Our goal for this project is to design and implement a bicycle power generator for

the DC House Project. The DC House Project is an initiative to bring safe and
reliable power to the billions of people around the world without electricity. This
goal will be accomplished by designing a safe and sturdy human powered
stationary bicycle that produces DC energy. The DC power generated can be
stored via batteries and used by the local population to use for lights and other
utilities that many take for granted on a daily basis. Bicycle Power Generators are
not a new idea, with many created by hobbyist for residential use with small
scale energy in mind, to charge batteries in case of a power outage or natural
disaster. We are looking to expand upon these designs and build a DC generator
that will convert human power into electrical power. The objective is to build a
device that is safer and more power efficient. If our product design were to be
built and shipped to people across the globe, it would be imperative that it meets
all the safety specifications that any national commercial product entails.

Motor:
With a solid stand in place, a motor must be selected in order to create the DC power to supply the DC
Houses battery array. There are many options for the motor set up for the system. These include a DC
motor, a Generator, and an Alternator. We will look to connect the spinning back wheel directly to the
axel of motors rotor. The two options are to either have direct contact between the back wheel and
motor axel or to have a belt connect the two elements. It was decided early on to use a belt to connect
the two elements together. While a belt adds more complexity to the set up and makes the bike more
difficult to remove from the stand, it gives much more grip between the wheel and axel, reducing the
slippage losses between the two parts. If a direct connection was made the slippage losses could
increase dramatically depending on how the user was pedaling the bike and the external conditions at
the time, such as the stand being in a wet environment.
To connect the wheel to the motors axel, the bicycle tire and tube was removed. A belt that fit nicely
on the wheel rim was chosen and an axel head for the motor needed to fit the belt as well. The next
step was to determine the best motor to connect to the bike.
A simple DC motor was initially thought to be the best choice as the DC output of the motor was the
desired electrical output for the battery array. That meant components would not need to be created or
maintained to convert AC to DC and the losses from AC to DC could also be avoided in the system.
We searched for DC motors in common household appliances such as vacuums and ceiling fans, but
found no motors at the size we wanted for the scale of the bicycle system. The sizes were too small
and did not create enough voltage or current to output a substantial amount of power. While looking
into 27

buying a DC motor at a decent size and rating, it was found that the cost for such a motor would be
too expensive, and finding such motors in third world and developing countries, much less buying
them, would be out of the question for the scope of cost for this project.
Another motor option was using a car generator to produce the output DC voltage for our system. Car
generators are parts found on older models of cars before the 1960s. They are similar to alternators,
but produce DC voltage directly without a use of a converter like an alternator. This seemed a valid
choice as once again the losses from AC to DC conversion could be avoid; therefore, improving the
efficiency of the bicycle system. We looked for a car generator from an old car in order to test the
part; however, it soon became obvious that the part is very difficult to locate. There are very few cars
left that use car generators as opposed to car alternators and the ones that still exist are usually very
expensive or hard to find. When looking for a car generator from Los Angeles to as far north as
Bakersfield, we found no working car generators. The few that were located were rusted beyond the
repair we could provide. This was unfortunate because we were not able to compare a car alternator to
a car generator. It may have been in vein nevertheless, if it was that difficult to find a car generator in
California where supplies are very abundant, it could be even more difficult to locate internationally
in poorer areas. The cost of a car generator could also pose a problem as older car generators tend to
cost more due to their rarity and the components they utilize. Car generators use a component called a
commutator to rotate the motors fields, which makes the generators more costly and heavier. Due to
the increased expense and less availability compared to alternators, the car generator was ruled out for
the system design. 28

Alternator:
The last practical option to implement for the bicycle system was to use a standard car alternator. This
seems to be the most reasonable motor for the design, as car alternators are widely available
worldwide for relatively low costs when purchased as a used part. Finding donated alternators would
also be an easier task to reduce the projects overall cost. There are some difficulties however with an
alternator as opposed to other motor options. The first issue is the power loss due to conversion from
AC to DC voltage. Most alternators automatically convert AC to DC in the regulator of the part;
however, there is still the power loss in the alternator that will reduce the efficiency of the product and
waste some of the energy exerted by the user. Another major issue when using an alternator occurs at
the speed at which the part is operated. When a car is idling, the rpm of the motor can be seen in the
odometer. This value is usually around 600-700 rmps. Alternators usually run at a 3:1 rpm ratio due to
the diameter difference in the motor and alternator head. This means an alternator is more efficient at
speeds of 2000 rpms and higher[3]. We could never hope to achieve this speed even with a bike tire
being somewhere around a 10:1 ratio of the alternators head diameter. If a user was to pedal around a
reasonable 100 rpms the alternator would only be rotating around 1000 rpms; which is around half the
speed of an idling car. For our testing and bike design, we used a Ford 3G alternator. This part is
readily available as it was used in a majority of Fords cars for over a decade. Figure 5.8 shows the
current output on the various models of the 3G alternator based on the shafts RPM. 29

Figure 5.8: Output Current vs RPM for Ford 3G Alternators[3]

As you can see, no matter which model of the Ford 3G alternator used, the output current does not
begin to reach its maximum potential until around 3000-4000 rpms. Even though it would be
physically impossible, we would never want to run the alternator as such speed as the output current
would be much too high for the rated equipment used for the design.
There is one possible method to increase the current output at lower RPMs. This process would
require either the stator or rotor wiring to be rewrapped. The rewrapping of the stator or rotor would
have to be with thinner gauge wire in order to increase the number of turns. 30

Figure 5.9: Display of the field producing parts, stator and rotor[4]

From the Figure 5.9, you can see it is much easier to rewrap the rotor instead of the stator. The stator
is a complex number of wired loops set up in a particular order to produce an electromotive force
(EMF) when charged so the rotor can produce an electrical output. The difficulty with rewrapping the
rotor is trying to remove it from the finger poles. A more detailed picture of the rotor structure is
shown in Figure 5.10
Figure 5.10: Diagram of rotor assembly in alternators[13] 31

The finger poles on the rotor actually bend the magnetic field of the rotor around the shaft in order to
obtain the electromagnetic induction between the rotor and stator that produce the electrical power.
This process produces a voltage across a conductor moving through a magnetic field. In this cause, the
rotor moving through the stators magnetic field that causes the alternating current.
Once the finger poles and shaft are removed, the coil of the rotor can be rewound with thinner wire
more times. From Farradays equation, , we find that as N (number of turns) increases,
(electromagnetic force) increases proportionally[12]. With the higher EMF, we produce more power
from less rotor rotations. In other words, with a rewrapped rotor we can produce more power with
lower RPMs; however, this will not give the alternator any more power efficiency, it will only shift the
Output Current vs. RPM curve shown in Figure 5.8 to the left. While more current will be produced at
lower RPMs this is because the EMF is much bigger, which in turn will give the users another
problem, the EMF-produced resistance. An EMF in a motor is not a problem until you are the one
actually supplying the rotation of the shaft. A higher EMF means the user will experience a higher
resistance in their pedaling. This inductance hump of starting to pedal will tire the user greatly if a
full field is being produced by the stator. To resolve this issue a few different ideas were implemented
to reduce the pedaling resistance in the alternator. 32

DC Permanent Magnet Motor:

The first idea for deciding how to mitigate the EMF issue was to attach a DC motor into the belt
system between the back tire of the bike and the alternator head to produce a DC voltage to apply to
the stator. An alternator will not produce any current unless the stator has a sufficient voltage and
current to induce the EMF required to interact with the rotor. The greater the voltage on the stator, the
greater the EMF and resistance the user will encounter. If a large voltage was applied to the stator via
a battery or voltage supply, the EMF could be strong enough to keep some users from even starting to
pedal the bike, inhibiting them from producing any power. The DC motor hooked up to the same belt
as the alternator would be a good way to regulate the stators EMF depending on the pedaling speed of
the user. When the user is not pedaling, no DC voltage is being produced or provided to the stator of
the alternator. This means there will be no EMF resisting the user from starting the bike. As the user
begins to pedal more rapidly the DC motor will begin to produce a strong voltage to charge the EMF
of the stator. This means the strength of the field and resulting power output of the alternator would be
completely depend on the strength and speed of the user. This would allow smaller, less capable
individuals to still produce some small amount of power from the alternator opposed to none, and
stronger individuals would be able to avoid the initial EMF field and build pedaling momentum to
charge the EMF of the stator to its maximum strength and allow for a higher amount of power output
from the alternator for a longer amount of time. We received a small DC motor from a previous power
generating bike stand to try implementing the process on our design. In order for the DC motor to be
viable for our system, the motor would have to supply enough voltage to the stator in 33

order to start the charging of the alternator. The DC motor was tested individually in a motors lab to
determine the output power of the part. The motor was connected to an induction motor that was
controlled by a Variable Frequency Drive. With this VFD, the DC motor was tested at various RPMs
to determine the output current and voltage. We would want a maximum voltage of around 12V and a
maximum current around 1A to charge the stator and produce a strong EMF for the alternator. Once
the motor data was collected, it was clear that the DC motor we were using would not provide a strong
enough DC voltage to stator to induce the EMF at the operating RPMs of our system. Basically, the
user would have to pedal so quickly to induce the EMF of the alternator from the DC motor, that the
use of the motor to power the stator field is unreasonable.
Figure 5.11: Output Voltage vs. RPM of DC Motor

The method of using a DC motor as a field generator on the design is still feasible; however, it would
take a bigger and more expensive DC permanent magnet motor to implement, and the main goal of
this project is to keep the costs as low as 34

possible. So we determined the improvement of negating some issues of the EMF in the alternator
was not worth the cost of the DC motor.
Another way to possibly reduce the EMF of the alternator to allow for easier pedaling is simply
connecting in series a string of power resistors. This is the same technique used by car designers when
connecting the alternator.
Figure 5.12a: Wiring of Alternator[14] Figure 5.12b: Wiring of an Alternator in a Car[5]

Figure 5.12a shows that the field wire (green wire) is connected in series with a warning light, or
charge lamp, and a resistance in parallel with the lamp. This resistance needs to be determined quite
precisely. Too low of a resistance and the user would still have the issue of trying getting over the
induction hump of the electromotive force and 35

start pedaling the bike. Too high of a resistance, and the alternator would never turn itself on at low
RPMs expected from the users on the bike [6].
Figure 5.12b shows the standard wiring of our Ford 3G alternator in a car. From the highlighted blue
section in the top right, a resistance of around 550 seems to be the choice amount. Based off this
number, we tested in the lab the optimal resistance to connect in series with the field wire. We used
multiple 100 adjustable power resistors in parallel from the motors lab for testing. We found the
actual resistance needed on the field wire is much lower than the resistance used in a car. The
resistance for the field wire seemed the best balance for the EMF field of the alternator at 4-8 ohms.
The car uses a much higher resistance because the faster RPM of the car will be high enough to
induce the EMF in the alternator. The RPM rates a user would pedal at would not be fast enough to
induce the EMF of the alternator with such a high resistance on the field wire. More data on the field
resistance is shown in Test & Planning section as well as the Mounting & Wiring section.

Mounting & Wiring:

In order for the alternator to produce power, it must be securely fastened to the stand and connected
correctly to the bike and all other components. Alternators are very durable when connected correctly,
but if connected incorrectly the alternator can be destroyed very quickly and pose a serious injury
threat to everyone around the system.
To mount the alternator on the bike frame, two pieces of remaining 2 x3 wood can be used to secure
the alternator. The Ford 3G alternator has three mounting holes; two on one side and one on the other.
The alternator can be laid on top of the two cross sections of wood across the back of the bike stand.
The holes can then be marked and 36

drilled with a 3/8 bit. Three 3/8 3 bolts and screws can be used to then thread and secure the
alternator to the pieces of mounting wood. These cross pieces of wood can now be attached to the
back of the stand with remaining angle ties from the construction of the bike stand. It is recommended
to first attach the pulley belt from the back tire to the alternator head. Once they are connected, pull
the alternator and attached pieces of wood back until no slack is left in the belt. The belt must be tight
between the two mediums in order to reduce any belt slippage and slippage losses when the user
pedals. Once the belt is tight, mark the angle tie locations to connect the mounting wood pieces to the
bike stand firmly. A rough view of the mounting position can be viewed in Figure 5.13 and a view of
the connection between the alternator shaft and bicycle rim in Figure 5.14.
Figure 5.13: Mounting Alternator to Stand Figure Figure 5.14: Pulley Connection Between Alternator and Rim.

The direction in which the alternator is oriented to spin does not affect its output power. The
alternators rotor can be rotated either clockwise or counterclockwise and achieve the same output
values, as we found out by an initial setting up the alternator backwards.
Once the pulley belt is connected between the bikes back tire rim and alternator head, and the
alternator is mounted, the alternator must be wired to output DC power. 37

The three connections to be made, as shown in Figures 5.12, are the output wire, field wire, and
regulation wire. A simple battery charging connection is shown in Figure 5.15.
Figure 5.15: Battery Charging System Wiring.

In Figure 5.15, the alternator has three output wires labeled 1, 2, and BAT. The wire labeled BAT is
obviously the output of the alternator that is used to charge the battery or to power an external load
instantaneously. The wire labeled 1 is the field wire. The field wire feeds current and voltage into the
stator of the alternator to create an EMF to produce the output DC power as described earlier in the
report. A resistor and switch are placed in series between the alternator and battery. Both of these
components are used to protect the alternator. The switches purpose as stated by Eagle and Olding,
It is equally important perhaps even more so, actually that the field coil wire not be attached
directly to the batterys positive terminal. In a car, the field coil is connected to a switch, a small
warning light, and then the batterys positive terminal. The switch isolates 38

the battery from the field coil when not in use. This is important, as otherwise the battery will run
itself down powering the field coil when the alternator is not operating. Some kind of switch should
always be wired up in between the field connection and the battery.[6] The field will always pull
current and voltage from the battery, regardless of whether the alternator is running or not. Without a
disconnect, the battery would be dead before it is needed to excite the field when the alternator is
actually running. The resistor is used to protect the field from over-amperage that could damage lesser
quality alternators [6]. Without a resistor in series, the battery can output 14 volts and up to 6 amps to
the field. Not only will this amount of power into the field possibly damage the alternator, it will also
create a very large EMF that would make human pedaling of the rotor almost impossible due to the
great resistance. As stated earlier, too low of a resistance and the user would still have the issue of
trying getting over the induction hump of the high EMF and pedal the bike; too high of a
resistance, and the alternator would never turn itself on at low RPMs expected from the users on the
bike due to the low EMF[6]. The wire labeled 2 on the alternator diagram in Figure 5.15 is the
regulation wire. This wire is usually hooked up directly to the positive terminal of the battery. It
senses the voltage on the line and compares the output voltage to this sensed voltage. It creates a
feedback in the alternator controller that regulates the output of the alternator. One of the main
objectives of this project is to produce a 24 volt DC output to charge an array of batteries. This would
require a DC-DC converter at the back end of the alternator to produce this; however, it was
determined through testing that we could take advantage of the alternators regulation wire to output
24 volts directly. If the regulation wire is hooked up to a voltage source with the desired DC output,
the output of the alternator 39

will be regulated to this voltage source. This only goes to a certain point that the alternator is rated to
go. In our case, we were able to regulate the output up to 22V on the Ford 3G alternator. This is a
much cheaper and simpler option to obtaining a 24 volt DC output, rather than buying an expensive
DC-DC converter to accomplish the same goal.
In summary, the field wire of the battery must be connected to a certain resistance and switch to
protect the alternator, and battery and make human pedaling of an alternator possible. Also the
regulation wire can be used to manipulate the desired output voltage of the alternator up to a certain
voltage limited by the rating of the specific alternator. Finally, the alternator must be mounted in such
a way to both hold the alternator firmly, and create a strong tension between the alternator and back
wheel to avoid excess slippage losses. 40

VI. Integration & Testing:

Integration & Cost:
The integration process for this project is relatively simple and a majority of it has been covered in
detail in the design section. The first step of integration was securing the bike into a stable stand for
the system. Bikes are not easy objects to stabilize as they are very sleek and have no obvious places to
hold and secure. In order to find a way to secure the bike, the idea of placing pegs on the back of the
bike was found as the best solution. The pegs had to be cut so that the bolt was flush to its end
otherwise our axel did not offer enough thread to screw the pegs on. To hold the bicycle in the
designed wood stand, we installed common bicycle pegs so the rear axle would protrude outside of
the frame of the bicycle. Holes were then drilled into the wood and the pegs were inserted into the
drilled holes. The boards stranding upright containing the pegs were braced in all coordinate
directions. The stand was extended backwards to allow for motor mounting positions. This allowed
for any possible belt sizes; furthermore, for added safety a small brace was built for the front wheel so
that any torsion would not occur. The front wheel was rendered stationary.
Mounting the motor was the next part of the integration. This was relatively simple as two pieces of
2x 3 wood were tied to the frame and the alternator was bolted to the mounting wood accordingly.
The alternator had to be positioned at the right distant back from the bike to give a strong enough
tension on the belt to avoid excess slippage losses from pedaling. 41

The battery and resistors had to be wired and integrated with the alternator in order to complete a
system that could charge a battery according to the standards set in the requirement section of the
report.
Also stated in the requirement section of the report was the absolute necessity of the power generation
bike system being as cheap as possible in order for it to be financially viable for the DC House
project. Table 6.1 shows a list of various parts and equipment that were necessary for the completion
of our entire project.
Table 6.1: Estimated and Actual Costs of Project

The actual amount of money spent on this project was very low thanks to generous donations and
available equipment accessible to students at Cal Poly. The alternator and pulley belt were donated by
Howard Siewert, a mechanic in Northern California. The bicycle, battery, power resistor, and wires
were all equipment that was able to borrow from Cal Poly and Cal Poly students in order to test and
demonstrate our project. 42

While donations are possible and would be beneficial to the DC Houses success, an estimated cost
table was made to estimate the total cost of our design excluding any donations. All the estimated
costs were researched by calling local scrapyards, shops, and average prices from retailers during the
building process. The estimated cost is still within a respectable cost range of just over $200.00. The
cost is very respectable for the scope of the system with the majority of the cost due to the battery;
however, the battery is not an intrinsic cost of only our system, but rather the entire DC House project.
The battery array will be charged by the various other sustainable systems, and be considered split
cost between all DC House projects. This drops the total cost of the power generation bike system
even lower. 43

VII. Tests & Planning:

Planning:
The test plans for the power generating bike include laboratory testing and field testing. We had two
sizes of Ford 3G alternators available for the project: the 95 amp model and the 130 amp model. The
nominal current outputs for the two types can be seen in Figure 5.8. We used the 95 amp alternator in
laboratory testing and the 130 amp model was attached to the bike stand. The available DC motor was
also testing in the laboratory to determine its output characteristics based on RPM.
In order to be able to record accurate data for the alternator we decided to use an induction motor as a
prime-mover in the laboratory. The motor was run by a Variable Frequency Drive (VFD), which
allows for precise control over the RPM of the alternator in order to understand the outputting
characteristics of the motor based on the RPM. This also has the added benefit in we could measure
the input power and hence calculate the efficiency of our alternator. The basic bench set up to record
data for the 95 amp Ford 3G alternator is shown in Figure 7.1. The DC motor was testing in the same
manner as the alternator for laboratory testing.
Figure 7.1: Alternator Bench Setup 44

The testing in the field, with the bicycle setup, was less accurate but just as important of information.
The field setup was running the 130 amp alternator attached to the bicycle stand and wired to the
components accordingly to the wiring section. A simple bicycle RPM meter can be connected to the
back wheel of the bicycle. If you multiply the RPM measured by 10, we receive the approximate
RPM of the alternator shaft. This multiplication is the result of the 10:1 diameter ratio between the
bike wheel and alternator head. The bike diameter measured 24 inches while the alternator head
measured less than 2.5 inches, which gives us the said 10:1 ratio. The issue with running a field test
for the alternator current output is the difficulty of the peddler to hold a constant pedaling rate with the
varying EMF strength and other external conditions.

Testing:
The results of the alternator in the laboratory were very similar to the expected data for the 95 amp
Ford 3G alternator. There were two factors to determining the output of the alternator: the RPM and
the field resistance. The field resistance effect on the output current proved quite linear at high RPMs,
while at RPMs lower than 1200 a resistance about 10 ohms kills nearly all of the current output and a
resistance under 4 supplies an excess amount of current to the field. A resistance between 5-8 ohms
proved to be the optimal field resistance when in the human pedaling RPM rate, between 0-1500
RPM, which is much lower than a cars standard RPM rate.
The RPM of the alternator proved to be the more important of the two determining factors. The field
current, regardless of the current, generates no output power if the RPM rate is too low. We tested the
alternator through various RPM values 45

0
5
10
15
0
1000
2000
3000

Volts vs RPM
volts

with a 4 ohm field resistor attached. The data received and the calculated values of efficiency are
shown on Table 7.1.
Table 7.1: Output Current based on RPM for Ford 3G Alternator

The voltage vs. the RPM proves to be completely unchanging as expected, due to the regulation of the
alternators controller. The regulation wire was connected to the batterys positive terminal which
regulated the output voltage to 12.8 V, shown in Figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Voltage Output based on RPM of Ford 3G alternator

The current output vs. the RPM of the alternator is very similar to the expected data of shown in
Figure 4. The output current is minimum until around 1200 RPM. Once that RPM rate is surpassed,
the output current increases greatly. The resulting graph can be seen in Figure 7.3. 46

0
5
10
15
0
0
50
100
150
0

1000
2000
3000

Current vs RPM
Amps
1000
2000
3000

Watts vs RPM

Watts
Figure 7.3: Current
Output vs RPM

As stated before, an alternator is more efficient at higher a higher RPM. The idea to rewrap the rotor
or stator of the alternator with thinner wire could shift the curve in Figure 7.3 to the left, allowing for
more power output at the lower RPM expected from our power generation design. The output power
is just the multiplication of the output current and the regulated voltage. This can be seen in Figure
7.4.
Figure 7.4: Output Power vs RPM

The efficiency was calculated by dividing the output power by the input power recorded from the
VFD. The input power recorded may be incorrect as the labs power meters recorded a different input
power value than the VFD, so it is unsure which value was more accurate. The efficieny results are
shown in Figure 7.5. 47

0
10
20
30
40
0
1000
2000
3000

efficiency vs RPM
% efficiency

Figure 7.5: Efficiency of alternator vs RPM

From extensive testing with the system design, we received similar results from the laboratory data.
For the field testing, a 130 amp Ford 3G alternator was used. The curve from Figure 5.8 shows the
alternator produces higher currents at lower RPMs which seemed to be the case for testing.
A 7 ohm field resistor was used in field testing in order to allow for easier pedaling by the users.
When pedaling at an easy pace of about 1000 RPM at the alternator shaft, we were recieveing 14
volts regulated out and 1 to 1.5 amps. This gives a power output from 14-21 watts when pedaling at
an easy pace. A user was able to produce an RPM of 1500 at the alternator shaft, with 15 voltage at
around 3.4 amps. This gave a respectable 51 watts of power output; however, the pace would be hard
to sustain for any lenghty amount of time.
As shown early in the DC motor section in Figure 5.11, the output voltage vs RPM of the DC motor
proved to be linear. The current was low, never passing 1.5 amps. This power output of the DC motor
would not have been enough to charge the stator field of the alternator as previously desired. A larger
DC motor could have possibly supported the alternator field current at lower RPMs; however, the
cost of such a motor would not have been finacially viable. 48

VIII. Conclusion:
Through research and testing, this project aimed to design and implement a first phase of sustainable
energy resources for the DC House Project. The project goal was to supply a battery array with a 24
volt DC output. This goal had to be met within the constraints of a low production cost and high
safety. The project had to offer a durable product with relatively good efficiency. We believe we
accomplished this goal. The project results were conclusive with the alternator as an energy provider.
Alternators are great tool when running at a high RPM, but less efficient when running at a lower
RPM, like that provided by users pedaling the bike. There are many other options to explore to find
the most efficient way of producing DC power from a bicycle, but we believe modifying an
alternator is the most cost effective way to reach that goal. Unfortunately, the scope of time for our
project did not allow for rewiring an alternator to test for the power output improvements at lower
RPMs; however, we hope that students in the next phase of the DC House Project will be able to
offer their time to try this improvement, as well as other ideas. The bike stand and coupling between
bike and motor have room for improvement as well like to reduce torque and tension to the stand and
reduce slippage between the belt coupling. Further stress tests over a longer period of time would
also be beneficial in order to determine the actual average lifetime of our product, and if the cost of
production is worth the provided power within that lifetime.
Our greatest difficulty came with wiring the alternator correctly to run on our bike system. The field
resistor has to be set to a very specific resistance to find the perfect strength of the EMF in the
alternator to provide a high power output and low pedaling 49

resistance. More testing can be done in the motors laboratory to find this range of resistances based
on the generated RPM rate of the users.
The cost of the bike stand was relatively low compared to many other
sustainable energy sources. The cost is just about $200.00, when including a
new battery; however, when the battery cost is excluded, the system is closer to
$140.00 to produce. This cost would only decrease, if parts and equipment were
bought in higher quantities for mass production. We believe our design is a great
start in developing a low cost, low upkeep device that will allow power
production whenever the user desires. Without access to power anything we can
provide to the less fortunate people of the world will help. Our system along with
solar, wind, and hydroelectric systems will help provide power for DC House
users to run simple appliances like lights, medical equipment, and fans that so
many of us take for granted on a daily basis.