Dan Frederiksen says: It's a good sentiment but unfortunately it's a bad idea. There is a principle of energy conservation in physics and it means that any energy taken must come from somewhere and if you make devices to take energy from the cars kinetic energy it means it will slow down or work harder with the motor. And in conventional cars it has paid for that kinetic energy very dearly because it's inefficient so any energy you capture with these little car pedals the cars has already paid for with 4 times as much energy. to be blunt, it's a terrible idea.

the one situation where you can beneficially take energy out of the cars movement is when you need to slow down. normally that energy is wasted in the brake discs of the car but instead it can be recaptured by an electric motor and that principle is known as regenerative braking. that has merit and that is being used in most electric cars already. it's not an unlimited source though but adds 10-15% to the range.

martyn abrahams says: Firstly, maybe they should do away with every stoplight and speed bump that exists on the planet then, which is NOT going to happen in the near future. Then maybe your theory about my 'terrible' idea holds water.

Secondly, the kinetic energy 'recaptured' by the brakes is not the only principle working here, so is weight.

Thirdly, to be "blunt" do you have a better alternative and have you tried out my idea yet?

BABETTE VAN GESSEL says: Actually I think its a very good idea. Cars and traffic are a fact of life and only increasing especially in the developing world. Vehicles are one of the greatest contributors to energy consumption and pollution so to harness energy in some form directly from them could have a greater over-all positive impact than many other green-energy projects, and the energy created could well be greater than any energy-loss being referred to.

To say that its wasted energy is short-sighted. Biofuels consume energy in their production and have a greater impact on the environment than most people realize, as do solar, wind and hydro projects. Each of these sources of energy actually ultimately do some damage or consume energy in some way so really the loss of energy in slowing down is probably far less than any of these other popular forms of alternative energy. At least with this idea there is no direct damage to the natural environment and you are harnessing energy from an energy consumptive action.

Plus its at least it original and something I havent seen on National Geographic before or being discussed in the popular press. I say well done on the concept.

Tanya Beddall says: I think it’s a terrific idea, at least someone is thinking forward as to how we can gain something from the use of cars. Rather than taking more from the natural world in the way of chopping down tress, so we can planet vast amounts of biofuel grains. Anything that helps green energy has my vote.

Jerry van Gessel says: I feel it is a good idea – cars are on the roads already, speed regulators are in place on most roads for traffic control, so having green regulators will recapture some of the energy, which was lost by the conventional cars.

If we had an attitude that because we are creating bad energy we should do nothing about green energy at all. So in fact we should not produce Bio fuels, or create electric cars. These take bad energy to produce good energy by the simple fact of consuming or creating a product so at least this idea does not impact the environment directly rely on building new cars just to create “good” energy.

Fortunato Cardenas says: I believe it is best to develop an transportation system that does not depend too much on infrastructures. Road, Rails, Ports are infrastructures that limits the mobility of people. Zeppelin airships on the other hand can provide unlimited mobility with minimum impact to the environment.

It is very cost effective since the maintenance and construction of infrastructures can be avoided by using zeppelins. Thought for short distance some form of human or animal powered transport is enough.
---- URL removed by Admin

Ralf Wolbers says: I can only agree with Dan Frederiksen. On top if you look into the energy used to build that system and its infrastructure it is hard to tell if it is possible to steal that back out of the gas tanks of the cars running over it.

We need to lower the kinetic energy by lowering the average weight of the vehicle. We need to recover the energy instead of converting it into heat in the brake system.

John Armstrong says: Oh dear, need some school level physics here. It is as Dan Frederiksen says - if you make the car do work by pressing down a panel under the road, then that work has to be paid for by the car using more fuel. And because of the inefficiency of the engine you will use up more fuel energy than you get back in energy extracted from the road panel. So it isn't green energy at all, it would add to global warming.

martyn abrahams says: School level physics? It's obvious that inertia has not entered the quotient either, have you taken that into consideration- I don't think so. If you read my last statement you will see that I have something to say about speed bumps and stop lights, they are a fact of life.
My idea IS viable and can be utilized. As far as the braking system of the car goes it is compensated by inertia and mass. There is NO energy lost because the idea is not to have people brake suddenly when they hit the ramp. There is more to this than what you see or what I have given away as far as info is concerned

Wicky Terheijden says: It does not look to me that it is the intention to install the devices in free-flowing traffic. That could well cost more energy than can be generated.
But where traffic has to slow down (e.g. from 120 to 100 to 80 and even 50km/hr as is often required) motorists tend to free-wheel to the required speed. In those instances the devices could assist rather than hinder!
And that energy would be truly 'free'.
It is a creative idea with quite a lot of promise.

Lyle Cooper says: Following from Wicky, and in response to Dan. Maybe its more an issue of strategy and realism. Perhaps it would make more sense to locate the devices at places where the loss of energy would not hinder a vehicle, such as on downhills. Then any loss of energy would have no negative effect.
As for realism, Dan, not all vehicles have, or are likely to have, regenerative breaking, so solutions that attempt to make use of commited kinetic energy in a vehicle should be considered, if only on that merit.

Dan Frederiksen says: Martyn, I didn't mean it as an offense and I'm not some random bitter internet person that hates other people's ideas. And while I do have a much better idea that's quite irrelevant. My comments were honest and true irrespective of what ideas I might have instead. My assessment of the idea is absolutely accurate, there is no way this idea has merit. I'm sorry but it is the truth.
It's really very simple. The motion of the cars is not a free lunch, it's not a force of nature like the wind that you can just steal from. That motion has been paid for dearly with gasoline. Any energy you take out of their motion has been paid for 4 times over with CO2 into the atmosphere. the more you steal from them the more their engines have to work. There is absolutely no chance I could be wrong. Deal with it.

It's exactly the same as a dynamo head light on a bicycle. it makes it harder for you to pedal and you spend more energy and like the dynamo it's very wasteful.
I didn't overlook inertia. that aspect is covered in kinetic energy considerations and conservation of energy. I studied physics at the university.
if you care about the environment like I do you can look up 'conservation of energy'. it's a good general physics concept to understand that will enable you to come up with better ideas.

martyn abrahams says: I respect your opinion but it did come over as offensive and condescending.

Electric cars need electricity to drive them, what do you do with the batteries when they don't work anymore? Where do you get the electricity to drive them? And the rubber for the wheels? All this needs to be recycled- at what cost to the environment? How much different would that be to my idea?
And might I state that brakes on cars don't enter the quotient, this device is NOT designed for that purpose. Maybe the word speed bump is an inaccurate description? It more like a ramp. the energy "lost" is minimal.

I am using what we already have at our disposal- cars are NOT going anywhere very soon. I am merely using their momentum to create green energy. Otherwise as I stated before every hill, every speed bump and every stoplight should be done away with to get the "ideal" conditions for what you disagree on.
I does not really concern me if you studied physics, what makes you so sure that you are right? Again, have you tried my idea?

As for wind and solar energy- well, they are only possible under the perfect weather conditions and not at the beck and call of man. Traffic on the other hand is and is predictable. Plus my idea does not consume vast tracks of land and is almost invisible to the naked eye.

The concept is valid and sorry, I disagree with you 100%. There is more intricacies than just going to build a ramp. And whilst you may argue the point of a dynamo I would like to once again state that using what we have now is a better option than what we don't have right now.

As for coming up with a better idea- sorry, my idea is sound

martyn abrahams says: Hi, yes lets not forget the human factor. you get in your car to drive to the shops to get a pint of milk- you are wasting energy in the form of petrol. A lot of petrol. If my ramp stops 5 people from travelling on a road because of the small "inconvinience" how much energy have I helped save?
Just another way to look at it. so until lightning or anti-matter can be harnessed i don't think we stuck with much option- that includes me.

Graham Noel says: Hi everyone.

I agree with Martyn's rationale and comments as expressed in his various response columns above.

Just to clear something up, I am reacting here as the inventor and registered patent holder of 5 completely different products. I too have found that VERY often, certain people (lets call these people "pseudo-intellectuals, or PI's" as I like to paraphrase them) that are too close to the theory of something tend to overlook the practical, and try to dissuade one from pursuing a certain direction. Some of the greatest inventions the world has ever seen would not be here today if the inventor was put off by non-believers.

If we stopped to check every nook and cranny on the road, our life journey would take 20 life-times!!!!

I'm sure Martyn has developed the idea into some form of prototype and has done some preliminary cost-benefit analyses.

Entrepreneurs are born, not made. Its all about the "gut feel".

So, go for it Martyn!

Dan Frederiksen says: hehe sigh. what a world.

this might cheer you up: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/07/08/new-energy-to-test-motionpower-energy-generator-at-burger-king-d/

martyn abrahams says: It's a fantastic world! Maybe questioning your ideas and principles does not appeal to your ego but I went to look at the website- Great!
Firstly, maybe not original but that just blows your convictions out of the water Dan.
Secondly, Burger king? I was aiming much higher.
Like I originally stated in my profile, I am doing this for the fun, if it works great, if not well it was great taking part.

I personally would like the mature, experienced judge panel to decide whether my idea is viable or not.
After all it's for Europe- not America!

Dan Frederiksen says: :) I'm afraid it doesn't quite 'blow my conviction out of the water'.

I was right all along and I am still absolutely right. I was sort of hoping that the story would make you feel secure enough to objectively consider what I said.

As for judges, I am uniquely qualified to judge these matters but I've participated in some 6 similar competitions now and without exception the panel of judges have been entirely incompetent, ranging from blan bureaucrats to ridiculously stupid. I'd be surprised if even one on this panel has relevant technical background or understanding. They might very well be vacuous enough to find your idea worthy of praise. Heck, you might even win.

As for the burger king system, while it is misguided, at least they understand that it only has merit in places where people brake anyway and not just on the freeway. But like I said, even where people often brake it will not have merit because if we are going to have any chance of saving this world in its current state we will need electric cars and they have regenerative braking meaning they themselves recapture their kinetic energy while braking. so even any such burger king system would just be redundant and steal energy from the cars.

It is ironic that you who live in the first country to disappear under the sea choose to be so obtuse as to the correct path to stop this problem. I think I can say with some certainty that given the very progressed state of global warming combined with fantastic human stupidity, Holland will fall.
A 1-2 meter ocean rise is predicted in the next 90 years and because of the nature of global warming, even if we stopped CO2 emission entirely the effect would still continue for many years. The ocean will come and stronger storms will follow it

Jerry van Gessel says: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm

Read this, interesting

Kathryn Davies says: Apparently Sainsbury's in the UK use a similar system in their car parks. it's called a kinetic generator. It clearly works.

martyn abrahams says: Thank you Kathryn. I have three businesses which I built from the ground up with only savings to start off. they are all very successful.
I have never in the past listened to Idiots whose only claim to fame is their over-inflated ego and lack of perception. If I did I would not have been succesfull in having done what I have. If my idea is not original, well fine as I have said before it is fun to take part.
What I don't understand is where being "egotistical" and "vain" both fit into christianity, after all that's what you are aren't you dan?
As for 'obtuse' well.....it takes one to know one.

John Malan says: I do think you should consult a profesional with physics background, to iron out the finer details, because there is no such thing as free energy. and these proposed pressure pads require energy, energy generated from gasloline. They will also most probably require immediate maintenance should they become faulty, especially if the fault impedes traffic. This maintenance has its own energy usage implications. Great idea though!

Dan Frederiksen says: he already has consulted me with more than adequate physics understanding and the details to be ironed out in this case is an overthrow of known physics. it cannot work outside the limitations I have described. only where cars would otherwise brake and have no regenerative braking does it have merit and because we will need electric cars anyway the idea has no merit at all. this is not meant as an offense, simply as a matter of fact.
there is still no chance I could be wrong

Dan Frederiksen says: I could add that while the idea has unfortunate problems it is better than most of the others because it is a clearcut attempt to address the problem of clean energy and a good idea if not for the problem of where the energy comes from. That it's not original doesn't make it a bad idea.

Tom Miller says: Good to see some vigorous 'debate', things get much more interesting when peoples religions are called into question, but i digress

Sounds like a bloody good idea, if applied in the right situations the energy would be 'free'
The physics is all pretty straightforward, the pratical application and more importantly the economics will the be the issue

I think as replacement for speed bumps (big ramps) they could work well, although by design these reduce traffic volume, reducing effectiveness
at toll booths they could work well

traffic lights could work only if you could turn the ramps on and off with the red light
i see safety issues for applications at speed, particularly for light vehicles (bikes etc.), depending on the force required to depress the ramp

obviously, with the energy lost/gained being minimal regen braking would be preferred but this could get some energy back in the meantime

Franziska Schneider says: I am sooo with Dan. This is basic level physics. Slowing cars down that are driven with dirty CO2 emitting energy (oil-based) will make them consume more of this dirty fuel and emit more CO2. You don't win anything. Here is a simple illustration. There are 2 hills of exactly the same height. You are on the first one on your bicycle. You roll down the first hill, through the valley and as far up you can on the 2nd hill. Will you ever reach the top of that 2nd hill? No, because you lots some of that energy you had with wind resistance, contraction of the mechanical parts and traction. Without extra pedaling, you will not make it. If you had built in some of your turbines along the way, you would have to pedal even more to reach the top of that 2nd hill.

Also, Martyn, normal cars also need to be recycled - where does all the oil and btw the battery that any normal car also has go? 'normal' cars we have nowadays don't biodegrade.

Your argument of electric cars and batteries is a valid one, but if you consider the balance of using electricity made from renewables (which is the ideal we should strive for) against the recycling of the batteries, the electric car still wins. Just think of the environmental disaster created to produce oil.

Btw, if you haven't seen it, you need to watch 'Who killed the electric car' (on DVD or in 10 parts on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FDmmJm9vSA) - this will also tell you lots about why we still drive cars that use fuel instead of having migrated to this superb alternative years and years ago.

Jerry van Gessel says: If electric cars were to replace normal cars, then this idea is even better.