We can't say we doubted that New Energy's MotionPower speed bump would actually be installed
at a New Jersey Burger King, but it's always refreshing to see a plan morph into reality. As of now, those in Hillside heading to have it their way will cruise over the kinetic energy harvester before retrieving their grub, which has the potential to create around 2,000 watts of electricity from a car hitting it at five miles per hour. As of now, the hump is simply there to test storage potential, but New Energy is hoping that the next generation of the tech could be placed at a variety of fast foot eateries, parking lots, toll booth plazas and anywhere else where folks need a little assistance in maintaining a sensible speed. Check out the read link for a plethora of shots, and feel free to splurge on a #4 combo today if you're in the area -- Ma Earth will thank you.
posted Sep 10th 2009 12:49AM
"has the potential to create around 2,000 watts of electricity"
Per bump or per year?
2000 watts = 2000 J/s
So it gives you 2 kilojoules of energy per second.
"2,000 watts of electricity from a car hitting it"
Per bump.
that's great physics!, but wrong answer.
If it is per bump, I can install it near my house/garage and bump it all day so I'll never going to have to pay for electricity again.
Not going to happen?
watts is energy over a period of time. something like kWh or joules or calories is a specific amount of energy. 2000 Watts is just something they write because it's easy for most people to relate to (30 light bulbs).
I read something else on this. It says "2,000 Watts of instantaneous energy". If that instant lasted a second, it'd generate 2,000J per bump. That's 1/2000th of a kWh. And a kWh cost about $0.10. So that's about 5 thousandths of a cent of electricity per bump.
The same article said in the drive through it gets about 250 bumps a day. So that's about 1/200th of a cent of electricity a day. Each year it generates about 2 cents of electricity.
Assuming it's about $1,000 to build and install it will pay for itself in 50,000 years, assuming it never needs repairs or wears out.
In short, it's a scam.
but, but its installed at a fast foot place, so it must be good!
True, its a scam, proving once again, Engadget should have an engineer on staff.
Green power is the new snake oil, get it while its hot suckas....
Furthermore, this is only "green" technology if they're implemented where there would be speedbumps anyways--otherwise you're just burning excess fuel to get over an unecessary bump that changes that chemical energy (in a rather inefficient manner) into electricity.
@ why not the LS2LS7?
Your math is wrong!
Assuming like you said 2000 watts over one second, which is just a guess.
2000 watts / 60 seconds / 60 minutes = 0.55555556 watt-hours * 250 bumps (your number)
= 138.89 watt-hours, which at 10 cents per kw-hour would equal 0.13889 cents in electricity.
So, to pay back $1000 it would only take 197 years and not 50,000 years!
Still sucks!
However with ten of them around the parking lot and drive-thru, using generation 3 models that harvest 3000 watts per bump and a high volume store with 400 bumps per device / per day, then we get....
3.33 kw/day
Why are they putting it in a drivethrough? Why not on a busy street to show the full (if any) potential of the invention?
You're right, I moved the decimal over two places (confused dollars and cents).
And someone else pointed out you get two bumps per car! It's up to a whopping $8 in electricity per year!
So it'll only take 125 years to pay for itself! What a steal!
You still do better to put the money in a bank account at 1% and then just buy electricity instead.
Of course, this is assuming that instant lasts 1s. There's a good chance the 2,000 was just a narrow peak on an oscilloscope and the total energy produced per bump is much less.
@Ghatid
Because you don't usually put a speed bump in the middle of a busy street...at least if you don't want a bunch of accidents.
Thanks for replies! Now I know I won't be getting a pressure pad near garage :)
I bet chavs over here would be happy when they go to hang out at BK/McDs in their crappy lowered cars that there wouldn't be a an actual bump to try get over so it's a perfect place for them to have a speed bump like this.
Now figure out the energy it takes to manufacture and install the thing, and you find a HUGE negative net energy savings. What's the opposite of green?
Way to go guys!
Doesn't this power just come out from the car's engine?
And if this thing sinks slightly into the road when the car drives over it, the car needs a tiny bit more power to get out of this "hole", slightly increasing its fuel consumption.
Because i hope you remember enough physics from school to know that energy can't just magically appear out of nothing.
In short this thing is equivalent to a very very slow petrol powered generator and the cost of what little power it makes gets passed on to the customers.
Studies done in belgium have shown that most fine dust (the stuff that's harmful) is released when cars go over speedbumps, and for cities that is a health concern due to high concentrations, but perhaps the people too lazy to even get out of the car and that dine at fastfood places care less.
And who gets the benifit of this power? McDonalds?
Benefit*
Burger King*
ugh
i wonder if i can put one of those on my street
sign me up for that! i could see how many stores and business could benefit from having these in their parking lots. at a place like costco with tons of traffic, i'm sure that would easily pay for itself. condo/apartment complexes could install them.
anyone know how much they cost?
thank you god, does this thing also work on fat BK connoisseurs like me?
Queue all the "...but my gas mileage!" comments in 3, 2, 1...
Too late! *look up ^^^
Yeah more like: +1 +2 +3....
*facepalm*
Conservation of energy still applies here. That cost is coming straight out of your gas mileage. Better only be in places where I'm slowing down or going slow, or guess who is gonna get pissed?
I've never noticed a drop in mpg from *A* speedbump, and if you're sitting with your car on ordering and then waiting for your food, you're not going to notice.
So no, I don't think anyone will be pissed, and I think you're an idiot for saying that.
FYI slowing down for a speed bump wastes energy.
And I think you're an idiot for not reading the whole comment.
nerdtalker's icon is a perfect representation of what the people who support this idea look like. If you'll support this, you might as well attach a windmill to your car. "I get half the gas mileage, but the windmill is providing enough energy to power my dashboard clock! I'm helping the environment!"
nerdtalker's right, and Sean clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
+1 and -1 respectively.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in a situation like a speed bump, one is already losing mileage anyways, and this is just taking some of that wasted force (applied to the suspension) and generating electricity. Though, granted, it still probably won't generate enough electricity to be fiscally viable.
The idea is that instead of you having to apply the brakes to slow down the bump will do it for you, converting the kinetic energy from your car into electricity rather than wasting it through the brakes. So basically your mileage is not affected, as your brakes would have had the same effect on it. Of course, this assumes that your car does not have regenerative braking and that you even have to use the brakes as opposed to, say, just slowing down in advance.
@Evinyatar
As far as I know... Braking doesn't affect mileage nearly as much as accelerating after slowing down. And that would happen whether or not one used brakes to slow down.
Braking itself might not affect your mileage but still appliying the gas before having to brake will. Better instead to let the car slow down for a period under friction without applying the gas.
You'd need to set them up for a one-way down-hill street.
What rooshma said.
conservation of energy requires that the energy to generate electricity for this speed bump must come from somewhere. that somewhere is your car, specifically, your mileage.
anytime you apply the brakes, you are converting your kinetic energy (which came from your gas mileage) into heat. In order to save gas, you want to minimize the amount of energy converted into heat, therefore, it IS excessive braking that reduces MPG.
You don't need to brake since you are already going slow, this is a burger king driveway not a highway as you might have surmised from the letters that comprise the bit above the comment section, plus it's freaking 5 yards from the counter, we can safely assume you are going slow already unless you use it as a shortcut during a police chase.
Yes, going over a speed bump does take energy away from a car.
But no, no one will *ever* notice the loss of MPG because of it.
Show me your data where going over a speed bump once a day per week created a noticeable loss in fuel economy.
"Ma Earth will thank you."
Sorry but creating 2000W of energy in an efficient way doesn't negate the fact that Burger King (and every other fast food joint) does tremendous damage to "Ma Earth" so that it may bring you that $1 burger. That probably won't stop them from trying to market this as an "eco friendly" move however.
I like fast foot!
What if it's just a fat person sprinting?...
Does it still work?
fat people don't sprint.
As a motorcyclist, I'd hate it if they installed this at tollbooth lanes, etc. Pretty much anywhere motorcycles would normally go. (Not the drive-thru lol) I can't imagine that this would be easy to ride over. It's metal for one, and it moves for two. Metallic surfaces are no fun on 2 wheels. Especially in the rain.
Wow. True, that hadn't occurred to me. Grip tape? seems you may have hit the nail that will seal the coffin on this. Or, get ur way to that BK on your bike ASAP. Wipe out, and sue the shit outa them.
Your on a motorcycle swerve around it. I always go to the side of speedbumps on mine.
You make a good point, but for those of us using two-wheeled vehicles without an internal combustion engine, BK has already said "Don't have it your way." That's right.: no bicycles in the drive-through at BK. It's company policy. There are no bike racks, either, but I'm guessing cyclists are a minority among the BK clientèle...
I just take my bike inside with me. If it's not a vehicle, it clearly shouldn't be parked outside.
You make a good point, but for those of us using two-wheeled vehicles without an internal combustion engine, BK has already said "Don't have it your way." That's right.: no bicycles in the drive-through at BK. It's company policy. There are no bike racks, either, but I'm guessing cyclists are a minority among the BK clientèle...
I just take my bike inside with me. If it's not a vehicle, it clearly shouldn't be parked outside.
Also, a Watt is not a unit of energy. You disappoint me, Engadget.