# Looking For High Output Alternators (cont)



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

There was a recent thread by this title which was locked yesterday. The OP described an alternator which he desired to find a source. In post #2 I gave him a reference web page which fit the bill to a T. Several other members also posted suggestions. The OP had stated it was for a range extender. One member inquired about the details and the OP replied and referenced a post he did on another forum. From this it was obvious that his intended application for the alternator was fitting for our special place: *Alternators, Free Energy, Perpetual Motion, Over Unity and all that... *http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/alternators-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html After all, the first word in the title is 'Alternators' and the context is people attempting to use alternators to power EVs, which is exactly what the OP intended.

Somehow the OP gets very upset about the suggestion from me that he study the referenced thread and starts going on about how his idea is not perpetual motion. For some reason, not stated exactly, he says recommendations are inappropriate. He then calls me names and demands the thread be closed.

Hey, I was just trying to help him. I was polite and offered suggestions. What gives? Another member gets on my case about being being a bully. All I did was answer his original question and then suggest a place where he could learn. What's wrong with that?


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Nothing wrong with that. He was misguided, somehow, An alternator, which is a device that will result in more drag to its input shaft than energy that will be provided through electrical output. Somewhere in there he thought he's going to end up 10% ahead rather than get the 70% or so output from what is being put into the alternator. He got all upset and bullied the forum and tried to claim it was coming from us. I disagree.

"I think you need to beat yourself in the head. I never claimed I was attempting to make anything operate continuously forever. My goal is simply to extend range, even if its only a 10% range increase. If my goal was actually perpetual motion, it wouldnt have anything to do with the question I initially asked in this post."

"somebody has a hard head."

Since he never once said that the source energy wasn't going to be from the existing electrical system or ending up going through the same input/output path that was existing the losses will be there and his attemps will fail. If he was planning on connecting that alternator to an ICE engine or something than things would make more sense but based on what he was saying, the answer is likely not an ICE engine source. If it was something different he would have saved himself the headache through discussion. The following statement is ambiguous at best but sounds much like his arrangement would be sourced from the drivetrain output which doesn't imply to me that there is any standalone engine.

"The application is for charging a battery. It will not be rotated directly by a motor....most likely a belt or chain arrangement harvesting rotational motion from a drive train."


----------



## kennybobby (Aug 10, 2012)

*Must have touched a nerve...*

That Brusa alternator that you recommended is quite a beast and did answer his OP, and i don't think you were bullying by suggesting he go review the alternator thread.

On the tesla forum the concept involved harvesting some of the freely available rotational motion from the road wheels to turn an alternator and charge a 2nd set of batteries, then charge the 1st pack while the 2nd set is running, and thereby extend the overall range of the EV by at least 10%. Screenshots of the calculatus even showed this to be feasible.

Over the past 30 years i have seen dozens of unfortunate patent holders and applicants struggling with the basic technical details to get their concepts working after sinking thousands of dollars of their life savings in the legal fees. In almost every case there was a fear that the secret aspects of the invention would be stolen, so the legal deals were made first before consulting with outside technical experts.

Just human nature--it is always difficult to accept constructive criticism of an idea when huge sums have been invested and you are personally at risk. But one way or another, either thru college or the school of hard knocks, an education is an expensive luxury.


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

The early posts were nothing but helpful, however in the end the OP was trying to get the thread back on topic, but there was nothing but a pissing match about how wrong he was for something he indirectly may have said. 

Sorry if you took offence to my comments they relate to the last half of the thread only, but I'm not sorry for making the comments, I believe they were accurate and warranted based on where the thread had gone.

Your advice in the first half was valuable and informative as usual.


----------



## TEV (Nov 25, 2011)

I never forgot this quote I learn in school :

" Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transforming. "


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

rwaudio said:


> The early posts were nothing but helpful, however in the end the OP was trying to get the thread back on topic, but there was nothing but a pissing match about how wrong he was for something he indirectly may have said. ....


While the sentiment behind your post was noble, it was pretty clear via context that the OP was, indeed, trolling for free energy (or lulz... or whatever...). To wit, there was this post from p1 of the now-closed thread:



RaySuave said:


> The application is for charging a battery. * It will not be rotated directly by a motor....most likely a belt or chain arrangement harvesting rotational motion from a drive train.* [bold mine]


Then there was this bit of context from a post of his on the TeslaMotorsClub forum:



RaySuave said:


> *The range extender utilizes an alternator driven by the existing drive train to charge the depleted battery of a dual EV battery bank.*..then switch to charging the other battery once it depletes. The switching process continues until both batteries have been depleted which results in the extended range. [bold mine]


Now it may seem like I am beating a dead horse here, but you more or less called me and major on the carpet for being bullies yet what we were actually doing - a bit cheekily, I'll admit - is trying to expose the OP for being yet another free energy wacko. If you think it is mean that major and I don't welcome those types with open arms, well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't bully people who are merely clueless, or even wrong; I do tend to put on the fighting gloves if someone thinks he/she can violate the laws of physics and then compounds the error by being obstreperous about it.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

*Freely available rotational motion*



kennybobby said:


> On the tesla forum the concept involved harvesting some of the freely available rotational motion from the road wheels to turn an alternator and charge a 2nd set of batteries, then charge the 1st pack while the 2nd set is running, and thereby extend the overall range of the EV by at least 10%. Screenshots of the calculatus even showed this to be feasible.


Screenshots of the calculations......so they have to be accurate, right 

Six screenshots, six calculated range improvements, as follows:

101.0%
61.3%
40.0%
492.7%
182.6%
102.8%

Yep, it does show extended EV range by at least 10%  This discussion needs to be ported to our special place


----------



## rwaudio (May 22, 2008)

Tesseract said:


> While the sentiment behind your post was noble, it was pretty clear via context that the OP was, indeed, trolling for free energy (or lulz... or whatever...). To wit, there was this post from p1 of the now-closed thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I don't disagree with the basis of what you guys were doing, it's more how this thread looks to people who both don't know you guys or what you were trying to achieve. This forum with the absence of characters like Ron is really quite a pleasant and friendly place for one that doesn't have as strict signup or posting requirements as many other forums. From an outside perspective I see this type of thing showing others (mainly new people) that this is what we're all about and what to do here. If they don't get a rise out of you they'll go away quietly. If he was a troll, your thread will just get him to bring in his buddies to play. The context from other forums may have filled in what I was missing, but there is always more than one way of interpreting things. Sorry if I insulted you guys, that was the furthest thing from my intent, I've learned so much from both of you and hold you in the highest regard.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

You can say it was only about recommending an alternator. And yes, I did that. But it often comes to much more than a simple component recommendation. It is better to understand the application to get the proper component. Just like a few weeks ago. A member wants reversing contactors for a PM motor. He is drafting the wiring diagram with the help of a senior member. Upon pressing for application information, I find that he is not reversing his motorcycle but wants to regenerate. Well, you don't reverse the motor to regenerate. So he doesn't need reversing contactors at all. See what I mean?

So information about the intended application for this guy's alternator is not superfluous when it comes to a machine recommendation. It is completely legitimate to inquire. 

Now, once the duck is out of the bag, so to speak, we see that he is a free energy nut or over unity wacko or maybe just an uninformed person who happened to skip that class in his 5 year engineering undergrad work. So do we just go along overlooking this obvious BS? I don't think so. I point him to our special place, which I am so glad we have. I rarely post there or even read it, but I do occasionally request a mod to reassign a thread or post there, like a recent one from mickey mouse. 

On the surface this may appear mean or harsh, so I try to do so politely. Others have a different tactic. But I have never met one of these free energy/over unity nut-jobs who didn't deserve it. If this particular guy would have come here first, we could have saved him the cost of that provisional patent application. Not sure I believe that he has one filed, but I guess there are lawyers low enough to take his money and file it for him.

I can't tell you how many great ideas I've shot down over my career. I know I hurt a lot of feelings. I don't derive pleasure from that. But I just tell the truth. And truth and reality often suck.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

I guess the only thing he did wrong (and triggered the answers he got) was the arrogant secrecy and tendency to hide what his real application idea was while he was asking for specific help. Someone could have thought that the application was something else (such as a series hybrid), but I guess the two oldtimers saw through that due to their experience in the free energy wackos. Of course, they _could_ have been wrong, but they were exactly right, so no harm done, quite the opposite.

I can tolerate stupid people when they are sincere. In real life I find myself explaining that no, you cannot put an alternator on the rear wheels or a windmill on the top of the car, but it's OK as long as these people will listen and accept that maybe there is a reason why it is not done that way.

But stupidity and arrogancy combined is a big no, especially when you add secrecy. The good thing is, these people most often ruin their own lives by investing all their money in some idiotic shit that many grade schoolers could have dismissed.

General rule of thumb should be, don't ask for help with component selection if you are not ready to give details about your application. Then don't whine if you get comments about your application. That's the greatest form of help. You should always question the whole application. I can think about many cases in which the main idea has been incorrect and then the process has been about bikeshedding the details, while all the technical details would have been solved by simply questioning the original idea. Such as in this case: it's easy, just forget the whole thing and you are done!


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

rwaudio said:


> ...From an outside perspective I see this type of thing showing others (mainly new people) that this is what we're all about and what to do here....


Again, I disagree*, mainly because the only new people who will find what major and I did "mean" are those who have similar delusions of violating the laws of physics, and if that scares them away, well... I'm ok with that. 

That said, I do have a wicked sarcastic streak which often rubs people the wrong way; I'm ok with that too, since anyone that gets hung up on the presentation while ignoring the facts at hand is not someone I want to waste a lot of time on, anyway.


* - entirely respectfully, of course, since you haven't tried to violate any laws of physics lately (not that I know of, anyway.


----------



## Siwastaja (Aug 1, 2012)

Tesseract said:


> That said, I do have a wicked sarcastic streak which often rubs people the wrong way; I'm ok with that too, since anyone that gets hung up on the presentation while ignoring the facts at hand is not someone I want to waste a lot of time on, anyway.


VERY well said - I think exactly the same way. I have never regretted my style in these cases. The time we have is limited so it's better to find people who are worth it, especially on the Internet. I don't want to be friends with every stranger I meet, so if idiots go away seeing my style, it's ok.

I have taken a step further that makes it even easier; I add people on my ignore list, most of the time without mentioning anything. And it's working pretty well - the forum on my screen looks much better than before I started doing this. I simply plonk people with negative contribution. But I admit this is a bit selfish, as I could use hours to correct their misunderstandings _for others_ (and receive negative reputation for that _because of my style,_ not content).


----------



## RaySuave (Mar 13, 2013)

major said:


> You can say it was only about recommending an alternator. And yes, I did that. But it often comes to much more than a simple component recommendation. It is better to understand the application to get the proper component.


This statement would be correct if I was actually seeking help for the over-all application or plan, but I wasnt. I specifically asked for a suggestion on an alternator and posted the exact type I was looking for. If I was seeking help or advice on completing the full application, I would have asked. This is the exact reason why I didnt feel that other forum didnt apply because my question had nothing to do with asking for advice on the idea. Even if I would have posted in the forum, seems like I would have eventually witnessed the same backlash.

There is no reason why you guys (Tesseract and major) would tell someone they need to be beat in the head with a stick and call names just because you dont agree with their efforts. So dont create a thread being upset, getting emotional with your panties in bunch at being called a bully because thats exactly what you guys were attempting to do. 

If you guys had a problem with my question or my application, why couldnt you just put me on an ignore list like a rational intelligent person which you claim to be. This is a feature I use a lot instead of replying in a thread explaining to someone why their crazy and need to be beat in the head with sticks. You two guys are taking this internet stuff way too seriously and may need to back away from the keyboard for a while if a complete random stranger on a message board will make you this upset.

I'd be surprised if the Admin of this site deemed you two as message board royalty and gave you the power to kick anyone out that you didnt approve of. I'm not surprised at all the folks who are showing you guys respect and taking your side because I see from the replies you have earned it from them and most likely have been a great help to them in their endeavors. But do realize, I wont be the last person posting in this forum trying to achieve range extension in this manner....hopefully you guys will act differently towards them or just put them on your ignore list.

Perpetual Motion LIVES!! ...lol


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

RaySuave said:


> This statement would be correct if I was actually seeking help for the over-all application or plan, but I wasnt. I specifically asked for a suggestion on an alternator and posted the exact type I was looking for. If I was seeking help or advice on completing the full application, I would have asked. This is the exact reason why I didnt feel that other forum didnt apply because my question had nothing to do with asking for advice on the idea. Even if I would have posted in the forum, seems like I would have eventually witnessed the same backlash.


Just like the member seeking the reversing contactors. He didn't think he needed more than a part number. But he was wrong. And inquiring about the application saved him time and money and perhaps extensive face surgery had he actually reversed his motor at speed on the bike.



RaySuave said:


> There is no reason why you guys (Tesseract and major) would tell someone they need to be beat in the head with a stick and call names just because you dont agree with their efforts. So dont create a thread being upset, getting emotional with your panties in bunch at being called a bully because thats exactly what you guys were attempting to do.


You incorrectly link Tesseract and myself together. We operate independently. I did not tell you beat yourself and did not call you names. I was polite.



RaySuave said:


> If you guys had a problem with my question or my application, why couldnt you just put me on an ignore list like a rational intelligent person which you claim to be. This is a feature I use a lot instead of replying in a thread explaining to someone why their crazy and need to be beat in the head with sticks. You two guys are taking this internet stuff way too seriously and may need to back away from the keyboard for a while if a complete random stranger on a message board will make you this upset.


You don't practice what you preach. You could have just ignored this thread which I started. But no, you chose to post here and tell me of my problems.



RaySuave said:


> I'd be surprised if the Admin of this site deemed you two as message board royalty and gave you the power to kick anyone out that you didnt approve of. I'm not surprised at all the folks who are showing you guys respect and taking your side because I see from the replies you have earned it from them and most likely have been a great help to them in their endeavors. But do realize, I wont be the last person posting in this forum trying to achieve range extension in this manner....hopefully you guys will act differently towards them or just put them on your ignore list.
> 
> Perpetual Motion LIVES!! ...lol


Yes, and this is why this board has the special place (a sticky thread) for free energy/over unity nut-jobs. All I was attempting to do was put BS in the proper place.


----------



## RaySuave (Mar 13, 2013)

major said:


> Just like the member seeking the reversing contactors. He didn't think he needed more than a part number. But he was wrong. And inquiring about the application saved him time and money and perhaps extensive face surgery had he actually reversed his motor at speed on the bike.


Your really reaching with that scenario, I dont see how that situation applies to me at all. When did I mention I was building anything? You should have just disagreed with the application, gave the reason why you disagree, and that would have been enough and perfectly OK. Stop forcing guidance on people who are not seeking or willing to accept it.



major said:


> You incorrectly link Tesseract and myself together. We operate independently. I did not tell you beat yourself and did not call you names. I was polite.


I agree you didnt call me names but insulting my education is far from being polite... You guys may operate independently but still make a good tag team.



major said:


> You don't practice what you preach. You could have just ignored this thread which I started. But no, you chose to post here and tell me of my problems.


I replied primarily because this thread is a continuation of the thread I started in which I'm still being called names among other things. I felt the need to defend myself.



major said:


> Yes, and this is why this board has the special place (a sticky thread) for free energy/over unity nut-jobs. All I was attempting to do was put BS in the proper place.


Your doing an excellent job at being polite...

If somebody knows Tesseract personally, give him a warm embrace when you see him, he most likely needs it.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

*First off, I realize you're not saying that this is perpetual motion* and that's not what you're looking for... and *I completely agree that it is NOT perpetual motion.* In order for that to be perpetual motion, you'd have to create as much power as you're using. You just want to create enough to give you 10% more in range.... but in order to do that, your system has to have efficiencies higher than 100%, aka a Gain. This is called overunity. 

I'm going to aproach this differently by going through the entire system, rather than just say it's not going to work. 

Disclaimer:
These numbers below are ballpark, but should be fairly in line with what you'd see in real life. *kWe* is electrical power, *kWm* is mechanical.


Lets say you have an EV (Tesla, Leaf, Whatever) and you measure *25kWe* going into the traction inverter from the batteries. Lets say the inverter is *95%* *efficient* while you're driving. You've now got *23.75kWe* going into the motor itself. 

Now lets say the motor is *90%* *efficient* in converting electrical to mechanical. You've now got *21.38kWm* of mechanical power coming out of the motor shaft.

Now, when you get through the drivetrain due to losses, and lets say that you're taking mechanical power off of the drivetrain at a point where you're *~95% efficient* from motor mechanical output to the generator shaft. Now, you're driving, right? So lets say we only want to use *10%* of that total output to drive the generator (otherwise you wouldn't move because the generator would be taking up all the power). *95% * 10% = 9.5%. *You've now got *2.03kWm* going into the generator shaft.

Now lets say your generator is *80% efficient* at turning rotational power into electrical power. You've now got *1.62kWe* going out of the generator to an inverter.

Now you need to boost the voltage/convert into pack voltage with that inverter. Lets say that efficiency is *95%. *You've now got ~*1.5kWe* going out of the inverter/booster into the battery pack. You are now putting *1.5kWe* into your battery.

That's not bad, 1.5kWe is extra power, right? 

But how much is needed from the battery to drive that generator? You have 2.03kW going into the generator shaft from the drivetrain. To get from the battery to the generator shaft, the power neets to come from the drivetrain (*95%*), from the traction motor (*90%*) and then from the inverter (*95%*). The power needed from the battery in order to get that 2.03kW into the generator is:

2.03kW / 0.95 = 2.14kWm
2.14kW / 0.90 = 2.37kWe
2.37kW / 0.95 = *2.5kWe*


*Remember that pesky little 1.5kW number from above?*


In order to get that* 1.5kWe* from the generator system into the battery, the vehicle has to use *2.5kWe* out of it's battery pack to power turn it. That means there's a LOSS of *1kWe* just because it's there.

That means you'd be better off not even having it there because it constitutes a LOSS of 1kw. It does NOTHING to help range, it actually uses up power.

In order to have a GAIN in range, you would need to have GAIN, rather than a LOSS in efficiency. I realize we're talking power, but power per unit time is energy, so that 1kw loss is 1kWh if driven at that same 25kW for one hour.

Lets say you get 300Wh/mile, and you get 100 miles range. To get 10% more range (110 miles), you'd need to put 3000Wh more back into the system. How can you get that when there's an overall loss in the system?

You can't.

*In order to get 3000Wh back into the battery, you need all of your efficiencies to be a number over 100%. *So if you used 25kWh for one hour, you would need 28kWh of energy to go into the pack in order to essentially get that extra 10 miles of range. That means you'd have a *GAIN of 28kWh/25kWh = 12%* for the overall system in order for any of this to work.

100% is what we consider "Unity" gain, and anything over that is called overunity.

112% gain is by definition, overunity.

*But it's not perpetual motion,* which I agree with. In order to get perpetual motion, you'd need to create all but 10% of that power (the percentage used for the generator). 90% of 25kW is 22.5kWe is going to driving, 2.5kWe is going to the generator. In order to generate 22.5kWe from a 2.5kWe generator input, you'd need the generator system to have a 900% gain.

Hope that helps.


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. The ONLY thing he needed from this forum is the part number of a 15,000 watt alternator that only takes 10hp to run. Simple. 

If you just gave him that surely he would have gone away happy


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

AmpEater said:


> You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. The ONLY thing he needed from this forum is the part number of a 15,000 watt alternator that only takes 10hp to run. Simple.
> 
> If you just gave him that surely he would have gone away happy


I'll take two.


----------



## RaySuave (Mar 13, 2013)

frodus said:


> *First off, I realize you're not saying that this is perpetual motion* and that's not what you're looking for... and *I completely agree that it is NOT perpetual motion.* In order for that to be perpetual motion, you'd have to create as much power as you're using. You just want to create enough to give you 10% more in range.... but in order to do that, your system has to have efficiencies higher than 100%, aka a Gain. This is called overunity.
> 
> I'm going to aproach this differently by going through the entire system, rather than just say it's not going to work.
> 
> ...


I really appreciate your explanations. I will have to take my time and change/convert the values to specifically reflect the components and system of the Model S to get a better picture of how my idea fits in regards to any amount of range extension or negative range. Also what your explanation does is help me identify specifically where the losses can be in the system since I know I haven't accounted for all them

When anyone says over unity, they immediately think about perpetual motion, I have seen these two terms being used interchangeably every where. I dont believe at all in perpetual motion because I do recognize eventually motion will stop if new energy isnt introduced in the system. With this being my opinion, I would never claim they should be beat in the head with a stick and try to banish them to some other place where I wont have to be in their presence anymore...


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Yeah, I think that's the problem. "Perpetual motion" and "overunity" are used interchangeably lots of places. I saw what you were trying to say though. I've been there too, and so have many many others.

The problem is, there can never be a gain in power from device input to it's output. Perpetual motion is actually a type of overunity, but it's overunity to the point it will also run itself forever. The reason perpetual motion doesn't work, is because overunity isn't possible to begin with. You can't ever get more power out of a device than you put in (over 100% efficiency AKA "gain"). In order to get an alternator generator to add range, is that you'd have to have at least one device in your system have a greater output power than its input.

So....

*While Perpetual Motion and Overunity are not the same thing (exactly), they have one thing in common with eachother...... Neither one of them is possible.*


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

RaySuave said:


> When anyone says over unity, they immediately think about perpetual motion, I have seen these two terms being used interchangeably every where. I dont believe at all in perpetual motion because I do recognize eventually motion will stop if new energy isnt introduced in the system. With this being my opinion, I would never claim they should be beat in the head with a stick and try to banish them to some other place where I wont have to be in their presence anymore...


I don't see any useful distinction between over unity and perpetual motion. If you can get any amount of over unity you can get perpetual motion. Actually perpetual motion is exactly unity so if such a thing were possible I would prefer over unity.

When you sit down and actually account for all the losses you should be applauded if you can manage to only reduce your range by 20%. That would be an excellent piece of engineering.

I doubt that anyone here wants someone to be beaten in the head. My own preference is that they understand the physics involved and give up the idea. I am fine with them actually trying to build their dream idea. Most people with these ideas have no idea how to build anything at all.

The most common question after "How far will it go?" and "How long does it take to charge?" is "Have you thought about putting an alternator on the drive shaft to charge the battery and extend the range?" There is nothing new here.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

O.K. I tried to be polite, but screw that. Anybody who believes in over unity or perpetual motion is an idiot and if that idiot has had an engineering education, it has failed miserably and deserves to be insulted. 

I, as starter of this thread, request it be locked and any further discussion on the subject be conducted in our special place: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...-free-energy-perpetual-motion-over-13449.html


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

AmpEater said:


> You guys are all looking at this the wrong way. The ONLY thing he needed from this forum is the part number of a 15,000 watt alternator that only takes 10hp to run. Simple.
> 
> If you just gave him that surely he would have gone away happy



Absolutely wonderful!
I will have as may as you can find
While we are at it have you got a spare Philosophers Stone?, Unicorn Eggs?


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Absolutely wonderful!
> I will have as may as you can find
> While we are at it have you got a spare Philosophers Stone?, Unicorn Eggs?


If you look at the numbers on his Tesla forum post this is the source of his confusion; he lists the output of the alternator at 14,xxx watts but the power required to run it to be 10 horsepower.

He never took physics. He doesn't know a horsepower is ~750 watts.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

AmpEater said:


> He never took physics. He doesn't know a horsepower is ~750 watts.





> Originally Posted by *RaySuave*
> _Also, I have been exposed to many areas of physics having went thru a 5 year engineering undergrad program._


Now AmpEater, he'll get mad that you have insulted his education. 



RaySuave said:


> ...insulting my education is far from being polite....


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_Also, I have been exposed to many areas of physics having went thru a 5 year engineering undergrad program.

__I have been exposed to many areas of physics

_I have been exposed to aeronautical engineering - (I was in an airplane once)_

having went thru a 5 year

_I was taught some English once - or was it physics??


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

major said:


> Now AmpEater, he'll get mad that you have insulted his education.


Oh crap. I'm in for it.

I simply ASSUMED he hadn't taken physics because he couldn't convert between horsepower and watts. I certainly didn't mean to call into question his competence at elementary conversions. 

I wonder if there would be less free energy nuts if our education system worked?


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

Personally, I applaud the efforts of Major and Tesseract to drive these fools away. The only thing I dislike about EVs is that they attract the lunatic fringe. These folks deligitimise the very real value EVs have and provide a lightning rod for criticism from those that wish to marginalize our efforts. Extending a warm welcome to them is self defeating. Good riddense!

---------------

Meanwhile, back at the secret lab, the mad scientist's tears of rage turn to maniacal laughter. "Those pathetic fools" he swears "I'll show them, then they'll be sorry. Oh yes, then I'll have my vengeance..."


----------

