Energy From Vibrations

JN writes "Now here's a nifty invention. What started off as a Small Business Innovation Research grant from the Navy to a MIT professor has turned out to become a great mechanism that harnesses running machines' minute vibrations into energy. The possibilities are limitless. Aside from the obvious, imagine the ultimate cellphone - one that charges the battery every time it rings/vibrates, hence promising extended talktimes, and giving operators all the more reasons to get their customers to use their devices. How cool is that? Do I see 3G applications with a vibrate() call mandatory every couple minutes? "

Indeed

[inertia187]

Reminds me of this [slashdot.org] article. But seriously, wouldn't the daily movement of the cell phone user also be useful? Granted, it's not as vigorous as the vibrate feature, but it has to account for something.

"Crud, I dropped my cell phone. But now I have ten more minutes of talk time! Gotta love solid state!"

Perpetual Motion?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now calling your phone charges it, huh?

ought to patent that.

Thermodynamics

[Psion]

Any energy captured from a vibration recovery system will unavoidably be less than the energy required to make the mechanism vibrate. Now capture of energy from externally generated vibrations would be useful...recharge your phone by placing it on top of a tower with a noisy fan.

Not perpetual motion

[Plastik]

This is a way to power small, low-power devices parasitically from the vibrations of a much larger engine. Actually very interesting.

I am no scientist...

[DrWhizBang]

but even I can figure out that cell phones are _not_ an application for this technology. This is talking about machines that vibrate anyways, and using the vibration as a means of reclaiming some of the energy expended throught the vibration. Cell/pager vibration will always require more energy to vibrate than they can reclaim unless the efficiency of this mechanism is greater than 100% (and unless my understanding of high school physics is wrong that is not possible.)

Can people read and understand articles before posting once in a while? Pretty please?

self recharging key fob

[LuxFX]

I had an idea kind of like this a while back, when I had to replace the little watch battery in the key fob for my car (the little remote-control that unlocks my doors). So instead of having to replace this battery, I thought it would be a good idea to make it a small rechargable battery. It would utilize the kinetic vibrations of the car, which would be transfered into electricity. Or to be more precise, inside the keyfob would be a tiny magnet on the end of a tiny spring. The vibrations would cause the spring to wave the magnet around, and the moving electromagnetic field would be transferred into electricity.

This would be especially efficient for the keyfobs that are part of the key structure themselves, so that they are directly connected to the steering column (as opposed to the ones that are simple part of the keychain and just dangle under the steering column)

And it's not like I'm claiming originality on this -- I got the idea from a tiny cell phone a friend brought back from Japan. It had no connectors on it to recharge the battery, but the recharger base would vibrate when the phone was set on it, and passed the electicity via electromagnetic fields.

Re:Indeed

[dev_sda]

That was my thinking, too. That sort of "recharge" has been available in wrist watches for some time (no winding necessary, your wrist movements do it). For a cell phone with small power needs, it would seem a simple thing to accomplish.

Its the same basic concept but the degree of difference between the levels of energy generated by the daily movements of a person compared to the power required by a cellphone is huge. The amount of 'vibration energy' you release on a daily basis would probably add 10 minutes of talk time to a low powered cell phone a day. I also like the submitter's misconception of general physics:

How cool is that? Do I see 3G applications with a vibrate() call mandatory every couple minutes?

Right. Energy for free! Unfortunately the mythical +100% efficiency machine has yet to be built (and never will). This technology only recovers percentages of energy lost due to machine inefficiency and friction. The day x amount of energy generates y amount of energy where y > x is the day the universe implodes.

Application in submarines

[FreshMeat-BWG]

So the Navy initially funded this research? Hmmm... So the tiny vibrations normally transmitted through the hull of the submarine as noise now gets converted into electrical energy with a by-product of dampening the vibrations? Very interesting. Not that they need the energy on a nuclear sub, but they definitely don't need the vibrations causing noise.

You're an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have figured out a way to more efficiently harness that loss of energy, or designed the engine with parts that better transfer kenetic energy

It's not a matter of not being able to reduce the vibration. It is the vibration of the V-twins that make people want to buy them.

Take away the vibration an no one will want to buy them.

For powering active RFID tags?

[Idou]

Subject title sums up my knowledge in these fields, so I will do everyone a favor and shut-up at this point.

Re:Indeed

[moonbender]

I don't think this will work, either, but I think your reasoning is a bit off. Obviously powering a cell phone won't work in the same way as those wrist watches work, but that's kind of the point: there's a new technology converting vibration into electrical energy. Those wrist watches do something similar, but in a different way (I'm studying CS not EE, I don't know any specifics).

There are vibrations to convert, not the ones the article refers to (which is fairly ridiculous) but rather the ones generated by carrying around your cell phone with you. The traditional, "wrist" way might not be able to tap that "source" of energy, but this new tech might.

Finally, this obviously could be used as an additional source of energy. There would still need to be a battery, and there could still be a charger to recharge the battery from mains power. So no constant moving required.

However, at least judging by the article, this still wouldn't work. Cell phones are designed to work with hardly any energy, but it does seem that this technology can only generate very minute amounts of energy, too - enough to power a sensor or an LED, but probably not enough to considerably prolongue a cell phones battery life. Certainly not enough to justify the added technology this would require.

Consider scale...and how about earthquakes?

[Mr. Underbridge]

The article is (I assume) about energy recovery/scavenging

Classic slashdot. You know, you could actually read the article and find out. You do go to berkeley.

the article poster just invented perpetual motion, arguing that the vibrator from the ringer could power the cellphone.

Well, he didn't imply "power," he stated "recover." As others have mentioned, any vibration recovered isn't giving you that tingly feeling that says your phone is going off. So nothing doing there, but Hemos isn't quite as daft as you think. (Insert ./ editor joke here)

What this article is really about (I feel like I'm making Cliff's Notes here for the science-deprived) is not recovering a significant proportion of power from a low-power device like a cell phone. It's about powering a milliwatt-draining device like a sensor off of, say, a megawatt-producing device like a nuclear reactor. This is actually kind of cool, since as the article states (for the literate among you), there are places with no light, no wiring, and a lot of vibrations where you might need power. So this has the chance to do some cool things - just don't expect it to actually extend the life of your cell phone or be a perpetual-motion machine.

On the interesting side, this would make a cool way to create non-powered earthquake sensors. When it gets a quake, it transmits its position and maybe have the power out proportional to power in. You could distribute hundreds of them and have a real-time quake sensor that might be better than triangulating.

Also, could be useful to track vehicles if you slap it on the chassis. Again, deploy once, no worries about going dead.

Re:What I don't understand...

[panurge]

Recently? Some Swiss railways have had regenerative braking for many years. Even had 3-phase overhead and track supply so that the energy could be fed straight back. Unfortunately you can't regenerative brake a pure combustion engine, unless you have a clever way of converting CO2 + water -> gas plus oxygen.

Re:This could be sweet.

[GRH]

I'm in the HVAC controls industry. Many sensors are required in ventilation systems (primarily air handlers) to control them properly. This is costly, not because of the cost of the sensor, but because of the wiring and conduit required to reach the sensor. We have little choice about the location of the sensor (it has to be able to do its job).

There has been talk of trying to build wireless sensors (some do exist) and actuators, but the killer is the power. It either needs to be brought in on wires or battery powered. Batteries are not very good because they don't last that long (these systems are designed to run for over 10 years) and some sensors are difficult to access.

So, this could be looked at as an enabling technology, in that it could allow wireless sensors to become practical (by running off the ductwork vibration).

In a mid-sized office building, the installation savings from this would be around $100k. Look around at how many buildings there are...

GRH

Re:Wow!

[GreyyGuy]

Big difference between getting some energy back during the braking process and getting back 100% or more then 100% of the original energy expended to get it up to speed.

This is awesome!

[eskwayrd]

Aside from all the comments regarding the lack of logic in the story submission, and all the sex-related gibes, I think this technology will prove itself immensely useful.

Since it is sensitive enough to generate power from the normal activity of ventilation systems, the advent of wearable computing devices will have a source of power that is relavent to when the devices are being used. This could be a real boon for animal biologists, since current tracking collars have fairly limited lifespans. But it's going to be a revolution for areas where power is hard to provide power, and you have irregular activity you want to measure/record.

Anywhere that is seismically active, either naturally, or in close proximity to rail lines, highways, etc. will be able to power gear to help make sense of activity in these regions: better earthquake predictions from sensors that communicate when activity occurs, but that are essentially 'distribute and forget'; orders of magnitude better targeting of activity because you can readily cover large amounts of geography via airdrop instead of sending crews into the field to install powered sites. Traffic sensors/guidance equipment that is embeddded into to the road surface.

If the hardware to capture power can readily be built into infrastructure, this could be highly benficial, for example, in oil drilling; you'd get data from the entire length of the bore. Or the space shuttle could harness many more sensors to measure strucural integrity because they wouldn't need to be wired. Or even smart tools that know when their working parts are experiencing significant stresses.

Very cool.

Re:"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws...

[Dunkalis]

Thermodynamics states that it is impossible. A quick summary: There is a constant amount of energy in the universe, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Now, if we had this mythical cell phone, and it rings, the phone is using the battery to make the ringer ring. Energy is always lost in a reaction (well, not exactly lost, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it is unrecoverable by the phone), and the conversion of the vibration of the ring to energy storable by the battery also "costs" energy. The energy used in the reaction is lost (converted to heat), and only a small bit is returned to the battery. It may extend battery life, but not lead to infinite talk time.

If I'm wrong, feel free to correct/flame/mod down.

Re:Indeed

[Raskolnk]

Based on my experience, I have a theory that the kinetic watch thing is an evil conspiracy. My wife bought me an expensive Citizen Eco-Drive watch. Ran great for a while, but eventually stopped. The guy from the store told me to put it under a lamp for the night to "recharge" WTF? So, I bring the watch back in to the shop, and they tell me they need to send it to Citizen to be serviced. Worked again, but a year later, same situation. It almost made me wonder if their Eco-Drive device (or whatever it was called) is actually a marketing term for "hidden watch battery that can only be replaced by the company."

Re:This could be sweet.

[slyxter]

If you use a battery to make a device vibrate, then harness that vibration to charge the battery, you will lose some charge. You won't lose as much as if you didn't have anything recharging the battery, but you will still lose power everytime. Otherwise, you would have a perpetual motion machine.

Re:This could be sweet.

[dasmegabyte]

More importantly...since energy can neither be created nor destroyed, doesn't this effectively reduce the vibrations themselves as well?

Which means other great things besides generating "free" energy...basically, it reduces the need for vibrational dampening systems, and reduces the overall wear and tear on a machine. Even if it's only a minute difference, it could have a profound effect on the reliability of machines from combustion engines to eletrical transformers, and possibly a reduction in transient EMF (due to induction in steel casings vibrating near a magenetic field) as well!

All these cool things actually lead me to believe that the idea doesn't work. It seems too good to be true...a little extra power, less maintenance and maybe even cleaner signals? Like Stewie said, "This is so good it HAS to be fattening."

Better Bicycle Lights

[Uzziel]

It would be so sweet to have a system of ultrabright LEDs powered by, or at least recharged by, a vibration-absorbing power supply. All the benefits of a bike magneto, none of the drag.

Re:This could be sweet.

[Matthaeus]

Getting OT, I know...

Those bulbs have a very discernable flicker (on the order of 60 Hz, I think) that gives me a blinding headache. So, even though they would save us electricity, I'm going to be running something with a little bit longer glow time... i.e. regular, glass-blown incandescent bulbs.

Re:This could be sweet.

[GospelHead821]

Not only the vibrations that are caused when you're walking around with the phone in your pocket, but the vibrations that you cause when you're speaking into the phone. Not all of the energy of your voice is being converted to electrical signal. If some of that could be recaptured and used to power the phone, that would be a good use for this technology. I can also see this sort of thing being popular in the novelty industry. Little devices that stick on top of your speakers that light up or spin or dance when the speaker's vibrating. And instead of requiring batteries, like early incarnations of such novelty devices, these power themselves.

Re:This could be sweet.

[shadowbearer]

Well, yes, it would reduce the vibrations - you are stealing kinetic energy from the system.

Your post made me wonder; take a finely engineered and balanced system like large turbines are; if we attach one of these devices and change the vibrations within the system, wouldn't there be a danger creating new harmonics not allowed for in the engineering design that could damage components? AFAIK most vibrations in mechnical systems are either modeled out or dealt with after the system is introduced. Wouldn't the addition of these devices on some systems require a thorough engineering remodeling?
I would imagine there would be limits to how much one could change the vibrational harmonics of an already developed system.

Be interesting to hear a mech. engr. view on this.

SB

Re:Windmills in the ducts

[Headius]

Any amount of drag created would outweigh the power generated. You're still converting mechanical energy into electrical, which nobody can do without loss. I thought about something similar way back when: attaching windmills to cars, so that when driving you generate your own electricity. Duh...windmills create drag and reduce the efficiency of the machine causing the wind, i.e. the car or the central air system, more than the amount of energy you could generate.

Now with that said, here's another one for you: Windmills changing the course of the planet. The energy generated from windmills has to come from somewhere. To say it's free energy ignores the fact that if the windmills weren't there, the energy would go to some other use, be it cooling the earth's surface, spreading pollen, mitigating weather differences. Enough windmills could conceivably remove enough energy from the weather system to have an effect, even if it was a small effect over a long time. Case in point: weather systems can vary drastically around large metropolitan areas that create wind tunnel and dead zone effects as opposed to forests that might stand very nearby.

Some people advocate wave-based power generation. The basic idea is that a floating series of rafts, connected by generators, would produce electrical power as waves caused them to flex. Another source of free power? No. Waves aren't simply there to be harnessed...they do a lot to keep the seas well mixed, and are one of the most powerful factors in our weather system. Every generator set placed on the ocean would effect wave formation, and ultimately, the rest of the world.

Even solar power doesn't produce magical free energy...more solar energy absorbed and used on the surface of the earth means less radiated back into space. The net energy content of the Earth increases as a result of solar power. The best solar panels get damned hot, and that heat has to go somewhere. Normally, a large potion of it is sent back into space. Covering the surface of the Earth with a blanket of black solar panels would create one hell of a heating problem. Yes, I know that more efficient solar panels would create electricity more efficiently, heating up less, but the end result is the same...that efficiently-generated energy has two side effects: less sunlight is reflected back at the sky, to either proceed on into space or come back down in another location, and that electricity ultimately is used to power inefficient electronics and machinery, producing heat that would not have otherwise been produced.

The greenhouse effect would have nothing on the effect of capturing 100% of the sun's radiation to run a bunch of noisy, heat-producing machines. Energy is never destroyed or created...merely transformed.

So, in the end, we're just doomed! Hurrah!

Or perhaps we could stop turning so damned much energy into heat and noise.

Food for thought!