the vector of its momentum into having a vertical component against the springs of the suspension.

Quote: "Look up "An Elementary Treatise on Theoretical Mechanics" by Sir James Hopwood Jeans. A free e-book is available online."

Now I'll give you some time to read that treatise you referenced, since you seem to have not done so yet.

Remnant | 26 September, 2017

@Rocky_H (September 25, 2017)

<< The _direct_ action that compresses the springs comes from gravity. But a car just sitting still does not have any bouncing going on, does it? It must have some kinetic energy going parallel along the road, which causes it to hit a bump or hole in the road surface, which causes the pavement to express an upward force against the suspension. >>

So, while you stand on the edge of a cliff, if I nudge you over it, you think my nudge is the cause of your kinetic energy at the bottom of the fall.

You flunk Physics, Rocky. Tell your mom to look me up, next time she comes by. You're going to need remedial Physics tutoring.

science-isbetter | 26 September, 2017

Gravity is a conservative field (conservative force if you like). Any energy gained via movement in a conservative field is used when returning to the original position. (You can google it.)

If a car hits a pot hole and descends, it gains energy (speed). But, how does it get out of the pot hole? It must expend energy. That energy comes from the horizontal motion of the car directed up by the sides of the pot hole..

Snarky comments and all...yes the energy at the bottom of the cliff posted immediately above, does come from the fall. But, when Rocky_H ascends again, as we hope he does, he must get energy to do so...that energy must be equal to or more than the energy gained during the descent.

Reductio ad absurdum: Imagine a long road with nothing but V shaped hills and valleys. Please do not expect it to be more efficient to drive on such a road than to drive on a flat road.

Rocky_H | 26 September, 2017

@Remnant, And when the car hits the bottom of the cliff and bounces back up to a platform on the other side, it generated a ton of compression and rebound in the springs. That is a very large version of a pothole in the road, and that is kinetic energy being converted to potential energy and then back to kinetic energy.

SCCRENDO | 26 September, 2017

@Remnant. Do you have a family member or friend that understands physics? Suggest you consult with them and maybe they can explain it. Like many other aspects of science the laws of physics need to be interpreted correctly and you cannot cherry pick the bounce part of it. If there is no force be it gravity or intrinsic or extrinsic forces causing motion a car will not ascend the speed bump. Without the ascent I guess we don't get the descent. If you begin with a descent you will need energy to ascend again and with losses will not get back to your original position.

PrimeTime | 26 September, 2017

Remnant is angry. Trump brings out the worst in him. His views on the laws of physics explain why he is a climate change denier.

You cannot bully physics.

sabbia | 28 September, 2017

My guess is that Remnant has some training. But came to wrong conclusion (again). Wrong answers are acceptable but stooping into school yard epithets ("Tell your mom to look me up, next time she comes by") demonstrates something entirely different. Not good.

Rocky_H | 28 September, 2017

I wonder if he got a chance to read that treatise.

Remnant | 30 September, 2017

@PrimeTime (September 26, 2017)

<< You cannot bully physics. >>

Well said.

Here is another analysis of automobile suspensions:
http://vehiclephysics.com/advanced/how-suspensions-work/

This one makes it clearer that suspensions deal with gravity and vectors derived from it.

NoMoPetrol | 2 October, 2017

And I thought physics was a bit obtuse BEFORE reading this thread.

psusi | 2 October, 2017

@Remnant, nobody is disagreeing with anything said there. What you aren't getting is that energy can only be transformed, not created or destroyed.. When the wheel goes down into the hole, the car's kinetic energy is increased as the springs release their potential energy. When it goes back up the other side, that car's kinetic energy is decreased as the springs potential energy is restored to its previous level. This system is not 100% efficient though, so the energy that is lost in the process ultimately comes from the car's kinetic energy.

If you want to get energy from gravity, then you have to give up altitude. Jumping up and down does not generate energy.

SCCRENDO | 2 October, 2017

@psusi. Unfortunately Remnant is well known on these boards. He is scientifically illiterate. On this thread I thought he was beginning to understand a few things. The problem is that he is not the “sharpest tool in the shed” and in addition he doesnt realize it. He refuses to be educated. There are a few like him who wade into climate change discussions. I find it far easier to explain science to my 5 year old grandson. I think we have given him enough time to explain his energy creation theory but the odds of him getting it are pretty slim,

Pages