# 2 Basic Questions



## momono (May 3, 2008)

I would like to know if anybody has attempted to do either of the following for an EV conversion, because my research hasn't said anything about either so far, and they both seem theoretically possible - 

1) Use the plates to attach the conversion motor _directly_ to the vehicle's existing rear-wheel-drive shaft, and then use a switch or toggle housed in the old gear shift spot to control the forward and reverse functions of the motor directly without the use of a clutch or transmission. This would allow you to put the motor lower on the chassis, effectively where the clutch or tranny was, freeing up loads of weight and space for _batteries_!

and 

2) Using the existing braking systems in conjunction with electromagnetic coiling and embedding radially-placed ceramic magnets in a custom-machined brake drum, having the effect of a high-amperage generator sufficient to help recharge batteries during operation. I know others have suggested a similar thing and had it shot down because the belief is that a claw pole generator (that's what it's called, here's the patent) would create friction and slow down the drive train, effectively using more power to generate the power than you're getting back from it. In regard to attaching such a generator directly to the drive shaft or anywhere on the driving axle, I agree totally, but there's been little talk of using the forward momentum of the large vehicle in conjunction with the non-driving wheels (like the front of my truck, where the brakes are) to accomplish this. First off, I don't believe that radially-balanced ceramic magnets would create drag or extra friction in the context of the pre-existing brake drums or hubs, right next to the weight of the actual wheels, and what little there is might go to create extra centrifugal force for added forward momentum to counter the friction itself. The generational gain would be totally worth any extra friction, if there was any. Electromagnetic generation coiling in conjunction even with the existing brake pads, combined with a switch connected to the brakes (that would normally be going to a loud vaccuum pump), would activate the pad-coils as a magnet themselves causing the existing brake pads to clamp down on the magnetic drum. I'm not proposing a perpetual motion machine, just a way to gather back some of that forward momentum. If it makes you feel better, you could call them electromagnetic brakes with an added generation feature. 

If anybody has taken either of these approaches to electric vehicles so far whatsoever, as in actually done the physical work of building these things, I would appreciate any documentation on either failures or successes. If there exists no such physical test, I'll just have to build 'em. If you have any reason these two should not be wed, speak now or forever hold your pieces. 

Here's my baby:


I also intend to include 4 123-watt sharp solar panels on my tiltable top, to try and make up the gap between the generators and motor use and maybe even put it over the top. Also could charge it (though it'd take a day or so) during long road trips. Though it all might have to wait for more efficient solar panels that should be coming out within the year. For batteries I would use 16 of the Fullriver 200aH Deep Cycles (weather-proof, leak-proof, maintenance-free) - 8 under the hood, 8 under my bed. The thing also has a fridge that can run in 115VAC or 12VDC with propane support, a sink, and a little 2-burner propane stove, and AC outlets that could be used with an inverter to have power from your solar panels when parked for long periods.


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

You could do that and use it during braking only . It's not friction thats the trouble of using it all the time . It's the resistance from the magnetic fields when generating electricity . I remember when I was younger , I had a PM motor from an electric lawn mower . I had saved it to use on some project . When cleaning my storage area I grabbed the motor and gave it a spin . It wouldn't hardly turn at all . I started to throw it away thinking it had went bad sitting around . Then I noticed the black and red wires were touching . It wouldn't turn over cause it was trying to generate power (it self being the load) .I had to grab the shaft as hard as I could to turn it . Also forward momentum isn't free . It takes a lot of amps just to keep the car at the same speed . When you try to generate electricity it will start to slow the car so you push down more on the throttle and end up using more then you produce (no generator is 100% efficient) J.W. ps can I have the front fenders ? lol!


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

1) This is commonly called a Direct Drive setup. Its possible, but almost always used for a lightweight dragster/racer. When you choose a fixed ratio your top speed becomes limited by your motor speed, tire size and gear ratio.
Your torque is also limited depending on the gear ratio you choose. In lightweight cars you can get a good balance between torque and speed. With heavier vehicles you will need a transmission to get you good torque for acceleration (in lower gear) and a decent speed (in a higher gear)
The average transmission is less than 200 pounds. My TH-200-4R is about 184 with fluid, and its pretty big. Thats only about 2 batteries.

2) If you went with an AC motor system, or a Separately Excited (sepex) motor you could use regenerative braking using the drive motor and controller without any extra hardware.
Your idea seems a little complicated, but is possible. They would be electric brakes, and depending on how much charge the batteries could take, would be pretty effective at stopping the car.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

ww321q said:


> You could do that and use it during braking only . It's not friction thats the trouble of using it all the time . It's the resistance from the magnetic fields when generating electricity . I remember when I was younger , I had a PM motor from an electric lawn mower . I had saved it to use on some project . When cleaning my storage area I grabbed the motor and gave it a spin . It wouldn't hardly turn at all . I started to throw it away thinking it had went bad sitting around . Then I noticed the black and red wires were touching . It wouldn't turn over cause it was trying to generate power (it self being the load). I had to grab the shaft as hard as I could to turn it . Also forward momentum isn't free . It takes a lot of amps just to keep the car at the same speed . When you try to generate electricity it will start to slow the car so you push down more on the throttle and end up using more then you produce (no generator is 100% efficient) J.W. ps can I have the front fenders ? lol!


Thanks for the direct answer on that. I respect it all in practice, but I can't see how the generation of the electricity would cause any conflicting magnetic fields. On the actual drive shaft or axis of the motor I can understand, but these would be directly perpindicular to that and not related to any existing lines of force. If any magnetic field was created from the electrons beginning to move in the coils, I would think it would repel the 'magnetic drum' rather than attracting it, possibly creating even less friction? Reversing the flow, though, would cause them to clamp down, thus the braking. If you could tell me why, specifically, I can use these as magnetic brakes but somehow not use any of those spinning magnetics for generation, I would appreciate it. The same electrons and fields would be moving through the same places either way, so why wouldn't it work suddenly when the line is connected to a charging feed? Once again, I can understand why this wouldn't work and hasn't worked as a way to generate power within a motor itself, or even on the drive shaft, but I can't see how that applies to the movement of the front wheels which has nothing to do with the drive system.



MrCrabs said:


> 1) This is commonly called a Direct Drive setup. Its possible, but almost always used for a lightweight dragster/racer. When you choose a fixed ratio your top speed becomes limited by your motor speed, tire size and gear ratio.
> Your torque is also limited depending on the gear ratio you choose. In lightweight cars you can get a good balance between torque and speed. With heavier vehicles you will need a transmission to get you good torque for acceleration (in lower gear) and a decent speed (in a higher gear)
> The average transmission is less than 200 pounds. My TH-200-4R is about 184 with fluid, and its pretty big. Thats only about 2 batteries.
> 
> ...


So you're actually using an automatic transmission with your EV? That's the best news I've heard yet. How is it working for you? Did the plate from the conversion kit fit? What kind of vehicle do you have that in?

I was planning on fitting 8 batteries in the front and 8 in the back, but that can change to 6 and 10. 

Again, thanks for the replies! I quite love this stuff and I'm enjoying my research so far.


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

momono said:


> So you're actually using an automatic transmission with your EV? That sounds like good news. How is it working for you?


Ooops, I didn't mean in my EV, I haven't built my EV yet 
But I am planning on using an automatic in my Escort.
The TH200-4R is in my Buick Regal which is my current daily driver. I was just using it as a point of reference, because it is a big heavy car, with a big engine, but the transmission is still under 200 lbs.


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

It has nothing to do with friction . It's about generation of electricity . What ever kind of generator you use to produce it will consume more power then it will produce . Thats why I told you about the permanent magnet motor . Because it uses magnets for its field it will produce a load that you see with your own eyes and will do it at any rpm . And thats reason it works for brakes . When you put your wheel generators under an electrical load it will slow the car : J.W.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Thanks again. Why, though? If the generator uses more power than it generates, why do they attach them to wind and water turbines? It's the same principle, just attached to wheel hubs. I understand that putting energy back into it would make the brakes clamp down, I'm just wondering why letting the generation happen in the opposite direction would have the same effect and not the opposite? Now if you mean that the motor eventually still uses more power than you can generate from this kind of system, I totally agree with that - it wouldn't be perpetual, you'd need something to eventually fill the gap, but why wouldn't this work to greatly extend the battery life, or lower the margin between use and charge to the point where the gap could be covered by solar? Lead-wise, during charge mode there would be no power going into the coils, only coming out. If there's no friction from the conducting electromagnetics or anything that would actually slow down the spinning of the actual wheel hub, then I just can't see what the problem is! And once again, has anybody actually built it to see, or is this as far as all such ideas get because of theories? Again, these generators wouldn't be related to the drive system whatsoever except by charge to the batteries.



MrCrabs said:


> Ooops, I didn't mean in my EV, I haven't built my EV yet
> But I am planning on using an automatic in my Escort.
> The TH200-4R is in my Buick Regal which is my current daily driver. I was just using it as a point of reference, because it is a big heavy car, with a big engine, but the transmission is still under 200 lbs.


Oh okay sorry, that's why I ask these things lol. Still though, so it is possible to use an automatic in a conversion? Do you have any documentation on this? That would be quite promising.


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

> If the generator uses more power than it generates, why do they attach them to wind and water turbines


If you made the wind and had to pump the water it would be a loss to . 




> I understand that putting energy back into it would make the brakes clamp down


I'm not talking any thing about the brakes . This has nothing to do with mechanical brakes . It has to do with load . Electrical load on the generators in the wheels (your claw pole generators) . If things worked like your thinking . You could plug a generator into it self , give it a spin and it would keep running .J.W.


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

momono said:


> Thanks again. Why, though? If the generator uses more power than it generates, why do they attach them to wind and water turbines? It's the same principle, just attached to wheel hubs.


Cos the wind and water is a free source of energy. 
The wind and water provides the energy to turn those things.
The forward momentum of an EV is not free, it has to be paid for with amps

Probably the best way I can think to explain this is to remember when I was a kid and I had a wheel driven generator that ran the lights on my dragster pushbike (seriously showing my age here!!!)

Once you engaged the generator it got pretty darn hard to pedal the bike, and the novelty quickly wore off. Same applies to what your talking about.

Look at an alternator on a car. It puts a parasitic load on the engine, don't know how much for sure but if the belt gets at all loose that puppy will squeal like all hell wont it? So its under load.

Bottom line is this, You don't get anything for nothing, even re-gen only lets you recoup some of the energy you've invested in getting the car moving

If your still doubtful, by all means go ahead and prove me wrong, you will be a VERY rich man if you can do it.


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

DVR thank you !.........................J.W.


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

momono said:


> If there's no friction from the conducting electromagnetics or anything that would actually slow down the spinning of the actual wheel hub, then I just can't see what the problem is! And once again, has anybody actually built it to see, or is this as far as all such ideas get because of theories? Again, these generators wouldn't be related to the drive system whatsoever except by charge to the batteries.


When a wire moves thru a magnetic field, a current is generated.
A current moving thru a wire also creates a magnetic field. These 2 magnetic fields are attracted to each other, and slow down the rotation. This is the source of friction. 
They would definitely be related to the drive system. In a car 2 wheels are powered, and the other 2 wheels are along for the ride. If you slow down the 2 free-wheeling wheels, the 2 drive wheels must work harder to make up for it.





> Oh okay sorry, that's why I ask these things lol. Still though, so it is possible to use an automatic in a conversion? Do you have any documentation on this? That would be quite promising.


These 2 guys have websites of their conversions, and both are using automatic transmissions.
http://www.saabrina.blogspot.com/
http://civicity.blogspot.com/
There is another thread around here titled "The Reason automatic gearboxes wont work" which discusses the issues when using an automatic.
The major problem is getting the motor to idle at a low speed to keep pressure in the automatic. However if you do idle the motor, you can use the second end of the motor to run a power steering and AC compressor.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Taking all that as given, I can appreciate that there will be current flowing through the coiling creating a magnetic field, but couldn't you make it flow in such a way as to actually repel the ceramic magnet hub reducing friction rather than creating attraction that increases it?


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

I don't think anybody here is saying it wont work.

It's just that the cost's amp-wise will outweigh the benifits. It will just cost you more amps than you will make out of the whole deal

It's all about efficiencies.Spend 1 amp in powering it and the losses caused by the magnetic loads will cause you to get less than 1 amp out.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Thanks for all the knowledge so far. Yours was probably the most straightforward to answering my question... I think I'm gonna get some cow magnets, duct tape and garbage pan lids and try this out on a bike hub, lol. I'll spin the one with the generator, and then one without, and see which one slows down soonest and how soon.


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

momono said:


> Taking all that as given, I can appreciate that there will be current flowing through the coiling creating a magnetic field, but couldn't you make it flow in such a way as to actually repel the ceramic magnet hub reducing friction rather than creating attraction that increases it?


There is no friction ! Friction is not what you are trying to over come . It takes one bucket of power to produce 9/10 (or less)bucket of electricity 
bucket= 1 hp= 746watts . No mater where you put the magnets or the coils in whatever shape or fashion that is still true . J.W.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

ww321q said:


> There is no friction ! Friction is not what you are trying to over come . It takes one bucket of power to produce 9/10 (or less)bucket of electricity
> bucket= 1 hp= 746watts . No mater where you put the magnets or the coils in whatever shape or fashion that is still true . J.W.


Wait a second... if there is no friction, then what's the problem with using the generator? Even if I only get 9/10 of the return despite any generated friction, that's what I _want_ to do - it's still better than putting in so much of that precious power and making no attempt whatsoever to get it back.

If magnetic interference and glomming created by the coils is that much of an issue, however, I admit that is a problem, but I just thought of something that might counter that... Let's say if I alternated the poles of the magnets as they went around the hub, versus as before where I was thinking of putting them either all (-) or all (+) on the in and out respectively, essentially creating in the coils an alternating current. Would this counteract the attraction force or help maintain neutrality as the thing spun enough to keep it from magnetically glomming? That might work out splendidly since the charge line could be essentially plugged back into your charger (provided you don't have a shutoff that kills the car when and if you are recieving charge). If you have an AC motor like many of you are suggesting, well then hooligan daisies that's your man.

You guys are warrior poets, I am enjoying your tales of childhood frustrations along these lines. It's totally logical why that should happen, but there has to be some way to beat this! Since this is my thread, and since crossing this particular hurdle might be the biggest milestone in the history of EV technology, let's initiate a mindmeld here and get this'n licked and split. C'mon!


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

momono!
About magnet polarity: Atleast you start think in the right direction.
You HAVE to alternate the south and north(+,-). It's the change of flux that
forces those electrons to move in the wire. If the same polarity was facing the coil after the initial spin up(from nothing to one pole) there would be nothing (useful)generated. Now you probably going to come back with:
But in a DC motor the magnets are not "changing" and it makes power!
Thats because the winding direction of the rotating coils changes wether
phisically or by the means of the commutator and brushes.(wich act like
the rectifier diodes needed to make DC from an AC alternator).
Besides the mentioned losses there are other losses like cogging(play with a 
small DC motor and feel it. it's in any motor or generator with iron in it) and Eddy current(A serious "drag" between any kind of magnetic field and any conductive material even non magnetic!!!!) All this is not just theory.
I have a 7/8"x7/8" cylinder shaped strong magnet,and a 14" long aluminium
tube.When I throw the magnet down the tube it takes over five seconds for it to fall through and it's not touching the wall! Sorry we can't cheat phisics.
Like others said please build a small scale proof of concept to find out for 
your self. I promise you gonna have fun doing it and learn a lot.(lot of us did)
Barna.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Its not friction its electro-magnetic torque which acts in the opposite direction to the rotation. It is the same force that is making your motor run but in this case (in order to generate power) the poles are reversed and the torque is in the opposite direction. When the generator makes amps those amps act in the same way that they do in a motor and cause torque which tries to slow down the generator. This torque always acts in the opposite direction to the way the motor is turning i.e. it always tries to slow the motor down. The force of the magnets induces a current in the coils which induces a negative force back on the magnets. Unless you keep pushing the generator, that negative force will slow the car down.

So it is sort of like friction in that it only ever works against us and not for us. You may as well ask us how you can get friction to work the other way to push you along instead of slow you down but it doesn't work that way.

The problem is not making up for the little bit of energy you lose in the generator, the problem is the car is still using all the power it normally used to power the car in the first place, whether you have a generator or not, so the batteries still empty themselves.

Also 10Ah batteries won't be enought to get very far at all, i'd suggest much higher if you want a decent range (150Ah+).


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

mattW said:


> Its not friction its electro-magnetic torque which acts in the opposite direction to the rotation. It is the same force that is making your motor run but in this case (in order to generate power) the poles are reversed and the torque is in the opposite direction. When the generator makes amps those amps act in the same way that they do in a motor and cause torque which tries to slow down the generator. This torque always acts in the opposite direction to the way the motor is turning i.e. it always tries to slow the motor down. The force of the magnets induces a current in the coils which induces a negative force back on the magnets. Unless you keep pushing the generator, that negative force will slow the car down.


I understand all of that, understood it since it was first mentioned, and I've considered it and wondered about it in my original designs. What you're describing is essentially how the electromagnetic brakes I suggested along with this would work, so that is well known to me. That would be one direction of flow of current - generation would be another. Logically one does cause the coils to clamp down on the hub, or create significant negative force to stop it magnetically without clamping. Ipso facto, if the current is flowing the other way as in generation mode... Still it's definitely a worry, something that had stood out in my thoughts, and it's good to have that fear confirmed because now it can be worked with out in the open. Magnetic torque or drag as you and others have described here is an obvious problem (and that's mostly what I've meant by friction when I've said that), but there has to be some way to calibrate it so that negative is negated. I realize that might be no easy task, but nothing's impossible...



> So it is sort of like friction in that it only ever works against us and not for us. You may as well ask us how you can get friction to work the other way to push you along instead of slow you down but it doesn't work that way.
> 
> The problem is not making up for the little bit of energy you lose in the generator, the problem is the car is still using all the power it normally used to power the car in the first place, whether you have a generator or not, so the batteries still empty themselves.
> 
> Also 10Ah batteries won't be enought to get very far at all, i'd suggest much higher if you want a decent range (150Ah+).


I'm well aware of that, I know efficiency wouldn't be 100% and from the get-go I said I'm not trying to create a perpetual motion machine. But even if I make back 70-80% of the power, despite any negative magnetic force (if I can't negate it that is), I'll be a happy man, and very rich according to DVR. (Thanks for the inspiration, but I really care less about money than I do about roaming throughout the country totally free. )All the other interference, frictions, magnetic wobbling, granted. I know there will be losses and I'll never get more from it than I put in, I understand that. But if I can improve the battery life that much it will still be an accomplishment. Also, the way I planned to make up the power loss would probably be from solar cells. Depending on how short I can make the gap between generation and drive, I could use 4 123-watt panels which fit perfectly on my flat rooftop in a series, lay my own panel with some of these beauties, or wait another year for that new germanium wafer tech. to come out. The thing could still charge on AC too - and since it's an RV, I already have a handy port.

I will totally make a miniature proof of concept and I'll put the video up on youtube and link it here, how's that? If I can prove the generation principle I'm shooting for, I might be able to get funding for the bigger version.. 

Thanks again for all the input so far, it's good to hear from experience when it's speaking. If I was any less thick-headed I'd probably throw in the towel on this idea, but I still think it's worth exploring. I must seem like a lost duck to you guys, quacking my head off. Thanks for the bit about the batteries too. Can you suggest some that would do the trick? Preferrably as low-maintenance and weather/leak-proof as possible.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Ok imagine your city's dam or water reserve. The water goes out to all the people in the city and gets drunk by the people in the city. This is the same as our cars battery pack sending current to the motor where the energy is used up overcoming the wind and rolling resistance. Your generator would be like having a pump that siphons off some of the water from the dam, not the water that goes to the people but an additional load, and puts 90% back in the top again. It wouldn't do anything to fill up the dam or help at all with the intended use (drinking) it would just empty the dam faster. 

It would be great if you were to make up a small scale model, go right ahead.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

That's a brilliant analogy! Well done. Now if I had a claw pole generator on the driveshaft or somewhere in the vicinity or axis of the motor, I would agree that that 90% might come out before it goes to the people. But what I'm suggesting is using that water after it's been through the people (after the motor's done the necessary physical work to move the car) and reclaim it. Even this metaphor applies to necessity, because we do need to be perfecting such a system of biotanks and plants and what not (that's what the guy that won the buckminster fuller challenge has been doing) to clean up our wastewater and put it to good organic use in the process, and we're making many such strides to cut our water use down to a very small % of what it once was.

Now I agree that if your reclamation system is not the greatest, or if even just using the straight water from people's bums and wee wees, then the crap (magnetic drag) in the water would make it _not worth_ reusing (as is currently the case in most cities where septic use is a one-way street). _But_ if your water reclamation system is designed to efficiently "cut the crap" as it were, then you really _are_ putting 90% right back into the dam! Similarly if I can gear the generation coils in such a way as to reduce, negate or even oppose magnetic drag then I could put quite a bit of power right back into that reservoir. Again if magnetic drag is the only real problem with this idea, there has to be a way to negate it or maybe even put it to use. Actually upon further inspection after yesterday's insights, I believe my coil design (which is kinda unconventional) might already do precisely that, and I'll describe it a little later when I scan in some of my drawings.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Okay here's my design, and I apologize for the chicken scratch and edits but I hope it's still readable. I think of myself as a good artist but mostly with the organic stuff, technical drawings are my bane! LoL. But anyway, there it is. Would this work the way I think it might?










I know only time and testing will truly tell, but I still appreciate the input so far.


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

If you created a magnetic field that repelled the magnets from the coils... you would have.... a MOTOR


----------



## Jmill (Apr 30, 2008)

The problem lies in the fact that you want to turn a generator and your tires. You don't turn your tires for free. It takes power too. Say it takes 300W to spin the generator and 300W to spin the tires. That makes 600W total. You would then produce 250W from your generator. Adding your generator to the mix would cost you 50W. You just can't get there from here.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

> The problem lies in the fact that you want to turn a generator and your tires. You don't turn your tires for free. It takes power too. Say it takes 300W to spin the generator and 300W to spin the tires. That makes 600W total. You would then produce 250W from your generator. Adding your generator to the mix would cost you 50W. You just can't get there from here.


Yes, that's the case if you kept the current basic generator design. The way I've put the coiling, I think it would both capture the maximum movement of the rotor's magnetic field, but also when it goes to create magnetic force from the electron movement in the coils does so _in such a way_ that it might even work as an attractor-type brushless motor like MrCrabs said (as well as generating power obviously). That would be good, right?


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

I don't understand where the coils ends are but any shot at that thing generating you would have to flip over every other magnet.(S-N-S-N etc.)
Barna.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Go for it mate, I don't think there is anything that's going to stop you and I am impressed that you want to prove this for yourself rather than just swallow it from us. Good luck with the generator, its quite an ambitious experiment. Make sure you keep us posted on your progress.

Just to clarify, the power that has been used into the motor gets used up as heat in the motor and drive train and as turbulence in the air as your car pushes it aside as well as into you acceleration (invested kinetic energy). If you can recapture some of that energy (recover heat with a stirling engine?) or reduce the amount lost (more aerodynamic car) then you will improve your vehicles efficiency. You can also get back some of the energy it took to accelerate using regen brakes as described above but it will slow you down. 
Cheers


----------



## Batterypoweredtoad (Feb 5, 2008)

Ive got to ask you because im not sure from your original post-are you planning to use this generator to capture some of the "lost" energy of the non driven wheels during all of your driving? (there isnt any, but thats what everyone keeps saying) 
OR
Are you trying to create an electrical braking system to capture some of the energy lost from the act of stopping a car. That is a reasonable idea or at least one that doesnt require accepting perpetual motion as a reality to discuss it.


----------



## MrCrabs (Mar 7, 2008)

momono said:


> Yes, that's the case if you kept the current basic generator design. The way I've put the coiling, I think it would both capture the maximum movement of the rotor's magnetic field, but also when it goes to create magnetic force from the electron movement in the coils does so _in such a way_ that it might even work as an attractor-type brushless motor like MrCrabs said (as well as generating power obviously). That would be good, right?


I was trying to point out that if you made it attract... like a motor, it wouldn't be generating any electricity at all.


----------



## Jmill (Apr 30, 2008)

I've been operating a power plant for years. It takes quite a bit of steam to turn a generator. About 1.3 million pounds per hour to make 140 MW. Of course this is AC and I need to generate a field voltage to produce power. As I increase the field voltage it becomes more difficult to turn the turb/gen. More steam is needed to maintain 3600 RPM. I'm no expert on DC generators but I do know you can't make something from nothing.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

MrCrabs said:


> I was trying to point out that if you made it attract... like a motor, it wouldn't be generating any electricity at all.


I took that meaning, but I'm wondering why? If the current is already moving and you have it connected to the charge line, there's charge. The repulsive force of the (-) ends of the magnets still repulse the electrons in the wire to move up and forward along, still generating power, the only difference is the magnetic drag is made to create magnetic attraction. Same concept, different angle. What you guys are all saying about claw pole or any given generator is actually true, that's where the magnetic resistance is coming from because the way they're all set p that's what they _would_ do. I'm just suggesting using the _same magnetic force_ that would normally cause a problem as a possible added bonus. Again, same repulsion of electrons to create charge, just changing the direction and effectively spinning the magnetic field instead of sicking with a fixed radially-symmetrical pattern.

Barna, that would be another way to do it indeed, probably the right way to do it, and if it worked that way it would prove an effective switching mechanism?

Mr. Crabs, I don't think it would drain power from the batteries as a motor in this mode, since I would probably have it hooked back into a dual core one-way charger and not to the output of the actual batteries. The electrons would still be flowing to make charge, but by rotating the magnetic field created by that flow would still help it move.

Even with turbulence and road friction and all that stuff, if I can negate that field drag and generate charge at the same time it would still be better than nothing and no extra work for the engine.

I should be picking up some plastic trash can lids, liquid nails and bitch-a-thane today and I have lots of unused bike wheels.  If it works, it's a goin' on youtube.

Thanks again for all your words of encouragement and experience.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

3dplane said:


> I don't understand where the coils ends are but any shot at that thing generating you would have to flip over every other magnet.(S-N-S-N etc.)
> Barna.


The (-) ends of the coils would terminate in a copper ring which would be connected to a thick copper lead or individual copper leads twisted together into a big lead that would be the (-) charge line. Similar connection on the (+) ends. I think this would work whether or not you alternated the poles, but alternating might be more efficient. Essentially the end result either way, considering the forward spin of the actual static coils (which I don't believe anyone has tried so far), would be a radial electromagnet producing a forward-rotating magnetic field. Again, the current problem with claw pole generators isn't in the concept of generation, it's in the geometry. Any conductor conducting electricity is not only creating a magnetic field, it's creating a field that reflects the movement and pattern of that conductor - so if you curled those conductors forward, logically you would create an attractive rotating magnetic field using the same repulsion of electrons from the spinning magnetic hub. 



Batterypoweredtoad said:


> Ive got to ask you because im not sure from your original post-are you planning to use this generator to capture some of the "lost" energy of the non driven wheels during all of your driving? (there isnt any, but thats what everyone keeps saying)
> OR
> Are you trying to create an electrical braking system to capture some of the energy lost from the act of stopping a car. That is a reasonable idea or at least one that doesnt require accepting perpetual motion as a reality to discuss it.


Again, if reversing the charge on the braking like that would cause it to slow or stop, effectively reproducing the magnetic drag effect currently observed in generators that everyone's talking about, then why wouldn't the same coil structure using an opposite current create the exact opposite effect?


----------



## the gas wizard (Apr 19, 2008)

to momono

lets just say you placed a wind generator on your bonnet to charge the batteries while you drive......if the wind generator makes 1kw/h of electricity to charge the batteries the electric motor that runs the car would need to use a further 2kw/hrs of electricity to push the car plus the wind generator through the air! so in actual fact you would be running your batteries flat quicker! not extending the range.!!!!!!..........so..........

by having a perm mag generator under the car running off the tail shaft the same rules of physics apply! if the generator makes 1kw then you would need at least 2 kw's out of the motor that runs the car to drive the generator. so yet again the batteries would go flat faster! less is really more when it comes to prolonging the life of batteries in an ev!
you do not get anything for nothing! 

i have a wind generator on my shed at home and the wind pushes the generator to charge the batteries. but if i used an electric fan to run my wind generator i would need at least double the power going to the fan as i would get out of the wind generator! again making my batteries flat very quick. 

the only way to get even a little charge into an ev whilst driving is to put a very thin PV solar cell on the roof of your car, as long as its doesn't drag in the wind! but even then you might cover your roof with 80 watts! which is not enough to write home about!

these are just might thoughts! i thought i was wrong once .....but i was mistaken!


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

By now I think the discussion is centered around the generator itself and how it works, and more specifically the magnetic drag within the generator being set up by the magnetic field. Once again, I understand now why that happens with conventional generator designs. Can I ask you a couple questions though? How are the coils in your generators moving? Are they curved forward or radially symmetrical? Do you know?

Also I'm not in the business of proving anyone wrong. I am in the business of making cool stuff. Even if I am wrong and it doesn't work, it won't be the end of the world. But my design for this particular type of generator is logical, and most everybody I've talked to who knows anything about electric motors or generators, people who have actually built them, have confirmed that. It would most likely reduce the magnetic drag if not make it go faster by virtue of the very work of the electrons in the coils. The question then, it seems, is whether the generation of electricity in those coils is the result of the resistance itself, as is currently thought, or the sheer motion of electrons in the coils. I was taught in science that it's the latter... no body said anything about resistance specifically, but it's just generally accepted as a fact of life - though their relationship might not be inseparable, they are very closely associated in peoples' minds that are so used to it - to the point where they appear to be the very same thing, though scientifically that may not actually be the case. So once again, it depends on building the thing or not. The fact that this might also work as an attractor-type motor, however, might be the essential bit that is the main difference from conventional systems. Most if not all of our circuits are based on the premise of repulsive force, which I'm not totally disagreeing with because it serves this purpose. However, it works in one direction. Switching the direction of the working circuits, though, creating a circuit that's half attraction and half repulsion, I believe might have the effect of what I would call a Moebius circuit (see M.C. Escher), like an infinity sign. I'm not claiming functionality yet because again I haven't built it, but just chew on that for a moment for the sake of chewing.

Now about perpetual energy or motion specifically, how do we define these things? If it simply means energy, potential physical work and motion of particles that goes practically forever on its own momentum and intrinsic systems, then by that definition magnets _themselves_ are perpetual energy devices! (They eventually lose that magnetic charge over many years, but so practically would this.) Just imagine this thing as a great big spinning magnet. Earth, for all current intents and purposes, is a perpetual energy device as well. (it too has its cycle-downs and cycle-ups, but they tend to be fairly balanced. Almost like the starting and stopping of a vehicle..) If the evidence against so-called 'perpetual motion' is the conservation of energy, then this still applies. No one is suggesting that this thing might go any faster than what's alloted by the voltage control connected to the accelerator pedal, and if the design was converted into a house generator (replacing the work of a motor with say, a computer) it would only go as fast as necessary for the work put on it. 

The essential problem, then, isn't necessarily the Universal allowance of these things, but this conflicting pattern of limits that has us pitting force against the work of nature, against the magnets essentially. Why is it exactly that we so often use the repulsive force as our cultural workhorse? That gets into a discussion on tangents of social human patterning, but that's something for another day. For now, we have to switch our operative thinking about possibility itself and refuse to be drawn back into the current thinking, or things like this will _never_ be possible even if we don't have the working thing right now. We can't make our reality the victim of reality, we have to reverse the tide to expand both. Past precedents only serve as unnecessary baggage, and if there's one thing the history of innovation itself has taught us it's that when things _really do_ change, they change so fast it'll make your head spin.


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

Okay, momono, I'd like you to answer my question:

*Is the goal of this claw pole generator of yours to increase the efficiency of your vehicle to make it closer to 100% but NOT more than 100%?*


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Pretty much. I've said from the beginning that it would cycle down eventually, but the idea is to find as many ways as possible to lower the margin between the motor drain and the regeneration to the point where it _might_ be able to be filled by a trifecta of high-wattage solar panels. You'd still probably have to plug it in to charge, but for an RV on a long road trip this is a hard thing to come by. Current EV tech is impractical for long-range vehicles, which is why for this to work I realize that I'll have to overcome some technological hurtles myself. I wouldn't even start converting my truck until I had a working small-scale model of one of the generators.

Basically, the generator could be referred to as a 'magnetic generator'. I know that technically applies to any current generator because they all use magnets, but none that I know of use the actual force of the magnets as the generation force and not just the medium aided by something like wind or water or gas. Like how when you are getting power from a battery, the drain on the leads starts a chemical reaction that releases extra electrons - this would be a similar thing in that as soon as you started drawing power, the stator coils would cause the rotor to respond by spinning to match the movement of electrons. The speed of the spin would be proportional to the power drain, because the drain would decide how much power was coming from the gens. On a circuit with a 120V electric motor, your wheel-gens might effectively double your moving power while retaining power in the system. (again, figure-8 circuit, half working one way, the other half the other) Once again, it wouldn't endlessly accelerate, it wouldn't be totally "perpetual", and you'd never get more than 100% of what you use. Your circuitry would simply be mediating the existing force between your sets of permanent magnets.

P.S. Love your Avatar BTW.


----------



## DVR (Apr 10, 2008)

4 pages!!! rofl

Who'd of thought


----------



## Wirecutter (Jul 26, 2007)

Attention members, admins, et al:

This question, and numerous variations keeps coming up over and over. The answer is always the same. Can we get a sticky post explaining this? I'm sure it's in the wiki somewhere, too.

You can't extend the range of an EV by adding any kind of generator/alternator if it's powered directly or indirectly through the motion of the car. It's ALWAYS a loss. The Laws of Thermodynamics have stated this for years. A lot of people that seem otherwise intelligent keep asking this, and it winds up as a multi-page post with the more scientific types explaining that this leads to the whole perpetual motion thing, which is of course impossible.

The only useful application would be to recover energy during braking, but you don't need a generator or alternator for that - a motor controller with regen braking will do that for you.

You can always dream up creative "exceptions". If I put a wind turbine on the roof of my EV, then sat at a stoplight on a windy day, yes, I'll generate more power than I use. But that's just wind power, and you're not using the car's power (or motion through the air, which comes from the car's motor) to move the turbine. The list goes on...

Do we need a vote?

-Mark


----------



## joseph3354 (Apr 2, 2008)

the one thing i truly like about this forum is its openess.people are generally not told their ideas are impossible or stupid.maybe someday if ambient temperature superconductors are cheap and readily available someone will acheive the scenario described in this thread.until then i have to agree with wirecutter.a sticky explaining why it doesn't work YET would be a good thing to have.just my insignificant opinion.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

4 pages of awesome! _Because_ of the openness of discussion here, it has gone this long. Calling people names and saying their ideas are impossible doesn't solve anything if you don't tell them _why_, and that's what I think we busted out here. Started with a bouncing baby idea and hashed and rehashed it with all the facts of the matter. A 'vote' is a simple populous gimmick, real democracy is built on the exchange of information, and that's really happened here. So you can't use a generator on an electric car? _Why?_ That's what's been asked and answered many times here. From some people I've heard real sensical technical responses, but then there are those who've just thrown the book at me and pointed over to your handy wikipedia article on 'perpetual motion', which I said from the beginning I wasn't advocating. The fact that so many do this and end it there, and aren't out there trying to overcome it, is what's disturbing to me. I agree with joseph, there _should_ be a sticky discussion where people actually work on this together, which is what the internet is really for, and not just try to vote it off the island or whatever with some kind of poll.

Thanks again for all your help guys..


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

> This question, and numerous variations keeps coming up over and over. The answer is always the same. Can we get a sticky post explaining this? I'm sure it's in the wiki somewhere, too.


I did name it "Perpetual Motion" it's not like it's hard to find as it's filed under "P".  

It's not very complex or involved, I just created a simple article to explain as basically as I could why Perpetual Motion is impossible at the moment.

Momono, it would be great if you could build this device your talking about into a car or other vehicle and compare it to the same vehicle without it to see it's effectiveness.


----------



## lazzer408 (May 18, 2008)

I'll make this somewhat simple. The laws of physics and thermal dynamics say you can _not_ gain overunity. Though some are trying (good luck). By the way. perpetual motion is _unity_. Overunity is a _GAIN_ of power out vs. power in. Example. 100% of your power goes in, 110% comes out. That's overunity. That's perpetual motion _PLUS._

Lets take your vehicle out of the picture. We already know that's a huge loss so we'll try this first by eliminating it. Now lets take a motor that's 80% efficient and put 10,000 watts into it. (10,000x.8) There are 8000 watts of power comming off the shaft. Next we take a generator that's 80% efficient and drive it with the motor shaft. (8000x.8) There are 6400 watts comming out of the generator. Lets not forget the battery loss. What is it? 1.4 in for every 1 out? So ~71% loss there? Down to 4544 watts if we are using "proper" regeneration using a capsitor bank and boost/buck convertor to recover the generator's output and make it into the most optimal charge rate we can. Dare we put the vehicle into this equation? Or a boost/buck converter's efficiency? Or the regen capasitor's loss? or or or...? 

So because of enegry conversion losses, this will not work. You can think of the vehicle's movement as a capacitor in a way. It stores the enegry your traction motor put into it, less any friction, aerodynamic, and other losses. You could even have a generator thats 100% efficient so all the enegry "stored" in the vehicle is recovered, and still loose.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## momono (May 3, 2008)

Understood since the first second. The theoretical losses, however, are all based on contemporary designs. This is one of those things that needs to be proved in practice, otherwise all this discussion is academic from all angles. Once again, the key would be changing the generation coiling so that it no longer repels the movement of the rotor as it generates electricity (which is currently the biggest obstacle to this idea and generators across the board). So until that design changes for the better, we're all basically giving each other theoretical enemas...


----------



## Pi3141 (Jan 17, 2010)

momono said:


> Once again, the key would be changing the generation coiling so that it no longer repels the movement of the rotor as it generates electricity (which is currently the biggest obstacle to this idea and generators across the board).


This has been done (allegedly) see Orbo Technology

Link - http://www.steorn.com/orbo/

Here's my 2 cents worth to this question.

All quotes from Wiki - 

First Law Of Thermodynamics
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process in an *isolated system*, the total energy remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

Conservation Of Energy
The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an* isolated system* remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time).

Isolated System
In the natural sciences an isolated system, as contrasted with a open system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.

*Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality* (except perhaps for the universe as a whole), because, for example, there is always gravity between a system with mass and masses elsewhere. However, real systems may behave nearly as an isolated system for finite (possibly very long) times. 


So the laws do not apply to a system in the real world - say, an electric car.

If a 1 ton vehicle is travelling at 50 mph, on a calm day with no headwind, it has built momentum. This is why the electric car is not an isolated system, it receives and/or is subject to external force. 

So, why can't some of that momentum be harnassed?

In a Tesla coil commonly used as a line scan transformer in TV sets, a voltage conducts through the coils, then the primary coil delivers another bit of energy (in a Tesla coil usually through a spark gap) at precisely the right time such that it adds to the voltage in the secondary coil, causing it to 'swing' to higher voltage. In this way high voltage is obtained from a lower voltage source. (Not much current though)

So why, in an electric car, could you not set the controller so that when at freeway speeds, you switch the controller off (forget regen at this point) then just before the car starts to slow down, swith the power back on and repeat this cycle. You cold hook it up to a cruise control switch. Pick the RPM that your motor is most efficient at so is drawing the least current. I know the controllers for DC are PWM so it would be - 

on off on off on off off off off on off on off etc

During the off times the cars momentum would continue to propel the car forward, just as it slows, turn controller on again.

V8's and V12's shut down half their cylinders when in cruise control (apparently) and they save pertrol. So surely an electric car with less frictional losses (no engine) would also save power.

Surely this principle could be used as as an automated range extender for freeway driving.

Now, could you add an alternator or use the motor as a generator or charging coils in the wheels as per the opening thread? Possibly, for AC motor as they are just as efficient at generating as powering but would that introduce braking that the momentum of the vehicle could not overcome for very long, hence negating the potential energy savings of pulsing the motor? Conventional wisdom says yes, but I would still like to build one and try it first!

If, as the OP suggests, you put coils in the wheels, and you used the sytem described by Steorn to pulse the magnets at the critical time and repel the coils you would reduce the drag effect of the generator in the wheels and negate the braking effects.


----------



## tsindos (Mar 25, 2010)

I have been following news on the internet regarding electric cars and saw these posts which today are about 2.5 years old. Did you manage to build your EV with direct drive? because it is a project that I intend to undertake with an old Mitsubishi L200 pick-up truck. I intend to mount an electric motor directly to the rear axle and was wondering if anyone else did so.


----------



## Overlander23 (Jun 15, 2009)

tsindos said:


> I intend to mount an electric motor directly to the rear axle and was wondering if anyone else did so.


It's been done... You want to check out this rather lengthy thread: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...lifepo4-ev-35419.html?&highlight=direct+drive


----------

