My first idea:
http://www.linear.com/product/LTC3588-1

I want to get the power to charge a phone battery in 24h.
May I do this?

I intend to leave this assembly at home and find the charged battery..........
Or it should be used next to a car that produces vibrations ........

 

Check these out.

 

I think that any technology effective at harvesting energy from vibrations would be more effective as a cure for vibrations than as an energy source. If you can remove any usable energy out of vibrations it will probably eliminate the vibration.

 

I think that any technology effective at harvesting energy from vibrations would be more effective as a cure for vibrations than as an energy source. If you can remove any usable energy out of vibrations it will probably eliminate the vibration.

No reason why both (energy harvesting and vibration dampening) can't be valuable. See the references from the link I previously provided. A roof made from shingles containing piezo material is not at all far-fetched in my view. Not here yet, but not far-fetched.

 

Seems a bit like catching snow flakes on your tongue to get a drink.

 

Seems a bit like catching snow flakes on your tongue to get a drink.

Yep. If you're too poor to pay for the electricity to charge a cell phone you're too poor to have one to begin with.

 

I think that any technology effective at harvesting energy from vibrations would be more effective as a cure for vibrations than as an energy source. If you can remove any usable energy out of vibrations it will probably eliminate the vibration.

The savings in energy and bearings will easily pay for the energy recovered. If you are putting it on a vehicle, the increased tire life of a better suspension and the sanity of the driver ( along with the wear on the bearings, and metal fatigue of other parts).

Stress cracking corrosion is way under estimated by most people. Every time sheet steel is stressed, the grain boundaries open up and chloride ion/water enters and corrosion begins.

 

Some engineers are planning on building a sidewalk with piezo's embedded in it. The thought is that when people walk on the sidewalk they'll be generating electrical power. While that is true, it's not entirely free energy. You might not notice it but it actually takes more work to walk across such a sidewalk. Why? Because if you've ever walked on the beach you know how much harder it is to walk in the soft sand. Wet sand is much better at distributing your force but it still takes more energy to walk on wet sand than it does on concrete. Ever ride a bicycle with under inflated tires? Or drive a car with low tire pressure? On a bike you will tire out more quickly riding on soft tires than you would on tires that are properly inflated. And gas mileage on low pressure tires will adversely affect your MPG.

In life - nothing is free. Even my opinion is costing someone something. Right now it's costing me time I could be designing a chase light circuit for my marble machine. There are four different effects I'm going for. The hardest one for me to figure out is how to chase a string of 10 LED's then pause for three times longer an off period than on. I'm figuring on using a couple DD FF's to control when the string lights up and when it doesn't. Bu that's my project. So at this point I'm not looking to hijack this thread, nor am I looking for any input on how to design my circuit.

Ciao.

 

Some engineers are planning on building a sidewalk with piezo's embedded in it. The thought is that when people walk on the sidewalk they'll be generating electrical power. While that is true, it's not entirely free energy. You might not notice it but it actually takes more work to walk across such a sidewalk. Why? Because if you've ever walked on the beach you know how much harder it is to walk in the soft sand. Wet sand is much better at distributing your force but it still takes more energy to walk on wet sand than it does on concrete. Ever ride a bicycle with under inflated tires? Or drive a car with low tire pressure? On a bike you will tire out more quickly riding on soft tires than you would on tires that are properly inflated. And gas mileage on low pressure tires will adversely affect your MPG.

In life - nothing is free. Even my opinion is costing someone something. Right now it's costing me time I could be designing a chase light circuit for my marble machine. There are four different effects I'm going for. The hardest one for me to figure out is how to chase a string of 10 LED's then pause for three times longer an off period than on. I'm figuring on using a couple DD FF's to control when the string lights up and when it doesn't. Bu that's my project. So at this point I'm not looking to hijack this thread, nor am I looking for any input on how to design my circuit.

Ciao.

Start a thread.

 

Start a thread.

Maybe later. If I need assistance.

 

Some engineers are planning on building a sidewalk with piezo's embedded in it. The thought is that when people walk on the sidewalk they'll be generating electrical power.

That concept has been reviewed and disproven for cost effectiveness on every level many times over now.
The reality is even with a huge area, like a shopping mall, that sees thousands of people on the go at any time during business hours the numbers work out of only a few KWH's a day being generated while the floor for such a place would cost millions to construct install and maintain.

All direct human effort based power production is and always will be dismally poor for the cost per KWH produced. Same with vibrational based power. unless you need microwatts of power its not likely that any source of vibration will be sufficient for powering normal consumer scale sized devices.

 

Seems a bit like catching snow flakes on your tongue to get a drink.

No. That analogy is not a good one because it relies on one mouth to catch enough snow flakes on one tongue to get a drink for one person. The applications being investigated don't fit your folksy expression of pessimism.

The principle is, as you well know, very different and relies on the idea that a small amount of energy, "harvested" on its own, is not necessarily of much use but multiplied many times can be, potentially, of some use.

This is not pseudoscience, but you would need to take the time to try and understand what is being done - again see here or here for example.

I think it an exciting area that holds promise and continuing investigation is warranted.

On the other hand, if you have taken the time to try and understand what is being done and you still think it is ridiculous, you are entitled to such limitations and I respect that - just try not to walk off of the edge of the earth

 

No. That analogy is not a good one because it relies on one mouth to catch enough snow flakes on one tongue to get a drink for one person. The applications being investigated don't fit your folksy expression of pessimism.

The principle is, as you well know, very different and relies on the idea that a small amount of energy, "harvested" on its own, is not necessarily of much use but multiplied many times can be, potentially, of some use.

Sort of right but not really in practical realistic application terms. The problem is all of those tiny sources tend to be spread out over large areas which make harvesting and collecting all of that microscopic energy production into one location in a quantity that's usable on the normal macro scale (5 volt 1+ amp scale) way too complicated and costly to implement with any practicality.

Rather like using a huge funnel to catch enough snow flakes to fill a single person's mouth with enough water to do them any good. Sounds good in theory but in reality it's not all that practical to work with because the cost, complexity and size to make it practical in a real world application greatly outweighs the value of the end product.

Especially if it's something like electricity that can be had cheaply, to most often free, at the power requirements that recharging a cell phone would demand.

 

just try not to walk off of the edge of the earth

It's OK to disagree. Apparently we do. Accepted. It's also OK to explain why you disagree. But honestly, I don't care much for the snarky attitude. If you didn't intend to come across that way, well, that's how it came across to me.

The question in my mind is "How long would it take of collecting energy this way - to charge a cell phone in 24 hours - would require a whole lot of gathering capability. Just doesn't seem practical. I've seen it snow as much as 10 inches over night (where I live, other places certainly get more). 10 inches of snow in a glass would amount to 1, maybe 1 1/2 glasses (8 to 12 oz) of water. Depending on how wet the snow is of course, so don't call me out on that please. 12 oz of water per day isn't going to be enough. But sometimes I may use an example that may be exaggerated, like comparing energy of an ant to that of an elephant. The point wouldn't be a direct correlation between the two sizes as much as it would be a way of pointing out what I (me personally) perceive to be an obvious difference.

But you have your opinion just like everyone else has. As long as you present yourself with respect toward others I don't think anyone would take offense. Like I said, your comment came across to me (maybe not to others) as being somewhat denigrating.

 

It's OK to disagree. Apparently we do. Accepted. It's also OK to explain why you disagree. But honestly, I don't care much for the snarky attitude. If you didn't intend to come across that way, well, that's how it came across to me.

The question in my mind is "How long would it take of collecting energy this way - to charge a cell phone in 24 hours - would require a whole lot of gathering capability. Just doesn't seem practical. I've seen it snow as much as 10 inches over night (where I live, other places certainly get more). 10 inches of snow in a glass would amount to 1, maybe 1 1/2 glasses (8 to 12 oz) of water. Depending on how wet the snow is of course, so don't call me out on that please. 12 oz of water per day isn't going to be enough. But sometimes I may use an example that may be exaggerated, like comparing energy of an ant to that of an elephant. The point wouldn't be a direct correlation between the two sizes as much as it would be a way of pointing out what I (me personally) perceive to be an obvious difference.

But you have your opinion just like everyone else has. As long as you present yourself with respect toward others I don't think anyone would take offense. Like I said, your comment came across to me (maybe not to others) as being somewhat denigrating.

I read your response in its entirety and I believe I understand what you are communicating. Your analogy came across to me (not necessarily to everyone) as denigrating and not just somewhat denigrating. I don't much care for your narrow minded and intolerant view. But that is not how I originally responded to your comment.

I chose to make light of it and show you civility while still attempting to communicate a point - namely that the subject is being actively investigated and with some encouraging results.- take it as you will and we can move on.

We absolutely do not agree and I think that should be clear to everyone.

The OP's circuit was obviously not the issue I was addressing.

You want the last word? - be my guest. You want an apology from me? No.

 

Sort of right but not really in practical realistic application terms. The problem is all of those tiny sources tend to be spread out over large areas which make harvesting and collecting all of that microscopic energy production into one location in a quantity that's usable on the normal macro scale (5 volt 1+ amp scale) way too complicated and costly to implement with any practicality.

We will eventually find some use for this technology (you can get the same or more human sourced vibration energy from indoor PV) but for now it's early in the classic hype cycle.

 

We will eventually find some use for this technology (you can get the same or more human sourced vibration energy from indoor PV) but for now it's early in the classic hype cycle.

And some humans will be a far better source of vibration than others.

 

And some humans will be a far better source of vibration than others.

Are you watching “Baywatch” reruns again?

 

Are you watching “Baywatch” reruns again?

I was thinking more torward total mass than jiggle.

 

@Motanache If I offended you, my apologies. My snowflake comment was intended to show the futility of capturing sound vibrations. Apparently someone didn't like my comment.

Yes, it's doable, but on a grand scale. Impractical for all intents and purposes. But hey! Thomas Edison experimented thousands of times just to invent a light bulb. Don't give up just because someone thought your idea wasn't worth pursuing. Some laughed at Nicola Tesla. We're only now just beginning to understand the impact he might have had on our modern world.