« Congresscritters to Investigate ACORN — And Those Who Exposed It | Main | Khadaffy Loves Bammy »

This derision, despite the fact that those franchise SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS you harp on about could save very real $s by decreasing their energy bill? Yeah, screw them... who cares about small business - right?

Is there any idea since AD1200 that you ARE capable of recognizing as useful?

Go back to your cave and make fun of that newfanglesd 'fire' thing while you're at it. That'll NEVER catch on.

hmmmm, is this something I can tax without calling it a tax????

Hey lets all put propeller blades on the front of
our cars and capture the energy!!

physics 101
Friggin' idiots !

They dont mention the costs involved in installing this assinine thing vs. the amount of power it generates. If the thing was actually of economic benefit companies would be tripping over themselves to buy them. All they do is power one low wattage bulb - saw this on a TV news story several weeks back.

"The trick is collecting that energy and distributing it in a cost-effective way."

Hey ludite, suck it.

"The trick is collecting that energy and distributing it in a cost-effective way."

Yeah, thats always the problem with things like this.

Problem is that the power generation lasts only a fraction of second. Even if you had 1,000 cars a day that would only provide enough power for that location for 15 minutes. Hence the issue of cost effectiveness.

Ocean waves are constant yet the amount of power generated by that means is miniscule even today.

RE: Posted by: RepubsAreLuddites (RAL) at September 23, 2009 8:27 AM

Republicans are "Luddites"? Do you even know what the word means?

n the one hand, Leftie morons like RAL want you to believe that all Republican / Conservative pro-capitalist types are part of a vast petromilitary industrial complex conspiracy......then they call us "Luddites"?

You poor, deluded Letterman-Loving Lying Loopy Loony Lobotomized Leftist Low Life Liberals confuse obstructionism with our ability to understand such things as cost/benefit analysis.

This is typical of the Democratic / Socialist / Communist / Fascist / Liberal war on science and technology - projection, projection, projection.

Remember that we're the "Luddites" next time you come up with a scheme to wallow in your own composting feces and filth rather than use modern engineering and sanitation, you stupid Moonbat moron.

"How about if we completely line our highways with energy-producing speed bumps?"

Apparently you don't drive during rush hour. There's thousands of them. They create energy in the form of exasperated drivers raising their body and emotional temperatures, who wish for LAWS rockets mounted on their vehicles to clear the hamburger eating, text messaging, makeup puting-on morons-as-speed-bumps in the lanes ahead.
[/sarc]

Reminds me of those free energy scam that supposedly have machines that generate more power than they consume. Better World Technologies with Dennis Lee as head kook was one of the sillier ones.

Important announcement:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa

Even if they can get it to work it is not free energy, if I remember my 8th grade science class. The energy needed to get the car over the bump would use more gas than not going over the bump. Meaning it is still Petro Powered. Unless you expect people to just slam into the thing.

If it could be made free, then we would have had it years ago.

Bursts of power are pointless. Its like lightning bolts having huge amounts of power - trick is finding a way to capture, store and distribute it. The number of kilowatt hours this thing would produce is tiny. Its just another green scam company.

Nobody is clamiring for them to be installed this second, chimps.

The issue I have with anti-intellectual posts like this is your inability to understand that even though it may be of little value now (no doubt) it might someday lead to ... something useful.

You same assholes would have made fun of Marconi because his wireless has a very limited range... but I bet each and every one of you have a cell phone now, anf thinks it is pretty neat. Without the one, there is never the other.

So, do we deride and stop looking for clever new ideas, which appears to be your post's thrust?

Or do we do what America does best, and ENCOURAGE INNOVATION?

Stupid fucking republicans.

Actually, I don't think this is a bad idea. I also saw some young inventor come up with floor tiles for office buildings that worked much the same way.

The problem lefties have with most of these kinds of alternative energy inventions, is that they view them as a replacement, rather than a supplement.

As a supplement, I think they're a good idea. As a replacement, not so much.

Anti-intellectual? It doesnt matter how fast they are installed. Unless you repeal the laws of science these will never generate meaningful amounts of power. They claim it generates 2000 watts of power but fail to mention how long the power lasts - probably less than a tenth of second. So basically if it were hooked up to the restaraunt the lights would flicker on each time a car stopped on it then immediately go out. WTF is the point of that? Add to that the cost of installing these things it only gets worse. Against short burst of power is meaningless - to be cost effective you need constants sustained power generation. Unless you have 10 cars per second going thru it isnt going to do that.

This isnt innovative, its just plain stupid.

Nothing wrong with innovation, but it all depends on where it's aiming. People already beat me to the punch on how the biggest challenge of electric power systems is that there's no good way to store large amounts of energy. Thing like this might be clever little ideas, but, in practicality, no more useful than making a little LED circuit that lights up when a potted plant needs water.

I think if lefties want to give credibility to these kinds of alternative energy inventions, they need to find some popular company, willing to outfit an entire building with a combined variety of these kinds of inventions, that essentially gets that building off the grid.

If they really want to convince Republicans, they need to do the same to a government building, like a city hall. Those on the right would love it if taxpayers didn't have to pay for government energy.

Wind and solar arent cost effective for obvious reasons. Even with massive tax payer subsidies, they are the toys of the rich and limosine liberals.

And still nobody seems capable of seeing that even if these innovations are of limited value now, the simple act of thinking in new directions will someday lead to... USEFUL TECHNOLOGY.

Or, we can all do what VanHelsing does, and deride everything that is not immmediately implementable. So what if innovation made America great?

"We have to stop that right now, before people learn something new!"

Cram it. Seriously. Go back to your cave.

There are ways to store large amounts of power. The only problem is the libturd greenies don't want it to happen. Look at Kinzua dam, a small hydro electric generation dam in Pa. To store energy, they pump water uphill to a reservoir during the night, the use the water to drive the turbines during the day. Only problem is the uphill reservoir was a mountaintop that was explosively removed.

RaL, why didn't you end your post with your usual intellectual invective: "Dance monkeys, dance!"?

Afraid of invoking the wrath of the Race Machine?

There there ral you don't need to get your under roos all bunched up. Your rants are highly entertaining and onlt cement the opinion we aready have of moonbats: Moonbats love new things until the facts are presented to them.

Cart before the horse. It's like trying to figure out how effective the run and shoot offense is going to be when we're playing football in lunar colonies.

You might be able to dump that 2kW x ?ms into a bank of super capacitors, and bleed it off to maybe power the drive-thru intercom and some led lights on the menu. Unfortunately, the cost of all this is prohibitive for the benefit derived. It always will be. In other words, the electricity generated is so small and of such low quality, that to pay for the system by electricity savings will take longer than this system can possibly last, and you're never going to get much more out of it than they're getting now. Innovation or not, it's a crap idea.

RE: Posted by: RaL at September 23, 2009 9:07 AM

RaL just doesn't get it. No amount of "innovation" is going to get around the laws of physics.....which those of us who have technical / scientific / engineering backgrounds understand.

The same is true for the rules of economics. Over the life cycle of that device, it is very doubtful it will ever produce more energy than it cost to build, install, and maintain.

A lot of the "Alternative Energy" plans being touted right now are simply impractical. I recently worked on a solar energy project that involved installing awning-like structures with several hundred solar panels in the wasted space between the rows in a large parking lot. If it were not for the government subsidies being offered, the large upfront costs, long payback time, and life cycle considerations would have made it totally impractical, instead of just moderately impractical. Looks cool, though.

The best ideas (like the airplane, Marconi's wireless, electric power, etc.) were brought into being by private industry, and at a profit, too.

Meanwhile, the Letterman-Loving Looopy Loony Lobotomized Lying Liberal Lemming-Like Low Life Leftie Losers utterly reject clean and economically viable sources of energy such as nuclear and modern waste incineration.

Before you throw rocks at people and call them "Luddites" and such, maybe you should bone up on not only your vocabulary, but your understanding of science, technology, and physical laws.

Luddite - Indeed! HA!

Ahh that same old wonderful statement seen so often from those who fear any and all change:

"Unfortunately, the cost of all this is prohibitive for the benefit derived. It always will be."

Yeah, because you are sooo damn smart that you can see the future? Clearly nothing has ever, in earth's history, been a stupid unworkable idea that people kept working on, and working on, and working on... until one day, it WORKED. (Ever been on an airplane? (Are you aware that we do have newfangled 'flying machines' that didn't used to work when you were a kid, but do in fact work now?))

Guess there's no point in trying anything new, ever again, without first asking the least among us if THEY think it is a good idea?

*Dance, monkeys, dance* (who am I to ignore a specific request?)

(The laws of phisics, by the way, do not prevent this technology from working. Working efficiently? Working to great effect? Sure. Efficiencies would of course have to improve immeasurably, but this is generating kinetic energy from what is otherwise unused potential energy. Proving once again, that those who are not capable of seeing beyond what is immediately in front of them are... republicans, i guess.)

RE: Posted by: Anonymous at September 23, 2009 10:13 AM

OK, A##hole - since YOU seem to know so much, explain to us what is "new and innovative" about this?

I can even tell you where this idea came from.....and it's an old, old 1940s / 50s idea.

C'mon - the floor is yours. Explain to us what's different about this.

BTW, a much more useful and cost effective way to harness this wasted kinetic energy would be "regenerative braking", which is an old but viable technology - for the right kind of vehicle.

I have no problem with this. It appears that a private company is footing the bill. A privately-owned Burger King is using the prototype. Of the business owners I know, they wouldn't go for something like this if it didn't work AND save them money. Let this company innovate all they want - I won't ridicule them. But also let this company go under if they don't produce something that real business-owners will buy.

Now, if you want to start talking about government subsidies for these inventions, whole other ballgame.

TonyD: The best ideas (like the airplane, Marconi's wireless, electric power, etc.) were brought into being by private industry, and at a profit, too.
"

Sounds good... Just isn't actually true. (Are we surprised? Nope...)

DaVinci got public money when he was working on early designs for aircraft. (Many of the relevant the codices are online, as are many useful biographies relating to DaVinci's relationship with the ruling aristocracy... can we read?) So.. lemme guess... you were skipping over 500 years or so of development time and thinking about the modern aircraft industry in the West. At least it sorta makes sense... at least until you "know things".

Marconi's wireless (and Tesla's, too) were initially catastrophic fiduciary failures. But others took up the charge (pun not intended) and eventually they WERE both profitable and widespread. The government paid for much of that infrastructure, as well. (Oh, and Marconi got his funding in large part from... Mussolini. You saying that was not the government?) Come on.

Have any of you ever read a book not written by a FauxNews pundit?

Seriously.

NR gets it! hooray for one bright spot in the otherwise suffocating inrtellectual vacuum that is this blog!

I can see the parts of the future where the laws of physics and economics don't change, thereby limiting this thing to a crap idea. But then, I'm just an engineer with a lot of scientific training. I invent stuff myself, and have a pretty good sense what will work. Once again we've found one of those things. Oh yeah, did Leonardo actually leave the ground? Go back and work work work on your speed bump, maybe someday it'll... dawn on you.

And still nobody seems capable of seeing that even if these innovations are of limited value now, the simple act of thinking in new directions will someday lead to... USEFUL TECHNOLOGY.

Sure this could be true, but if they're not useful now, why should anyone invest in them? Do some more R & D, get these things working in a viable and productive manner, and more people will be willing to take a good look at them.

Prove to the public that they work, show them working in a real world setting.

Until then, they have little more value than Jason's magical Golden Fleece.

They have been trying to make solar viable for 40 years. 40 years later and its still a blip on the energy screen. The cost of a solar system to replace utility power for my house would be $20,000. I pay $500/yr to my utility company. It would take 40 years to pay for itself. Subsidies might cut that to 20 years but by then odds are most of the panels would need replacing as well as the huge bank of storage batteries that would need to be replaced every few years (anyone who owns a car knows all about the life of rechargable batteries).

Research money would be better spent developing nuclear fusion power (as opposed to fission which creates waste) or anti-matter power.

I am very much an anti-eco-kook, but this idea does make some sense, doesn't it?

When a driver brakes to slow a car down, he turns the kinetic energy of the car into heat energy in the brakes where the brake shoes grind against the drums (or the pads against the rotors). This is a "waste" of the energy that was consumed to get the car up to speed.

If you have a device that can slow the car down without braking (or with less braking) and convert the kinetic energy into usable electricity instead of heat, then you may have a win. It would also increase the lifetime of the driver's brake shoes and drums (or pads and rotors).

One important issue is that the system would have to be designed so that the car doesn't have to go over the same energy-trapping device when accelerating to leave. This would be a case of stealing from the car's engine to power the device, not a win.

Of course, you still have the usual challenges of how to efficiently store and make use of the energy so trapped.

An intriguing idea when you consider how much time we spend braking while driving and how many different places are reliable "slow down zones", like intersections.

"Research money would be better spent developing nuclear fusion power (as opposed to fission which creates waste) or anti-matter power. "

Although I totally agree, I think there are a few orders of magantude between the necessary research dollars involved in baby-bumps versus fusion power...

So now everytime we drive into McDonalds,Burger King,Carls Jr,Jack in the Box,KFC,Dairy Queen, we,ll produce engery?

Brilliant! Using a device to create free electricity (for the store), by stealing gas from the paying customer, at a store that cooks with natural gas! I'm psyched about this one.

RE: Posted by: Anonymous at September 23, 2009 10:27 AM

Anonymoose dodges the issues and responds with, "At least it sorta makes sense... at least until you "know things".

Exactly what sort of "things" do you know?

You string together a few unrelated "things" about DaVinci and Marconi. Granted, they did some pioneering work, but if you actually "kenw things" (as you say) and knew some of the history of science and technology, you would know that the story is a whole lot more interesting than all that.

Quit trying to beat everything into your liberal template and open your eyes.

Oh, and in response to your snide comment about 'our ability to se the future', Mr. Evilwrench hits the nail right on the head with: "I can see the parts of the future where the laws of physics and economics don't change, thereby limiting this thing to a crap idea. But then, I'm just an engineer with a lot of scientific training."

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your wishful thinking. I suggest you go invest money in this "speed bump" idea right now, and in a few years you'lll be laughing all the way to the bank.......right?

Right??

"Although I totally agree, I think there are a few orders of magantude[sic] between the necessary research dollars involved in baby-bumps versus fusion power..."

Can you quantitify the magnitude between research of super-conductivity and this rube goldberg machine?

Spurwing if you've eaten at the fastfood joints in this neck of the woods you would definately produce energy. Lots and lots of wind energy if you get my drift. :)

Ral and Anon are reacting in exactly the way we know they will. Having lost the debate about the efficacy of this invention, they switch the topic into an attack on the messenger.

Ral and Anon, it's part of good science to analyze the details. We know it's not cool and hip, though. It sure isn't fun to find out that your elders actually had the right idea when they invented the safest, cheapest and most efficient power generation method right after WWII.

It was unfounded fear of science that back-burnered nuclear power, which has never killed anybody in this country, ever. Today we could all be driving electric cars, no smoke, no cancer; but you guys prefer speed bump research.

I have a theory that radioactive oil will produce gasoline with double the current MPG......

I want funding to test my theory on Iraq.
Maybe Israel will help pay for this.

what about the plan to have cow farts drive windmills??
how come that has not gotten gov't funding for some R&D?????

TonyD95B

you can keep trying but anonymous is more into tying up a tiny part of your life as an expression of power leading to his only forum for any self worth.

for the most part you are 100% correct, and anony is just a nony...

eric was also correct in that technically this is a way to take a bit of power from the driver.

most lefty ideas of gathering energy really dont have any kind of accounting except for the most surface one.

for instance. solar cells dont even break even when you include the manufacturing costs and chemicals and all the other things you need to do to make em. oh, and the copious amounts of chlorine isnt good either.

put all of that together and they amount to nothing more than a very special kind of battery. where you recover the energy of manufacture duriong the 20 year lifetime through using solar energy to fund the recovery. (odd way to look at it, but its quite valid if you do a total accounting and know how polysilicon is made).

be that as it is, i still liked what you put down

Posted by: RaL at September 23, 2009 9:07 AM- "...You same assholes would have made fun of Marconi because his wireless has a very limited range..."

No. Due in part to the fact that, a communications equivalent of the Enviro-Stalinist, Eco-fruits of today, were not attempting to force the 1st world to refrain from other, more practical forms of conversing at the time, to satisfy an elitist religion's, marxist quest to combat some nebulous, natural catastrophe, in the name of a made up deity. Perhaps she would have been called, "Transmittia- Goddess of palaver".

Posted by: RaL at September 23, 2009 9:07 AM- "...So, do we deride and stop looking for clever new ideas?... Or do we do what America does best, and ENCOURAGE INNOVATION?"

What? Like this one? Already been done. It was called a treadmill.

A lot of the "Alternative Energy" plans being touted right now are simply impractical. I recently worked on a solar energy project that involved installing awning-like structures with several hundred solar panels in the wasted space between the rows in a large parking lot. If it were not for the government subsidies being offered, the large upfront costs, long payback time, and life cycle considerations would have made it totally impractical, instead of just moderately impractical. Looks cool, though.

RAL rants on and on about how we are naysayers, and would have been about some technology that didn't look promising back when it was first developed but has since caught on and become important.

I'm not even interested in debating whether or not it's an efficient or practical idea.

All I care about is not being forced to pay for it through my tax dollars. If some company wants to try to develop this using investor dollars, and some other company wants to give it a go with THEIR dollars, then more power to 'em. Lots of technologies got traction because some private-sector outfit was willing to give it a go.

If they want to spend their own money on it, it's perfectly OK with me. My only objection is to the US government subsidizing any of it, as they do with wind and solar. That has the effect of making a technology "practical" when it really wouldn't be able to stand on its own merits.

That, my friends, is a problem.

"Unfortunately, the cost of all this is prohibitive for the benefit derived. It always will be."

Aren't you idiots the ones who keep saying this about missile defense technology? The tech that's already had dozens of successful interceptor tests?

Piss off.