# Free Energy or Can I Recharge in Motion?



## rbgrn (Jul 24, 2007)

Nice one. Let's make sure to cite this anytime people start asking about free energy


----------



## 3dplane (Feb 27, 2008)

I agree! Now if we could just talk him into make one about wind mills(while driving)regardless of where it is on the car.(over, under, behind grill, in a special duct etc.) Barna.


----------



## nofrendo (May 30, 2008)

e=mc2 is used erroneously in this article. The energy you are getting comes from breaking CHEMICAL bonds, while e=MC squared would apply to NUCLEAR bonds. Nuclear fission or fusion take advantage of this law by converting a tiny, tiny amount of mass to energy.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Well spotted nofrendo, go right ahead and edit it yourself. We're trying to get everyone familiar with working on the wiki.


----------



## wsv3424 (Apr 3, 2011)

use an 8 kw gas generator in the back of my 97 nissan pickup ev and as long as i fill the generators tank every 12 hrs. [driving time] i perpetuate ,somewhat ...


----------



## r3sidual (Feb 15, 2013)

Does anyone have a wind turbine installed on their EV? The act of driving would recharge the batteries since wind turbines are pretty efficient.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

r3sidual said:


> The act of driving would recharge the batteries since wind turbines are pretty efficient.


No it wouldn't. The act of driving the turbine would drain the batteries faster.


----------



## r3sidual (Feb 15, 2013)

Ziggythewiz said:


> No it wouldn't. The act of driving the turbine would drain the batteries faster.


If the wind generated by driving is turning the turbine, then how is it draining the batteries?


----------



## PowerSurge (Jan 24, 2013)

r3sidual said:


> If the wind generated by driving is turning the turbine, then how is it draining the batteries?


Because there is no such thing as free energy. It puts drag on the car to drive the turbines, therefore using battery power to move the car with the added drag.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Because turning the turbine by wind from the motor turning the wheels is the same as plugging your iPhone into itself to charge.


----------



## r3sidual (Feb 15, 2013)

PowerSurge said:


> Because there is no such thing as free energy. It puts drag on the car to drive the turbines, therefore using battery power to move the car with the added drag.


Nikola Tesla may not agree with you, but who said anything about "free energy"? Once you start driving you have drag. Taking advantage of the wind produced wouldn't necessarily increase drag, although it would increase weight. That all depends on design though.

And, Ziggy, your iPhone statement is waaay off base. Is adding photovoltaic cells to an EV like the car charging itself? No, the sun is doing that work. Wind turbines are currently more efficient than solar cells, and they would work regardless of weather or geographic location.

Imagination is more important than knowledge - Albert Einstein


----------



## Arlo (Dec 27, 2009)

r3sidual said:


> Nikola Tesla may not agree with you, but who said anything about "free energy"? Once you start driving you have drag. Taking advantage of the wind produced wouldn't necessarily increase drag, although it would increase weight. That all depends on design though.


No matter how you slice it trying to harness the "drag" will cause you to waste more energy. Your best off to try to lower the drag like Tesla.
Make the system as efficient as possible and don't bother with snake oils that will not work and will just cause you frustrations and waste time and money!



> . Wind turbines are currently more efficient than solar cells, and they would work regardless of weather or geographic location


 So....? They work without wind???


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

r3sidual said:


> And, Ziggy, your iPhone statement is waaay off base. Is adding photovoltaic cells to an EV like the car charging itself? No, the sun is doing that work.


You're right, the sun powers the solar cells, but you don't want to use the sun to power your wind turbine, you want to use the car to power it.

A wind turbine will work just fine to power an EV if it's windy and the EV is parked next to it and you're charging the batteries. If the turbine is on top of the car it will tip over. And if it didn't it will create tons of drag and produce a few watts. It can't power itself.


----------



## TEV (Nov 25, 2011)

In my opinion the only response for this kind of "ideas" is one post to the free energy link sticky http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13449&highlight=free+energy

and no more postings after that.

If the original poster still continue with his "genial" idea is obviously a waste of time and resources.

Thank You.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

TEV said:


> If the original poster still continue with his "genial" idea is obviously a waste of time and resources.


Well yeah, but I'm sposed to be doing something else and don't want to.

Besides, 386. With common sense comes common responsibility.


----------



## TEV (Nov 25, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Well yeah, but I'm sposed to be doing something else and don't want to.
> 
> Besides, 386. With common sense comes common responsibility.


LOL 

(and the message is to short  )


----------



## r3sidual (Feb 15, 2013)

Ziggythewiz said:


> You're right, but you want to use the car to power it.
> 
> A wind turbine will work just fine to power an EV if it's windy and the EV is parked next to it and you're charging the batteries. If the turbine is on top of the car it will tip over. And if it didn't it will create tons of drag and produce a few watts. It can't power itself.


You're assuming too much. Let's go back to some basics. There are numerous ways to generate electricity. We have:
Thermoelectricity, Kinetic, Magnetism, Piezoelectric, Solar, Wind, etc.

Can we use any of these technologies to generate electricity while the vehicle is in motion, braking or at rest? Of course we can. We already do this with regenerative braking, so can we combine other methods? 

- Thermoelectricity might be very useful in cold or hot climates depending on the solution used to keep one side hot or cold.
- Electromagnetism is already used in vehicles, but has anyone used it in an EV?
- A 1 to 1.5 ton vehicle may generate a good deal of energy with well placed pressure sensors.
- Driving causes drag. How do you place small wind turbines in the grill, on the wheels or in the cabin to convert the passage of air into electricity without creating too much drag? That's a design issue.

Many researchers and scientists criticized Galileo, Einstein and Nikola Tesla. Even knowledgeable people will scorn creativity and change. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5uiK_QnyrE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMhAIdqH0Cs


----------



## DanGT86 (Jan 1, 2011)

r3sidual said:


> - Electromagnetism is already used in vehicles, but has anyone used it in an EV?


I have a sneaking suspicion that electromagnetism has been used in a few EVs.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

r3sidual said:


> - Electromagnetism is already used in vehicles, but has anyone used it in an EV?
> 
> We already do this with regenerative braking


If you understrood regenerative braking, or even electric motors you would know you already had the answer.



r3sidual said:


> How do you place small wind turbines in the grill, on the wheels or in the cabin to convert the passage of air into electricity without creating too much drag? That's a design issue.


You don't. It's not a design issue, it's physics. If you convert the passage of air into electricity you're making it harder for that air to pass, which means you're burning more energy than you're producing.

Yes, it's all a conspiracy. There is unlimited free energy floating all around us. Enough to power an infinite number of infinitely small watches or lights forever.

If you can't handle basic physics, please try some basic math. Go find out how much power a typical EV uses while cruising, and then tell me how large a wind turbine or "pressure sensor" needs to be to produce that much power.


----------



## wizardtakax (Feb 23, 2013)

Hello all, Takax here making my general splash into the forum. Hoping we can set a new heading in this thread. Getting back to the key concept on generating current by capturing energy through reduction of velocity. Maybe don't take wind off the table yet. In this instance my idea pertains to the use of impeller of liquid or gas mediums. Electric current would be primarily focused on propelling your EV but even though it's fun to go fast, reducing velocity is an equally important component. This all may sounds novel just trying to get my thoughts clearly mapped. I guess my point is that in my designs for greater efficiency I labor to understand how going and stopping can be combined to even in minor result increase range by mastering terrain and conditions provided by the road ahead.


----------



## dcnogueira (Apr 2, 2013)

PowerSurge said:


> Because there is no such thing as free energy. It puts drag on the car to drive the turbines, therefore using battery power to move the car with the added drag.


PowerSurge, I have a question about it. If use wind to drive the turbines only when I break or driving down hill? Can it improve my battery load?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Sure, that would just be a very inefficient method of regenerative braking. The additional weight and aero effect when not in use, however, will likely produce a net negative effect.


----------



## dcnogueira (Apr 2, 2013)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Sure, that would just be a very inefficient method of regenerative braking. The additional weight and aero effect when not in use, however, will likely produce a net negative effect.


Ziggythewiz, I don't think it will have aero effect. I agree it wil produce a net negative effect due extra weight. So, most of gas cars already has a air duct for thermal control of engine. If keep it close e just open it when breaking?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

The size of wind turbine you could fit inside a car using existing air ducts would power a few LEDs and provide no measurable braking. When designing a wind powered vehicle, do you expect to end up with a speedboat or a spanish galleon?

If you want regen braking, just use a motor and controller designed for it.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I figure that it takes about 4 kW or 5.5 HP just for aerodynamic drag at 100 km/hr, which is 42 Wh/km or 67 Wh/mile. Would it be possible to build a car shaped like a large fan and reduce the effective CD to near zero by powering the fan instead? It would still take the same power, of course, but then the fan could be used for both acceleration and braking without even using the wheels. It may be impractical for a highway vehicle, but perhaps useful for a fan-powered swamp buggy.

http://www.carolinacurriculum.com/stc/middle+school/energy+machines+and+motion/PDFs/EMM+Lesson.pdf
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...car-looks-odd-answers-tricky-physics-question

Maybe better for a railway vehicle:





 
Or for the roads:


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

PStechPaul said:


> Would it be possible to build a car shaped like a large fan and reduce the effective CD to near zero by powering the fan instead? It would still take the same power, of course, but then the fan could be used for both acceleration and braking without even using the wheels. It may be impractical for a highway vehicle, but perhaps useful for a fan-powered swamp buggy.


What is the RPM used to propel an airplane or airboat? How many orders of magnitude less do you think the RPM would be if it were turned by the vehicle's speed? That's how much power is available, now how much smaller will it be when you add a braking load to that?

A train is probably the only place it could be used, because you'd need to activate your fan brakes 100 miles before your destination.

You'd also want a variable prop system that could resemble a windmill while braking and a propeller while accelerating.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> I figure that it takes about 4 kW or 5.5 HP just for aerodynamic drag at 100 km/hr, which is 42 Wh/km or 67 Wh/mile. Would it be possible to build a car shaped like a large fan and reduce the effective CD to near zero by powering the fan instead? It would still take the same power, of course, but then the fan could be used for both acceleration and braking without even using the wheels. It may be impractical for a highway vehicle, but perhaps useful for a fan-powered swamp buggy.


Hi Paul
When looking at vehicles propelled by props or fans there are some real basics

Thrust = mass flow rate x exhaust velocity
Energy required = 1/2 mass flow rate x exhaust velocity squared

For a given thrust as you increase the mass flow rate the energy required goes down

This is why a Harrier jump jet uses a much more powerful engine than a helicopter

A car tire uses the ground as it's reaction mass this gives the most efficient possible way of obtaining thrust

A water screw is using the relatively heavy water - a propeller uses the air - the efficiency goes DOWN... as you use lighter media and less mass flow


----------



## canomorra (Sep 10, 2013)

PowerSurge said:


> Because there is no such thing as free energy. It puts drag on the car to drive the turbines, therefore using battery power to move the car with the added drag.


what if the wind passes through the car, concentrating the wind into one spot when the little turbine is? more like a airplane turbine installed in the center of the car and the wind (when moving forward) makes this turbine spin.


----------



## Vinyasi (Apr 9, 2017)

It's generally a mistake to drain a voltage source to materialize a current source since it doesn't take long before the voltage source is completely drained. It would be far wiser to merely "borrow" the voltage without consuming it and get the current from elsewhere to prevent draining the voltage source.

A precharged capacitor of sufficient Farads can hold onto voltage while current comes from surges resulting from parametric oscillators.

http://is.gd/twolmdsbatt

For those of you unfamiliar with this, consider the difference between a driven oscillator which needs a constant input from an external source and a parametric oscillator which only needs a little energy temporarily stored in the system to magnify it via alteration of the parameters of electrical components.

This is exemplified by a child on a swing.

She may lean forward or backward to start her pendulous swinging. This is a driven oscillation.

But once she is already swinging (no matter how she got started; maybe somebody pushed her a few times?), she may elect to quickly stand up and just as quickly sit down just before reaching the top of each arc (but never on the way back down from the highest point of each arc, for that will decompose her stored energy into its constituent ingredients of: time, etc). This is a parametric oscillation since we are oscillating her parameter of radius of center of mass distant from the location on the top bar of the swing set where her swing is attached. We are not attempting to oscillate her swings -- at least not directly (by driving her swinging arcs). Her swinging arc will automatically increase as the result of oscillating the center of mass radius perpendicular to her swinging arc if she already has at least some swinging begun with some energy stored in her arc.








​ 







​ 

http://is.gd/paratexts​​


----------



## Vinyasi (Apr 9, 2017)

Understanding Free Energy Requires a Whole New Atomic Model.
My atomic theory of electricity is a derivative of Eric Dollard's theory of the synthesis and decomposition of electricity.

It could be inferred that Eric Dollard has given us a revised atomic model when he says that electricity can be synthesized from three ingredients. And he's not kidding when he implies that time is not a fourth dimension just as he says that time doesn't have multiple dimensions greater than one. This atomic model is composed of time, the electro-motive force and the magneto-motive force – EMF and MMF. These two latter ingredients are commonly referred to as the electric and magnetic fields of a live wire and held in a combined state within the scope of electrical phenomenon as we know it.
 
But they can also be non-reactive to give the appearance that they can also become separated from each other which is impossible since each is the complete reversed image of each other while also being the denial of their opposite condition.

The aether is composed of two proto-atomic elements lighter than hydrogen as proposed by Mendeleev...

https://archive.org/details/cu31924012371096/page/n33

These two sub-atomic elements are the two forces, EMF and MMF, combined with time. They exhibit action without reaction.

When they exhibit reaction, then all three factors combine to become an atom and electricity materially manifested for us to measure.

But without reaction, they cannot interact of their own motivation. So, they sit quiescent and incapable of becoming anything without preexisting matter to contribute the ability for them to interact with themselves and matter. This is why this atomic model presupposes the existence of matter along with proto-matter and both created at the same time when the Creator materialized Creation. For each needs the other. Matter needs the aether for matter to exhibit energy (which is also known as change) and proto-matter needs matter to become something more than itself. Only matter can manipulate the aether. The aether is incapable – it is incapacitated – to manipulate itself. So, the aether did not bring matter into being. It simply helps matter bring more matter and energy into being while also making their dematerialization possible back into their quiescent state of aetheric existence.

Naturally, the aether's incapacity for action with its subsequent reaction makes it impossible for the aether to be anything other than a non-compressible gas in its uniform distribution of its two sub-atomic elements mentioned by Mendeleev.

Of course, action without reaction implies the impossibility of “spending” these two forces. They cannot be consumed. They can only be reused.

Thus, a live circuit – of any magnitude – has all it needs for infinite synthesis of electricity given enough time to accumulate it.

When Eric says that electricity can travel forwards in time, he's implying the situation – standard in our conventional thinking – that current and voltage possess zero degrees of separation between them. This encourages its dissipation (radiation) and is a centrifugal atomic motion of materialistic energy (atomic energy).

And when he says that electricity can travel backwards in time, he's implying the situation in which current and voltage are 180 degrees out of phase. This is centripetal atomic motion of materialistic energy which tends to accumulate since current will flow away from areas of low voltage and proceed toward areas of high voltage indicating negative resistance...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_impedance_converter

The third condition is when current and voltage are 90 degrees out of phase. We already know this to be useless energy whose power factor is zero.

The fourth condition is when instantaneous annihilation occurs whenever centripetal meets up with centrifugal and anything atomically involved with this short engagement recedes back into the aether.

These four conditions are the only “four forces” which an honest physics should be admitting to. Not: gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, for all these four are definable by proto-matter. Use your imagination. Brighter minds than I will flesh out this perspective into a wholesome view of reality. Eric has given us the clues to proceed forwards with a greater sanity.

Without building anything, simulators suggest all the observational data necessary to take Eric's theories and run with them provided the observer has the consciousness to proceed along these lines of reasoning. If it's not there in consciousness, then no amount of bickering can convince such a delinquent point of view to expand into a broader perspective.

Simulators don't lie. They are embodiments of our theories. But they _do_ require our interpretation. This is where formal education lacks the vision to proceed into a world of abundant sharing for everyone.

To recapitulate...
EMF is the cause for MMF to manifest as a reaction to EMF whenever the materialization of energy is invoked.
And...
MMF is the cause for EMF to manifest as a reaction to MMF whenever the materialization of energy is invoked.

Thus...as Eric says...
Each is the denial of the other. This is why the aether has no reaction to action. For as solitary individual forces, these two forces each deny the karmic consequence to the actions of themselves. Instead, they dump the reaction to the actions of each onto its opposite force whenever electricity is manifest in atomic matter heavier than themselves (beginning with hydrogen on the periodic chart and proceeding upwards).

Oddly enough, each of these two solitary forces (always bound to time, but lacking the capacity for reaction to take place within themselves) is the mirrored opposite of the other force. So, although they each deny the existence of the other force, they are one and the same force as seen from two opposing perspectives. Each of these two perspectives render their unique identities. Without these two perspectives, they would not appear to be any different from each other. This is the true dipole in Creation: ever present, eternal, indestructible and non-creatable.

If anything is consumable, it is time. For time consumes itself. We can't consume it. Time's union with these two forces, plus the mirrored opposition between them, is what makes the consumption of electricity possible as an illusion since nothing is lost when either force can flip into its opposite force and time will already be gradually lost to us regardless of whether or not we bother to consume anything.


----------

