Here is a
prototype made by the nuclear commission in India
Question?. We are doing research on the PEC design.
What support resources do you provide.
various
questioners
If you have an approved project, you may use many of the
engineering diagrams available on this site. If you need authorization for research
or demonstration projects, or access to our engineering drawings, please contact the
research department.
Question?. We have are researching the manufacturing of a PEC
component, where can we see detailed engineering specifications?
various questioners
If you have received a solicitation from gravitational
systems, our research department will provide you with on-line access to our
specifications. If you want to be a supplier, or component manufacturer, please
contact our administrative department for further information.
Question?. What is your governmental licensing policy.
various questioners
As the technology matures we are encouraging its
widespread implementation. To facilitate this objective we will grant most requests
for time, application, and volume limited open licensing requests. Our principle
engineers can work with local authorities, and manufactures for a nominal fee plus
expenses.
Question?. Will the public accept this system if they
think that it is taxing their fuel usage?
various questioners
We think they will! If a particular
jurisdiction chooses to remove energy from passing cars, it will be a choice made by local
authorities. Our system can be engineered to slow cars down, although that
is a special application and is not inherent in the systems design. However, their
can be many valid societal reasons for modifying traffic flow, or even taxing motorists.
For example, many cites are concerned about fast, and noisy traffic on highways adjacent
to small communities. This opposition has prevented many useful roadways from being
constructed. If the city could be offered reductions in household energy costs, this
may be the incentive necessary to win approval for needed roadways.
Another justification that a government may use is safety.
Providing power, which is independent of the local power grid, can be a big
improvement in the emergency preparedness of busy roadways. Signage,
and lighting would continue to operate even in a catastrophic event like an earthquake.
Such a design might also be used to replace toll plaza's, or for automatic
ice removal from key bridges.
However, we must emphasize that this will be the choice of
local authorities, based upon local conditions. And, the PEC technology
offered by gravitational systems can operate at high levels of efficiency without impact
on motorists. We are inventors, and systems designers, and as such we
do not expect to participate in energy revenues of the technology once it has be
installed.
Question?.Doesn't this system violate
the fundamental law of the conservation of energy.
various questioners
False. The PEC obtains energy from the gravitational
potential energy of a significant weight, being suddenly placed upon it, and then
removed.
This mode of activity, quick movement of weights, is
characteristic of vehicle and animal movement, as they pursue independent agendas.
This source of energy is clearly evident in all movement of
significant weights in earth's gravitational field. The pressure on the
surface is a function of gravity determined by the characteristics of the
source. The gravitational energy is then captured by either a fluid or
mechanical device, and converted into electrical current. That piezoelectric
crystals are used to create energy from pressure, with insignificant deformation is a
established scientific fact.
The most common misconception of this system is that the
source is required to do work not essential to its primary task. This is only true
if the system is engineered to remove energy from vehicle. In essence the PEC
design, may or may not, allow the vehicle or animal to do work by deforming the surface of
the roadway or walkway.
For example, if a vehicle deforms the road surface, this
would add work, cost fuel and create pollution.
However, in a closed loop high pressure implementation of the
PEC, significant road deformation is not necessary to generate pressure. When a
vehicle encounters a PEC of this design, the surface pressure of the PEC is high enough to
resist all deformation pressure except the pressure over its internal psi.
A common sense example of this is when you sleep on a firm
air bed, it may not sag under your weight, but you can bet that the internal psi reflects
your added weight. If the un-loaded psi in the bed was equal to the psi
generated by your body, then you would notice almost no deformation. And if the air
bed had a horizontal pitch-controlled framed solid top, to distribute your weight evenly,
you would be unable to notice any deformation.
The psi of the fluid inside the PEC is increased by the
introduction of the vehicles weight into the system. This pressure increases
the PSI on the output side of the system. As the pressure seeks to equalize in the
lower pressure input side of the generator, work is done at the generator. When the
vehicles weight is removed the PSI in the system is equalized again, and work at the
generator stops until the PSI increases again. The work done at the generator is via
a gearing of the significant changes in the PSI of the system. This methodology, of
using increased psi to do work, has been employed by steam and internal combustion engines
for a century.
Other alternate designs which do not require additional work
by the passing vehicles, features a fixed plate road surface, with either an open or
closed PEC system, segmented underneath.
This would be ideal for a toll plaza entrance. The
vehicles would not deform the road surface at all, but the changing pressures on the
surface would be used to do work at the generator.
Another design features an articulated top plate, designed to
eliminate any vertical displacement of the vehicle, and yet still provides significant
horizontal displacement of the PEC's top surface. A medium pressure PEC, could
thereby be deformed by .5 or more inches.
Our point is that these are simple engineering designs which
effectively mitigate concerns about decreased fuel efficiency or increased pollution.
Question ?.Is this a perpetual motion
machine.
various questioners
False. First perpetual motion is an out dated
notion, that does not belong in scientific discourse. All the idea of
perpetual motion implies, is that the commenter is unable to understand the source of
energy, not that the source does not exist.
We do not believe, nor have we ever alleged such for the PEC
design. The source of energy is intermittent pressure, and if no pressure is
applied no energy will result. Also, once the energy of particular source is
converted, a new source must be applied for additional energy to be captured.
The PEC is simply a device designed to capture the energy
that is currently wasted as heat or compression on the roadways. Anyone who is responsible
for maintaining the roadways knows this first hand.
Question ?.Does this device steal energy from
passing vehicles or animals.
various questioners
False. The PEC, although by no means free, is a device
to prevent the waste of gravitational potential energy, from moving vehicles or animals.
I say that it is by no means free, because there are some
effects on targeted processes. In the case of vehicles, there may be a slight
depression of the roadway, much like an uneven pavement, rumble strips, or debris.
However, the effect will be largely un-noticeable by vehicles with
operational shock absorbers.
The energy source is gravity, augmented by the PEC, and will
have an insignificant effect on passing traffic. However, the economics are as such;
given that the vehicle can obtain 20 MPG and each PEC adds 1 inch to the
length of the drive, assuming a .5 inch deformation. This would then steal
1,267,200th of a gallon of gas. The result would be, assuming a 2,000 lbs. vehicle,
83 ft. lbs. of useful pressure. To summarize, 1 gallon of gasoline could generate
over 100 million ft.lbs. of useful pressure. Even at 1% efficiency, {we actually
calculate 60 to 70% }, the energy payoff is incredible. Do the math.
Question?. ...It looks as if this
system operates from a resistance placed on the vehicles. That resistance will
create an increase in horsepower required by the vehicle which in turn will require an
increase in fuel burned. If the vehicle runs at 20% efficiency and your system is a
50% system, the end result is a fossil fuel generator with a 10% efficiency - not very
attractive.
It would seem also that it would not matter if this were placed near a stop sign or
traffic signal. While it would help to use braking energy from a vehicle at a light
or stop sign, which is wasted as heat, this would only work for the vehicles which pass
the system while braking. For those vehicles stopped behind the system, it would
again be a resistance to those vehicles requiring more energy during acceleration from the
light and through the system. When the light is green your back to 10% efficiency.
Application at stop signs would be better, but only if you can be assured that
vehicles are braking when they cross the system. If vehicles stop behind the system
your back to 10% efficiency....
@mail.state.ne.us
Thanks for your response. Your
fundamental view of the technology is incorrect. The key is that this
system converts pressure not movement.
The system does not use the energy of the
passing vehicles. It instead converts the potential energy embodied in the
weight of the vehicle as it travels across the system. There is no significant
reduction in the fuel efficiency of vehicles which encounter the system. The system
does not generate, or depend on, additional resistance. The best analogy
would be a 1 ton weight being dropped on the surface of the system, and then quickly
removed, then replaced...thousands of times per hour. As this analogy
demonstrates the energy would be in the lifting of the weight, but this lifting is done
for us by the natural movement of vehicles.
I hope that this has cleared up your questions,
and will convert you into a supporter of this new technology. If the system operated
as you described we would call ourselves Resistance systems not Gravitational Systems.
Question?. What is the kind of
maintenance that will be required to keep this system up? Is this where costs will
be incurred?
@dingos.com
Thanks for your question. In the early
implementations, maintenance will be an issue. However, as the design matures,
we believe that maintenance will be only slightly higher than traditional roadway
costs.
There may also be reductions in maintenance
costs for expansive implementations. This is because the system actually prevents
destructive energy from being transferred into the road surface, and
super-structure. However, these questions will only be answered when extensive
field tests are completed
Question?. While this might make sense for road side
applications like signs and lighting where it is too expensive to tap into the grid,
PV {photo-voltaics} probably does the job just as well and without moving parts.
@nrel.gov
The PEC system compares very favorably with PV in terms of
economics. First the PEC system, without the benefit of years of research, can
already provide energy at only 10 -20% of the cost of PV when the comparison is cost
per unit of energy generated.
We expect the CPUEG to reduce with development and
research. However, an additional advantage of the PEC over all forms of solar and
wind, is that it is effectively immune to natural cycles, like daylight. Quite to
the contrary, PEC technology will operate day or night, on calm or windy days. Plus,
unlike PV, the amount of energy generated by the PEC will increase with the traffic
loads.
This "always on" aspect of the PEC, also gives it
an advantage in both emergency and high-peak load situations.
Question?.
In terms of
powering cities, the idea seems extra crazy. Essentially you are converting a loss
in fuel efficiency into electricity.
The laws of physics simply dictate that there will be losses in efficiency each
time you convert from one source of power (the power used to move your car) into
another (electricity generated from water pressure created from the movement of your
car). The end result -- everyone paying more for gas and dirtier air. I
guess the one exception could be devices set up on the downside of hills where
people were trying to slow down anyway (a form of regenerative braking).
@nrel.gov
While there can be some loss of fuel efficiency by the
passing vehicles, we feel your view is short sighted. First, although the PEC
system can be configured to reduce forward velocity of vehicles, this is a specialized
application. The primary configuration takes the energy, which is normally used only
to destroy the roadway, and converts it to electrical energy. An extensive PEC
system, properly configured, will generate power at ratios of 700:1 relative to the
reduction in fuel efficiency. And as a byproduct, reduce road wear.
The key to PEC conversion is the weight of the passing
vehicles, the movement is only used as a modulating source.
In summary, PEC is not a replacement for either wind or solar
energy, but instead is another approach to clean renewable energy sources. We
believe that as an infant technology, the PEC technology has tremendous potential for
growth and the users will find a myriad of applications for the unique potentials of this
new and un-tapped power source.
Question?.
In your response to
Mr. Maez, you acknowledge this device would reduce the efficiency of automobiles.
("there can be some loss of fuel efficiency by the passing vehicles") So, aren't
these devices stealing energy from consumers? Your source of power is gasoline, hardly
renewable or clean. You also claim the devices reduce road wear. How?
@ee.doe.gov
Thanks for your
question. You are absolutely correct that the PEC can be configured to
"steal" some energy from passing vehicles. But I would point out
that any roadbed appliance, speed-bumps...rumble strips...etc., also removes some
energy from passing vehicles.
However, with the PEC the
pay off is in energy for the community. Also let me reiterate that the power
source is not the forward movement of the vehicle, it is the weight. And this
power source is now only being used to destroy the roadway. Every car that drives
over a section of road, can be seen as analogous to a jackhammer being applied.
Your second questions,
reduced road wear, is embedded in the first answer. Although most people don't
consider it, the movement of heavy vehicles over a roadway is destructive.
Why? Because energy is being transferred from the moving vehicle into the road
surface and underlying superstructure. The PEC takes that destructive energy, in
accordance with physics, and translates it into another form. Consult with
road designers for more insight into this process.
Question? While some applications of your proposed technology are
intriguing, I am concerned by many of your claims. Particularly your claims that
this is a renewable energy source and that the PEC system is capable of generating power
at a ratio of 700:1 relative to the loss of vehicle fuel efficiency.
To me, this defies the First Law of Thermodynamics concerning conservation of energy as
well as the physics behind simple vector analysis. You cannot "convert gravity into
torque" without movement. Using the "weight of the vehicle" to
produce power means downward movement. For the car to proceed on a level road over your
device, it must first "lift" itself up to then create pressure in your system,
inevitably translating into a loss of fuel efficiency.
Granted, use of this technology to power the lighting of an off-the-grid road sign
would probably have an immeasurable impact on fuel efficiency, but claims that this system
could be used to cleanly power cities seems ridiculous.
Finally, I would like to emphasis, as far as I know, neither the US Department of
Energy nor the National Renewable Energy Laboratory either endorse or condemn the concept
behind this technology. The opinions expressed in this discussion are simply my own.
@nrel.gov
Our calculations indicate that a single 2,000
pound vehicle would, at our maximum efficiency, generate approximately 84 foot pounds of
work, assuming a .5 inch road deformation.
Each time it passed over a PEC. This would be
multiplied by the many thousands of vehicles which pass a given point during the course of
an hour on an urban freeway during peak. If 100 PECs were distributed over a 1 mile
section of roadway, I think it is clear that the power generation potential would be
substantial.
Once we can move beyond the novelty of our
design, and the natural resistance to new ideas. You and your colleagues will see
that the system holds great potentials. And that at the very least, some
resources used to validate, or invalidate, the design would be a justifiable expenditure
of government.
Question?. What is the power
output of the generators?
PennWell Publishing
On our website, in the products/Vehicular Systems section we
feature a variety of standard generators matched to a particular application.
Here is an example;
We have tested the design extensively with a CAD design
program. And a couple of prototype simulations have been built, but just
for 40th scale testing. The nature of the design requires some cooperation and
licensing from local transportation officials, which we are seeking currently.
Question?. Do you know how many
cars have to pass before the battery is filled up?
PennWell Publishing
Batteries are not a part of the design. The primary
design is to feed any excess power into the local power grid. However, for remote
applications, an array of DC batteries can be configured to store power. The number
and power output of these batteries will be dictated by expected traffic patterns.
Question?. And how much power does
the battery hold?
PennWell Publishing
See above
Question?. Would this innovation work
as well on a highway as it would in downtown traffic?
PennWell Publishing
The design of highways systems for use, differs from urban
roadway systems, to accommodate the higher speeds. Much greater efficiency is
achievable when the traffic pattern is dense at high speeds.
Question?. Please tell us more
about the demonstration projects or any pending deals that may give us a hint of your
company's "next step" in this endeavor:
PennWell Publishing
We are currently in discussions with DOT's in New York,
Delaware, and Virginia. However, we are seeking publicity to jump start West Coast
projects, particularly in Los Angeles and the bay area. Officials in both of
the locations have been approached but have not yet responded to our project proposals.
Question: ?
I am curious about the energy equation. Your
basic claim, which without more information I can neither confirm nor dispute, is that you
are taking wasted compression energy (the tar is compressed/unloaded by vehicles, which
costs the vehicle energy), destined to be dispelled as heat, and converting it to (useful)
electrical energy.
Regardless of the conversion efficiency, if the energy would have been exerted (but
wasted) anyway, you are not costing the traffic system any additional energy expenditure.
How does the amount of work extracted from a passing vehicle by your ("best")
system compare with the amount of energy that vehicle would have dispelled (wasted as
heat) into the roadway had your system not been there, as a percentage? I can't imagine
the calories/HPs/ergs/whateverunits amount to much, but I do know that highway surfaces
dry much sooner after a rainfall than non-traffic roads - but I would expect the vast
majority of that heat to be coming from tire friction and radiative heating from a hot
engine passing over rather than from compression heating of the roadway material.
I guess I also need to know, when I'm driving a car down the
road at say 60mph, what fraction of my gasoline consumption
goes to (wasted) compression heating of the road surface?
(That is certainly the maximum energy that your system can
obtain from my passing car without costing my car a gas
mileage hit.)
pete.thurmes@honeywell.com
Thanks for your continued
interest. I am happy to dialog with you for two reasons, the first is my
objective of explaining this technology, and the second is that questions help us to
understand it better.
Let's approach the non-technical
implications first. Yes we are seeking investors, and there is risk inherent
in any venture based upon new and largely untested technologies. As an American
business we make no apologies for this. Second as to the potential claim of
free energy, I think that un-tapped energy would be a more precise characterization.
Next, let me be personally
candid. As a scientist, and an educator, the only thing that I am sure of is how
little I actually know about anything. It is my ignorance that motivates me. I
detect from the tenor of our dialog, that you see yourself in another light, and you will
find it easy to attack at the fringes, or with semantic arguments. However, I can
appreciate your passion, and as long as you are civil I will try to answer your
questions. Also, your implied dis-ingenuity of our claims begs the question, of why
would we post attacks by the scientific community on our website, if we did not want to
foster real concrete debate.
The power of gravitational energy is
not in question, even in popular physics. Our ability to tap it does require
some proof. I realize that an argument, based upon undisclosed information, is
suspect. To this I say, that this information will be released soon, and it
will address the question of power from pressure without displacement.
Question?
I guess my biggest problem with your claims is
that:
1) You don't give any theoretical basis for an energy source based on conventional
physics.
2) You don't give any rationale for anyone else to expect that your system actually has
a non-conventional source. You don't give any evidence or alternate (to conventional
physics) theoretical basis - you simply state that you have dreamed up a system on CAD
that will extract "gravitational energy" without motion.
I realize I may sound elitist - that "popular physics" is THE ONLY
possibility. I don't believe that's true. I consider myself quite a
non-conformist, but I DO consider myself a scientist (of sorts), in that I firmly believe
in the scientific method (in fact, to the point where I've become an atheist because I
simply cannot fit religion into reality via the "scientific method"). Most
scientists agree on this method as a basis for all "science" - vs.
religion/superstition/handwaving (e.g. creationism), which by their very nature are
counter to the scientific method. They aren't necessarily untrue - there's just no
scientific way to test them, so they aren't scientific.
How I see the scientific method (and therefore everything I would consider
"scientific") is that you dream up a theory (no matter how wacky), you explore
how the theory matches (or doesn't) existing theory, and you also look for (experimental)
evidence that your theory reflects reality. Sometimes that last step is left for
experimental scientists, but certainly you need one or the other in order to consider your
scheme as following the scientific method.
What I understand from everything I've seen on your website and our lengthy discourse,
is that you are basing a new technology on a new idea of how gravitational energy works,
one that even you claim is not covered by conventional physics. But you give no
theoretical basis - no chain of logic that a scientist can follow to see how you arrived
at your conclusion that extracting "gravitational energy" (and not relying on
up/down motion - change in grav PE which is the basis of conventional physics). You simply
state that you've dreamed up such a system and you'd like people to buy into it. You also
present no concrete evidence or even confirming observations.
Normally when a new theory is born (again, no matter how outrageous) the true scientist
will apply some basic tests before he will claim that any physical system could be
constructed that would be based on that theory.
I could claim that I've drawn up on my CAD program a mechanism that runs forever with
no "conventional" energy input, but there's no reason for me to expect anyone to
believe me based solely on that claim. And to state that I will soon prove it really begs
the question. Why would I be looking for investors in something that is not based on known
science (or known reality)
without presenting some evidence that I'm not simply a quack? I certainly wouldn't claim
your system is quackery, but without either some scientific theory or concrete data to
back you up, I have no reason to believe it ISN'T quackery. The burden of proof lies with
the scientist.
And if I still sound elitist, well, I guess that's how scientists think.
They believe in their methodology, and if you don't follow that
methodology, your claims are not considered to have a scientific basis (i.e. they're
'superstition' - blind belief with no scientific basis).
pete.thurmes@honeywell.com
Thanks for your response. There are two relevant
questions. First, does the PEC have a positive cost:benefit ratio. Second, can the PEC
obtain a net energy gain. The former is relevant to users and investors, while the latter
interests the scientific community.
In answer to the first question, the answer is yes. power
conversion, by dams, wind mills, and solar panels are often costly both directly and
indirectly. Dams slow river speed, impact on fish conservation, and are expensive. Similar
cost are associated with both wind and solar energy.They are increasingly successful
because of positive cost:benefit ratios. The PEC, even with neglible net gains, performs a
useful power conversion function, this is not in dispute. For both agricultural, and
vehicular applications net gains of energy, are only relevant in a limited range of
applications. And as the PEC and G-pump, systems become widely available, they will be
employed in competition with conventional sources.
The second question of net energy gains is interesting. Can
we implement the PEC such that the total energy cost to the target is significantly less
than the power gain. That is the somewhat murky definition of a generator. This question
has a common sense answer, and a more technical one. Common sense shows that weight is
independent of power output. A parked vehicle, or a dead cow, retains its massive weight.
Weight is a source of power in many applications. Hydro-power, is one instance. Any system
within which a great weigh is applied and then removed, in a systematic way, is affected
in direct relation to the application of that great weight.
Ask any question, about the technology, and if your
question is interesting, we will give you a quick reply. Note, only questions which
address the technology will be read by our engineering staff.
