# Wind Turbine Car



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Would adding a small wind turbine behind the grill or on top of the car help with range? How would someone go about setting this up. I know many people are thinking the drag will slow the car down, but is that why people are not even trying to build it, because others say not to? I would like to try to build a wind turbine designed for the car, so there is less drag. My thought is that as the car breaks through the atmosphere, wind is created. So why not try to capture some of it? Any ideas on this? I found this link, but it does not look good in appearance nor does it look like it would work, do to all of the drag it creates. http://www.google.com/patents/US7135786?printsec=drawing#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Also, where could someone find a small wind turbine that is about a foot in diameter for the roof of the car. Or one that is even smaller, like 4in. in diameter for behind the grill. I would like to build a wind car, to either prove people wrong and then tell everyone about it, so they know it is possible. Or be proven wrong and tell everyone why, so maybe someone ca come up with a way around the problem.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

No, there are two kinds of drag resistance created by such a design, natural wind resistance and electromagnetic wind resistance. You can optimize your turbine to reduce the first, but not the second. The amount of power gained will be less than the amount lost through the second, and you lose due to the first as well.

See the thread on perpetual motion for more info:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13644


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

thank you, for that link it really helped.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

the only thing that i do not understand is, then why do we have windmills? How are they more efficient?


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

They aren't more efficient. The difference is that nobody is expending energy pushing them through still air to make them spin.


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

Here is a link to a formula for the power in the wind. It looks like after losses there is about 6 watts out of the gererator for a 12" turbine.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Windmills use wind created by the sun/earth. A turbine on a car would try to use wind created by itself, which takes more energy to create than you can recapture.

It's like a solar panel, stick it in sunlight and it'll make power all day. Now take it inside and use it to power a light to shine on itself...doesn't work so well.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

It says at the bottom that it is possible to gain a little bit of energy and therefore, I could run the car off of mostly charging the car from home and then get a little more out of the wind turbine. 

"Let's assume again everything is 100% efficient. The car is already suffering from drag because of the air being stopped under the hood so we'll say drag is the same with the wind generator, 10,000 Watts. Let's imagine you can fit a 1,000 Watt generator underneath the hood driven purely by the frontal area of the grill. With everything perfectly efficient, you will deliver 1,000 Watts additional to your motor, effectively decreasing your energy needs down to 9,000 Watts.

Sounds good right? Well in actuality there are inefficiencies. 95% loss from motor, 95% loss from controllers, 95% loss from transmission. 1,000 * .95 * .95 * .95 = 857 Watts. So now 10,000 - 857 = 9,143 Watts. Still better than nothing.

Now let's approach this differently. Instead of trying to harness the drag we're creating, let's try to get rid of it. Buy a $20 sheet of aluminum and place it over your grill. Your drag has reduced by 1,000 Watts, meaning your car only need 9,000 Watts to maintain speed. Much easier, simpler, and cheaper than a complex ducting/generator system."

It also says "Third example...
We've been assuming no external wind. Say like your car was parked with your wind generator running. It would generate power from the external wind and store it into the battery. You then bring in the generator to remove the drag and begin driving. That is completely doable and why many people install wind generators at their house (it'd be a pain in the butt to haul it around in the car)."
Then that means if I close off the system while driving, then while parked getting groceries for example, I could get extra power. yes in Florida this may not be so great due to little to zero wind and now I would not be able to use it while driving, which was the intent, but it would be something.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Since Florida is the sunshine state, would it be beneficial and efficient to recess a solar panel on the hood of the car? how much money would it cost and how much power would I get?


----------



## madderscience (Jun 28, 2008)

Depending on the type of panels, you neeed 50 to 100 square feet of panel to make 1kw in full sun.

A small car conversion of an EV is going to need around 10kw to maintain 55mph straight and level.

If you have a car with a large, flat roof like a van or pickup with canopy you might get a small net positive out of a solar panel. The most solar you could get on top of a normal size car of that sort without messing up the aerodynamics is maybe 300 watts. On a full, sunny day this might buy you 5-10 miles of driving depending on the size of the vehicle and your driving style.

The panel is getting energy from the sun, not from the motion of the car so this works. You do need to go to pains to keep the net weight from increasing and as you implied, make sure the aerodynamics are not negatively affected by adding the panel(s).

good luck.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

madderscience said:


> They aren't more efficient. The difference is that nobody is expending energy pushing them through still air to make them spin.


What if I use something like a screen with small hole in front of the turbine to break through the wind. Or something to break through, so that way I do not use the turbine to break through the air.


----------



## ishiwgao (May 5, 2011)

First you said



EVEngineeer said:


> thank you, for that link it really helped.


Then you say



EVEngineeer said:


> What if I use something like a screen with small hole in front of the turbine to break through the wind. Or something to break through, so that way I do not use the turbine to break through the air.


did you even read the link?


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

In Florida the sun is pretty much strong all the time, so that is not the issue. I suppose the problem is that with a car, the entire car would need to be covered in panels. It would also be expensive, so I may want to pass on that, or just put a small inexpensive one on, so that way when I am parked somewhere, I could get some power. That way I do not have to recharge the batteries as often. My goal is to get rid of the need to charge at all, but if I could find a way to lower the amount of times I need to recharge, that would be good too.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

yes I read the link. "Now let's approach this differently. Instead of trying to harness the drag we're creating, let's try to get rid of it. Buy a $20 sheet of aluminum and place it over your grill. Your drag has reduced by 1,000 Watts, meaning your car only need 9,000 Watts to maintain speed. Much easier, simpler, and cheaper than a complex ducting/generator system." Is this practical or would it hurt the car in a different way? If it does work, then why doesn't everyone do this, so then you use less power and do not drain the batteries as quickly.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Did you read all 7 pages explaining why all these ideas won't work? As for alvin's link, the whole premise was bogus as it accounted for 1 type of wind resistance, but not the 2nd.

If you really did read it all, and are still confused, here's another 60+ pages: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13449

Most hair-brained variations on this concept have already been thought of, rebutted, and laid to rest.

As for covering the grill, typical cars are designed for worst case operation, so the grill is large enough to cool the car while driving through the desert on a hot day. Most cars will work fine in most conditions with most of the grill covered, which improves the aerodynamics. An EV that doesn't use the radiator can completely seal off that area (all internal air flow=wind resistance) and get even more benefit.

About solar, it all depends on your use. I have a short cummute (14 miles) so if I covered my bug with 20% eff panels (many on the market today are ~16-18% efficient) I could charge enough for 7 of those miles each day via solar. Is it worth the time/money? Not for the power, but for the buzz factor. I'll get around to it eventually.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

So if I built something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0luo92soi_E&feature=related then put a screen or something in front to create wind behind the screen to push the turbine, why would that not work? From what I see, there would be little to zero drag on the turbine itself.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If there's no drag on the turbine, there's no power out of the turbine. You can't make more power than you have drag.

In that sad little video, there's type 1 drag on the red parts (which is entirely wasteful) and type 2 drag on the turbine (which is only somewhat wasteful). How efficient is somewhat wasteful + entirely wasteful?


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> From what I see, there would be little to zero drag on the turbine itself.


this is, perhaps, the misconception. If you are harvesting energy, then there is drag. And that drag is more than the energy you are getting. Simple conservation of energy.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Can you find somewhere in any law of physics that states that you need drag to get energy, but the amount of drag that you get is greater then the power you will receive.


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> So if I built something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0luo92soi_E&feature=related then put a screen or something in front to create wind behind the screen to push the turbine, why would that not work? From what I see, there would be little to zero drag on the turbine itself.


How about you just build it, realise you wasted your money and effort pointlessly and then tell us the outcome?


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

FireCrow said:


> How about you just build it, realise you wasted your money and effort pointlessly and then tell us the outcome?


i know there is a sarcastic smiley there, but really that is the best idea. No better way to learn about something than to experimentally try it out!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> Can you find somewhere in any law of physics that states that you need drag to get energy, but the amount of drag that you get is greater then the power you will receive.


How bout the Third law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If the wind is pushing your generator, your generator is pushing back against the wind, slowing you down.

Add to that friction, and chemical inefficiencies and you will not get as much energy to your battery as what you spent to push that wind.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

FireCrow said:


> How about you just build it, realise you wasted your money and effort pointlessly and then tell us the outcome?


No no no. Everyone who realizes they wasted their money tries to make it back by convincing the world that they've solved the energy crisis. Overunity nuts are nearly as bad as Nigerian princes.


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> Can you find somewhere in any law of physics that states that you need drag to get energy, but the amount of drag that you get is greater then the power you will receive.


Have you ever played with a generator? The more it's loaded, the harder it is to turn. That's the 'drag' I'm referring to, it's simply how a generator works.


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

I only put the link to show what was available from the wind. The real drag from the turbine comes when you reach cut-in speed. When this happens it is like regenerative braking. 

I am not in favor a wind turbine on a vehicle unless you are just testing the turbine before you put it on a tower.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> Can you find somewhere in any law of physics that states that you need drag to get energy, but the amount of drag that you get is greater then the power you will receive.


Darn, that third law of motion, it gets in the way of these persistent perpetual motion schemes. Couldn't we just put a referendum on the ballot to create a law of perpetual motion. LOL


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Such a law (allowing perpetual motion) would interact with Congress like matter and anti-matter, the resulting detonation would be awesome.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I understand that there are laws, but sometimes laws are broken. Also, I do plan on building it eventually, I was really just trying to get feedback and maybe some positive ideas. It's not wasting money, if I learn something. That's what college is...spending money for knowledge. Also, "How bout the Third law of motion: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If the wind is pushing your generator, your generator is pushing back against the wind, slowing you down." I think that is an incorrect statement that you made, but maybe I'm wrong. I do not see how the generator is pushing back on the wind, because if the turbine spins due to the wind, that means that there is positive energy being created. From what I see the wind would be the stronger force and therefore turning the propellers causing it to turn. That is not what I call an equal and opposite force, if the turbine spins.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

We all have different learning styles. Most of the time I have learned a great deal from the experienced people on this forum or by reading the prior posts that they have been so kind to provide links to. 

Sometimes I have to learn the hard way, by seeing or feeling the action. I fried 3 of my Headways not paying attention and not incorporating the information about not taking Lifepos too far. I paid, in the form of having to replace 3 batteries at $20 a piece, to learn that lesson.


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

The turbine is not just a pinwheel spinning in the wind. When the turbine gets past cut-in it is harder to spin. The wind has to push harder to keep it spinning. The motion of the vehicle is creating the wind and must work harder to keep the turbine spinning.


----------



## Mark C (Jun 25, 2010)

Let me try saying it this way: The "push back" of the generator that was referred to is like increasing the coefficient of drag. The motor has to work harder to push the lesser aerodynamic vehicle down the road. As an example, as your wind turbine is making 2 amps of power, your motor is sucking 3 amps of extra power to provide the forward motion.

Still, all "laws" in physics were learned by trial and error. If you can make it past this little nuisance and make more power than you use they will probably name the new law after you!, so I say Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. I look forward to this turning into a project that we all learn something from.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

You can break your city's laws. You can break your state's laws. You can break Federal laws. You cannot break the laws of physics...that's why they are called laws, as opposed to theories.

As the wind pushes on the blades, the blades push back, otherwise the wind would go through the blades just as you would fall through a wall if it didn't push back against you. The energy of the wind is disipated into the blade, which causes it to rotate around the generator, because that is its only fixed point. Because it is a generator, and not just a freespinning joint, the generator resists this force, which creates heat and electric current. The electric current is harvested in your batteries while the heat is energy lost.

When wind hits a windmill, it's force is broken into a lateral force and a perpendicular force. The perpendicular force is turned into electrical or mechanical energy, while the lateral force turns into heat, ultimately heating the ground. These energies occur because the windmill pushes back against the wind, converting the wind's kinetic energy into thermal and mechanical energy.

The only way a car could produce power using it's own wind would be if the wind could push against the turbine causing it to turn, and continue past without having lost any energy, but that is not the case, there is always energy lost.


----------



## DavidDymaxion (Dec 1, 2008)

Build a system that works when the car is parked. You can then easily test it while moving. If the moving test fails to produce a net gain of energy, you can still use it while parked.

It is generally better to put the solar panels on your house than the car. They are very expensive and subject to damage on a car.

I think a place where many people's intuition breaks down is you are used to spinning an electric motor by hand, and it is easy to turn. When it is generating electricity, it is very hard to turn, but most people don't experience that case directly.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

To explain sailboats sailing into the wind and wind generator sailing machines doing the same . They move into the wind using smaller ratio of movement( speed against) the relative winds movement . Say 10 mph wind and the boat makes 1mph into the wind via tacking or in the wind generator boat these tacking angles are done in the turbine and propeller so the boat goes dead into the wind but at a slow rate . The faster the boat goes into the wind the more apparent wind the boat sees (10 mph head wind +1mph = 11mph apparent wind) , now more power is available until new equilibrium is established .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

most wind turbines are not pure reaction they use aerodynamic lift lessening the drag considerably . 20/1 or something like that (lift/drag).


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> I understand that there are laws, but sometimes laws are broken.


You can break the "laws" of man (and if you get caught, suffer the consequences) but you cannot break the laws of Nature.



EVEngineeer said:


> If the wind is pushing your generator, your generator is pushing back against the wind, slowing you down." I think that is an incorrect statement that you made, but maybe I'm wrong. ...That is not what I call an equal and opposite force, if the turbine spins.


So how do you figure helicopters are able to fly, for one example?


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

Try this simple thought experiment (analogy):

1. Open your wallet.

2. Take out a dollar bill.

3. Put the dollar bill in your front pocket.

Now a multiple choice test about the results of the experiment.

Did you just:

A. Earn a dollar.

B. Spend a dollar.

C. Break even.

Now imagine the Universe is the government, and wants to tax the proceeds of the transaction.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> I understand that there are laws, but sometimes laws are broken.


Not these laws.

But there is no real penalty if you try to break them. Your efforts will be pretty much ignored.

The best you could possibly do would be a net gain of zero. Assume 100% efficiency on everything and that is all you get.

If the wind is blowing you could harvest some of it. If you are stopped it is clear that the wind will spin your generator and that energy could be used to charge the batteries. But you don't have to be going very fast in order to consume all of that in all the other losses. And this only works because the energy in the wind comes from outside the closed system that is the car.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Tesseract said:


> You can break the "laws" of man (and if you get caught, suffer the consequences) but you cannot break the laws of Nature.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you figure helicopters are able to fly, for one example?


I don't know how helicopters fly, why don't you explain it. Helicopters do not have a wind turbine that allows wind to push it, like a windmill. They use gas to power the turbine to move it fast to push against the atmosphere. That's what I think.


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> I don't know how helicopters fly, why don't you explain it. Helicopters do not have a wind turbine that allows wind to push it, like a windmill. They use gas to power the turbine to move it fast to push against the atmosphere. That's what I think.


Why don't you just change your nick to something more suitable? Sorry man, no one here is trying to spoil your dream... We're just trying to take you back to the reality!


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Brute Force said:


> Try this simple thought experiment (analogy):
> 
> 1. Open your wallet.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the sarcasm jerk. I am simply trying to understand why wind turbines do not exist for cars. I legitimately do not know and am trying to understand, but I feel like even with all of the negativity there just has to be a way and I plan on trying to find that way. It may take my entire lifetime and I may never find the answer, but I would like to at least find all the ways that it does not work. Then others can see my real findings of data that I physically tested and then others can learn from it. Maybe I will write a book on what not to do. Benjamin Franklin states" I didn't fail, I just found 100 ways of doing it wrong"


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

FireCrow said:


> Why don't you just change your nick to something more suitable? Sorry man, no one here is trying to spoil your dream... We're just trying to take you back to the reality!


I know what you mean and I did not know some of the things that were mentioned to me on this forum, but I just know there is a way. Scientists and Engineers are people who create, discover, etc. the impossible or as most of you would probably rather say the improbable.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

So to summarize, what has been said to me is that the wind turbine adds drag, because of the extra surface area. Is this part correct so far? Also, some of the energy that is lost is through heat. Is that part true? If so, where does the heat come from and where does it go exactly? My thoughts are that couldn't someone design a turbine so that it is aerodynamic for an automobile? Also, couldn't someone find a way to capture that heat and use it in a different way? I'm really just trying to understand this, in it's complete entirety with the math, laws, etc.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> So to summarize, what has been said to me is that the wind turbine adds drag, because of the extra surface area. Is this part correct so far? Also, some of the energy that is lost is through heat. Is that part true? If so, where does the heat come from and where does it go exactly? My thoughts are that couldn't someone design a turbine so that it is aerodynamic for an automobile? Also, couldn't someone find a way to capture that heat and use it in a different way? I'm really just trying to understand this, in it's complete entirety with the math, laws, etc.


You get heat loss because you add turbulence to the air; the local compression around the turbine blades raises the air temperature, and you don't get that back. Then, the electrical components (generator, wires, battery) all have internal resistance and you lose power according to Ohm's law: P = I^2 * R. That power loss shows up as the components getting warm, and the excess heat is generally radiated away. If your components get extremely hot, then you can try to recover this energy by capturing the heat and building a heat engine... but it will have an efficiency that is proportional to the temperature difference between the hot and cold parts, divided by the absolute temperature. For most electronics you'll fry them before that efficiency becomes high enough to pursue.

A different look at things: The turbine does work (as in the classical physics definition of work) on the air. Work equals force times distance, and the SI units for work are Joules. Energy is work. Power is work divided by time. If you hold a turbine up into an airstream then it does work on the air, and you'll note it takes a certain amount of force F to hold that turbine against the wind. Suppose you travel a distance d, you'll extract F*d of energy from the air (maximum, in an ideal world).

You can look at the power used by a car in a similar way. If my car requires 15kW to travel down the road at (say) 33 meters per second (roughly 70 mph), then it will take me 30 seconds to cover 1 kilometer.
In that kilometer, I'll have done 15000*30 = 450,000 Joules of work. The equivalent average opposing force for that kilometer is 450 Newtons, which works out to near enough 100 pounds. 

So, if I wanted to re-generate 10% of the power required to move my car, so as to increase its range, I would necessarily have to hold my turbine up with 10 pounds of force against the oncoming wind. But that 10 pounds of force is added to the average opposing force that the car experiences, and so there is no net gain. And in the real world, we'd experience additional drag force by sticking the turbine in the wind, and we'd lose power through the wiring resistance of the generator.

This is why wind-powered generators cannot extend the range of a moving vehicle while the vehicle is moving. Reducing the vehicle's aerodynamic drag force is the cheapest and most effective way to increase a car's range at highway speeds.


----------



## Dicey (May 24, 2011)

Just wanted to jump in here after reading this. Where I work, we've received patents people have filled out for just the type of thing that EVEngineer is talking about. The whole problem is, as many of you have pointed out, you end up increasing the drag on the vehicle by incorporating a wind turbine to try and harness energy. Even if you mount the turbine in the middle of the car, you will increase the energy it requires for you to move forward. You can get significantly better benefits by simply streamlining the vehicle. As to why not everyone does that? Not many people want to drive cars with flat bottoms, covered wheels, and a variety of other rather unsightly drag reducing techniques. 

EVEngineer, 

The heat comes from the operation of the generator, which you need to convert the energy from the rotating blades to electricity. There is no getting rid of those losses in the system as heat is basically a byproduct of every system. Even the blades on a wind turbine heat up during to frictional losses on the blade as they spin. Trying to capture that heat would lead to know losses. Essentially, there is no easy, or even difficult way, to get 100% efficiency from a system. When I get home, I'll pull out my heat transfer book and reference a couple problems for you if you'd like that cover heat loss over a wind turbine blade. This really isn't an idea you should try to proceed with.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> Since Florida is the sunshine state, would it be beneficial and efficient to recess a solar panel on the hood of the car? how much money would it cost and how much power would I get?


No, it wouldn't be worth the cost.

Also to the turbine question, remember your 4th grade science classes. 

"Conservation of energy"


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Wind generators or sailboats build pressure bubble in front of them , it becomes a slightly slower moving teardrop of air . This slower moving teardrop on a sail boat is huge , starting well infront of the object , engulfing the entire object and ending more then a boat length behind it.This monster airfoil or teardrop would make you think the boat couldn't ever sail with this blimp over it .But this is only slightly slower moving air ,but accounts for rather large loses to our boats ,wind machines or our cars . Wind generators are about 50% eff. back in 1979 I saw in Popular mechanics or Science A wind generator that tried to lesson this bubble by stacking the turbine disks (3 or 4) in front of each other with 10 to 15 deg. advance on each preceding disk . these were all fixed on a long shaft (horizontal shaft machine ) they claimed it was the most efficient wind generator in the world . I never saw anything more about it.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> You can break your city's laws. You can break your state's laws. You can break Federal laws. You cannot break the laws of physics...that's why they are called laws, as opposed to theories.


Aaaahhh, the immutable laws of nature. 

Back to reality again. This is some thread.


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

No sarcasm was intended. The analogy stands. You can't pay yourself and come out ahead, there has to be an external input. Similarly, you can't use the energy your car is consuming to make energy for your car to consume, there has to be an external input.

No matter how perfect of a turbine you come up with, even one that is 100% efficient, it still requires energy to turn the generator the turbine is driving. That energy will come from the motor pushing the car down the road.

Your missing a very important concept: conservation of energy. Every one of us engineers and scientists are well acquainted with it. Its been proven over and over again for centuries now. You'll get to know it too.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

To TigerNut, I really appreciate the information I think you gave the best explanation, I now understand the dilemma. Regardless, I will continue working on ideas just to prove myself wrong. It is always helpful to create things and find out why they do not work and then others can learn from it as well.

To Dicey, thank you for your information and I would love to see further information about it. That would be great if you could post some more information from real data such as books. Most people on this forum have been just saying that it is not possible, but not have really shown some real data.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> Can you find somewhere in any law of physics that states that you need drag to get energy, but the amount of drag that you get is greater then the power you will receive.



Its called ----- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics!!!!

The laws of thermodynamics translated into plain English

You can't win
You can't break even
You can't leave the game


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

That's not plain English, because you are interpreting what you think you know the answer is. I do not think some of you understand what I am saying, but that is fine.


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

The drag of a wind turbine isn't a bad thing. That drag is the energy being removed from the flow. It is power being transferred to the turbine blades (plus some losses from turbulence.)


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Would anyone care to explain exactly why this would not work? http://www.cadcim.com/tickoo_wind_turbine/tickoo_wind_turbine.htm


----------



## EVfun (Mar 14, 2010)

"In this device, the *wind energy will be used* to drive the turbine and the power thus generated will be used to charge the batteries."

That is the key. If the wind energy is being used to drive the turbine. The wind energy just came from expending power to propel the car. 

If you put this on a car and leave the generator disconnected you will see the structure imposes some additional losses. Still, you can find the energy needed to go a set speed which will be a little more than before the box was added to the top of your car. If you put a load on the generator you will find the energy needed to go a set speed increase by the amount of energy you get from the generator. The energy from the wind will no longer just pass through with some stray drag, it will be transferred to the turbine blades and so to the generator.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> Would anyone care to explain exactly why this would not work? http://www.cadcim.com/tickoo_wind_turbine/tickoo_wind_turbine.htm


Where's the wind coming from...


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> That's not plain English, because you are interpreting what you think you know the answer is. I do not think some of you understand what I am saying, but that is fine.


Hi Evengineer

I am an engineer
Eur. Ing. Duncan Cairncross C.Eng. BScMechEng. FIMechE. MIPENZ. MFEANNI.

So I translated the laws in a way I thought you could understand

Another go

Basically generator - motor - solar panel ... are devices to convert energy from one form to another

So you need to feed energy into your wind turbine - if it is mounted on your car you need to feed energy into the car to compensate or the car will slow down

The energy from the wind is changed to electrical energy 

The electrical energy will be LESS THAN the energy taken from the wind
which will be LESS THAN the extra energy you had to feed to the car

Each time you convert the energy the universe takes its "tax" and converts some of that energy into heat

This is the core of physics and engineering since the days of Lord Kelvin and James Watt

This applies if the air is stationary - no wind 

If there is a wind there *are* ways to harvest that energy -
BUT
You come into the same problem that we have with solar panels

- Trying to fill a bathtub with a teaspoon - 

The solar panels are the teaspoon - you need to calculate how much energy you are going to get and compare it to the task

a car needs 200 - 400 Watthours to propel it for 1 mile 

Bright sunshine is about 1 Kw/m2 - solar panels are about 20% efficient 
(you can get better - the cost goes up..)

so a 1m2 solar panel will give you a miles worth of "fuel" every hour

But its not as good as that - that was 1m2 - square on to the sun your solar panels on your car won't be pointing at the sun

The result is what we see - Toyota uses solar panels to operate a cooling fan 

You can use the wind to drive your car - but the most efficient way to do that is with a sail
Good luck tacking up the highway!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

We really need to limit these threads to about a page. If someone has their own interpretation of physics or is convinced they'll find the loophole in the law that millions of scientists have overlooked for thousands of years there's really no hope of us convincing them otherwise. It's a fun conversation for the first few minutes, but after that it's really just pointless.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

So basically what everyone is saying is that it will work, but not for long. It does create a small amount of energy, but not enough to be the sole power source. So if I did put a solar panel and a wind turbine, then I would get like a mile extra distance from each. Its better then nothing, so why not do it? My goal is to make the car run solely off of the wind, but according to the laws of physics it is not possible, but it is possible to run off of wind for a small amount of time and therefore it increases the range of the vehicle. Also, I was wondering. Since people keep talking about the energy being lost through heat, would it help if a flap or door blocked the opening periodically, but controlled? That way the turbine could spin for a while and then when it starts to reach higher temperatures, the door closes so the turbine spins freely for a short time. Then when it cools down the door opens again. 

To somanywelps, the wind would come from the sky when it is parked. Being in Florida, this will not work, but in other areas it would. If I was driving, then the wind would be created from a grill or screen that is placed in front of the box. Unless you could think of a better way, that would be nice.

To duncan, thank you for the info. I have designed something similar to the box that I posted a link to. Except mine has a grill in front of half of the front side, to create wind behind it to be feed to the turbine. The other half is angled down, because the box that I drew is basically an extension of the car, without changing the shape of it. The car ends up looking taller. The grill is sort of like the grill in the front of cars, but the one I drew is multiple thin pieces of metal, like skewers across the side with the opening. 

To ziggythewiz, I don't want anyone to try to talk me out of it, but if you do, I want to see real facts and evidence. If you are encouraging me to do it, then I would like to hear advice and opinions on how it should be made. Like what materials, what design do you propose, etc.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

No, it won't work. The drag you are creating is more than the energy you are generating. It won't work. You'll flow energy but it will be a net loss. If you want a wind generator, buy a property in a county that is very windy and allows you to put a turbine in the middle of your yard(which usually requires at least a radius of land matching the height of your tower) and grid-tie it.

Solar will allow for a small amount of power but only works when you are parked with the panel facing the sun and if its on the roof it will add drag to the car if its not completing flush and matching the roof with no gaps to catch wind.

Your best bet for solar is to grid-tie it and use that to offset the power you draw from the grid to charge the car.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Yea I agree about the solar part, but I'm still not convinced about the wind part.


----------



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> So basically what everyone is saying is that it will work, but not for long. It does create a small amount of energy, but not enough to be the sole power source.


No, that's not really what everyone is saying. The turbine will generate less energy than it takes to use it. This is a negative effect, meaning u will go further without it.

Regarding Solar, yes, it is an added amount of energy albeit relatively small and any aero drag must be considered.

edit; OOPs sorry MNDriver, didn't see ur post. Ya, what he said. lol


----------



## alvin (Jul 26, 2008)

You might get a treadmill motor put a prop on it and do a little testing.

If you try to charge a battery with it be sure to use a diode in between so the battery is not running the motor.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Get yourself a bicycle. pedal as hard as you can. Mount a GPS on the bike and measure your speed. 

Now hook up a motor to the rear chain drive and put a wind turbine on the front. Repeat the first test and compare the results. 

Bottom line; You must put in more than you get out. That's a fact

It doesn't matter what size of turbine you have, it doesn't matter what size of car you have, it doesn't matter how fast you drive, it doesn't matter how much aerodynamic resistance a car has. None of that matters. 

The fact is you must put in more than you get out of anything. If you want a wind turbine to output 1 kW then you must put in more than 1 kw. If you mount a 1 kW wind turbine on a car, the car must output more than 1 kW for the turbine to generate 1 kW. 

If you really, really want cold hard proof, Get two variable frequency drives, two motors and a battery pack. 

Connect the DC buses of the two VFDs togther. Connect one motor to the first VFD, then one motor to the second VFD. Then connect the motors shafts togther. 

Start the VFD's. Start them both at the same speed, then gradually slow one down slightly. In theory, one motor will be acting as a generator, supplying power in the DC bus. That should feed the other VFD and keep it going. That VFD then is turing the motor that is connected to the motor which is generating. So it should be perpetual. It isn't though, and everything will eventually stop


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_the wind would come from the sky when it is parked.

_This would work - you would *need* to retract or cover the turbine when the car was being driven

when all is said and done you would have added a mess of parts (and weight) that would be adding teaspoonfuls to your battery pack

You would be better mounting the wind turbine on a tower next to your house and using it to feed into your house (and car) - the same applies to solar panels

(do not mount the turbine on the house)


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

ok, but I live in Florida where the wind is not good. What if I made a hybrid car. Instead of these hybrid gas and electric cars, what about the electric car with my wind turbine, plug in, and solar panel(s), combined with a steam engine. That way the energy lost from the wind turbine that everyone is saying is heat can be redirected towards the steam engine. Or something like that. If the heat can be redirected to the water source or something. I now need to learn about steam engines, because I do not know anything about them. I heard the word steam engine so I started coming up with thoughts, even though I did not research it first. I know that I should not have drawn to conclusions without an understanding, but it's worth a shot asking.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> ok, but I live in Florida where the wind is not good. What if I made a hybrid car. Instead of these hybrid gas and electric cars, what about the electric car with my wind turbine, plug in, and solar panel(s), combined with a steam engine. That way the energy lost from the wind turbine that everyone is saying is heat can be redirected towards the steam engine. Or something like that. If the heat can be redirected to the water source or something. I now need to learn about steam engines, because I do not know anything about them. I heard the word steam engine so I started coming up with thoughts, even though I did not research it first. I know that I should not have drawn to conclusions without an understanding, but it's worth a shot asking.


You should buy a car.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I have a 2010 hyundai elantra. I want a better for the environment, just as cheaper in the long run, practical, and safe car. My car has everything except it is not as good for the environment or as cheap as I want. Gas costs too much and is going up. Does anyone have thoughts to how to make my car get better mileage per gallon of gas?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> Gas costs too much and is going up. Does anyone have thoughts to how to make my car get better mileage per gallon of gas?


You could convert it to electric...


----------



## CrunchTime (Feb 13, 2009)

Go over to http://ecomodder.com/ and see what those guys are doing. They get some pretty impressive (but mostly really ugly ) results...


----------



## Frankentech (Apr 16, 2012)

Ok, my first post (yay!) and a fun subject to play with.

We're talking about wind resistance rather than anything else and making a car more slippery and lower profile will certainly help efficiency. By applying a wind turbine you are creating resistance to the air, an obstacle in its way which in effect slows a vehicle down.

Proof? Drive along and put your hand out the window so that it's horizontal to the ground, takes no real effort, now raise your hand vertical and it encounters the pressure of the wind. Couple this resistance with the inherent losses in any system (hell 40% (estimated) total energy from a standard engine gets to the wheels) and a turbine is a bad idea.

However, if you do fancy a play with turbines, there is a method you can play with but is unlikely to display huge gains. The clue was in the third sentence. If you duct air from the front in order to improve aero efficiency, you can create a second duct with a brake switch activated flap which will feed air into a second pipe and through the blades of a turbine. You get significantly better efficiency than a standard wind turbine would get because it's a significantly more controlled environment than standard wind turbines.

Is it a very effective way? I have no idea, but it's about the only real way for wind to be of use in an EV outside of the strange (but oddly real) suggestion of strapping a sail to your vehicle and shouting "Anchors away!" as you tack down the freeway.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Frankentech said:


> Ok, my first post (yay!) and a fun subject to play with.
> 
> We're talking about wind resistance rather than anything else and making a car more slippery and lower profile will certainly help efficiency. By applying a wind turbine you are creating resistance to the air, an obstacle in its way which in effect slows a vehicle down.
> 
> ...


Leaving the duct without obstruction would be more cost effective than sticking a turbine in there and blocking it. Use your heads.


----------



## Frankentech (Apr 16, 2012)

somanywelps said:


> Leaving the duct without obstruction would be more cost effective than sticking a turbine in there and blocking it. Use your heads.


Well thanks for that, and thanks for missing my point. Is it a good idea? Don't know, but then active aero is an old field with very little research. Costs? Benefits? Again, no idea, it was just presenting one of the very few ways you can use wind


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Here's a better idea. There are generators that use a kite to pull a cable to spin a generator. You could similarly implement wind powered regenerative braking by simply releasing a parachute when you hit the brakes. This means of power generation is very efficient and durable.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Frankentech said:


> Well thanks for that, and thanks for missing my point. Is it a good idea? Don't know, but then active aero is an old field with very little research. Costs? Benefits? Again, no idea, it was just presenting one of the very few ways you can use wind


It's NOT a good idea because it takes more energy than it generates. Conversation of energy.

This is a basic middle school concept and you're on a site for assembling cars.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

gottdi said:


> Ditch it an buy a good condition VW TDI. Mine gets 46 to 48 mpg. It can use bio diesel too. Not terrible stinky and with a mild chip has plenty of poop to have fun as well.


Sorry but I do not want that car, it's uglier then mine and it is not big enough. I like big cars. Also, biofuel is great if you take restaurant dirty vegetable oil, otherwise it is not so good. Example, if you use peanut oil and with all of the allergies people have today, that could cause a major problem. If someone is allergic to peanuts and they are walking down the street while I am driving, they could get extremely sick.


----------



## Frankentech (Apr 16, 2012)

somanywelps said:


> It's NOT a good idea because it takes more energy than it generates. Conversation of energy.
> 
> This is a basic middle school concept and you're on a site for assembling cars.


Ok, if you're going to respond like that, let me expand on things so I can hopefully make things clearer.

Conservation of energy, yes, I'm aware of it. Very valuable when you wish to increase/maintain speed but when braking it can go hang because the whole idea is to slow down which means increasing resistance.

As such, when the system is inactive there would be minimal resistance because the air would be guided away from the turbine to somewhere vital like in front of the tyre in order to assist in reducing drag (similar to the Porsche method). When active, and it'd only be active under braking, the air is guided towards the turbines which spin up, the resistance not hampering the car at all.

This all falls under active aero, something used to great effect in ITC back in 1996, has seen use in brake cooling ducts on more modern race cars, currently very visible in the form of DRS in F1, and being utilised on production BMWs to manage cooling and aero efficiency at speed.

But hey, this is middle school stuff - fluid dynamics and the idea of getting things to do more than one job.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Frankentech said:


> When active, and it'd only be active under braking, the air is guided towards the turbines which spin up, the resistance not hampering the car at all.


We already have regen, this does not help.

Not even in the extreme case of a race car where the weight of a turbine is going to hurt more than it helps.

They already use flywheels for that sometimes.


----------



## Frankentech (Apr 16, 2012)

somanywelps said:


> We already have regen, this does not help.
> 
> Not even in the extreme case of a race car where the weight of a turbine is going to hurt more than it helps.
> 
> They already use flywheels for that sometimes.


Ah yes the Williams Flybrid system, a pretty damn impressive system with surprising efficiency claimed over the electrical system (just not quite as flexible in positioning).

By the way, race cars are designed lighter than the regulations so they can incorporate extras or just ballast to help with handling.

Are you discounting the idea because you have tried it? I haven't tried it, I'm not even taking it that seriously, but I don't discount it until someone has tried it and it's shown to have either a negligeble effect (when cost/benefit is taken into account), has none, or a negative effect. Yes, regen exists, I know about regenerative systems aka KERS, but when the system you're running is limited, you try to maximise everything you can to get the most out of it.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

Frankentech said:


> Are you discounting the idea because you have tried it?


No, because I know the first law of thermodynamics.

I also know a mediocre amount of economics, and this thread should be merged with the "free energy" and "Unity" theory threads because it's the same damn thing.

Just like alternators on an electric motor.


----------



## Brute Force (Aug 28, 2010)

Oops, someone beat you to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4AFD89F616DD791F

They're gonna make MILLIONS!


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Brute Force said:


> Oops, someone beat you to it:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4AFD89F616DD791F
> 
> They're gonna make MILLIONS!


I saw this already


----------



## chrisc (Apr 12, 2012)

Dear EVEngeneeer;
Your Idea will not work because: When standing still there is no power to move the car. If you add 1kw of power the car will then move. If you then harvest all the power you added to make the car move it will stop. 

A 100% efficient generator can only extract the energy you have put into the car to make it move. If you then use this energy to power the car you have gained zero extra energy. 

Nothing is 100% efficient, so a car moving will slow down and stop. If you have a generator attached to the car the extra inefficiency in running the generator will make the car slow down faster and stop sooner.

You need to think of a way that you can continually add extra energy to the car to overcome wind resistance and other friction in order to keep it moving. We currently do this by burning fuel in an engine.


----------



## Jesse67 (May 12, 2009)

EVEngineer, I strongly encourage you to try this with a small scale experiment which will be very educational to you and will also not cost you a lot of time or money. All you need are two meccano motors, a simple turbine driving one motor mounted to a simple chassis with the wheels driven through a single gear reduction to the other motor, it can all be built from meccano and the wind turbine blades can be made with any thin stiff material, thin sheet aluminum would be easy to shape into some nice curved blades. 

Hook the wires of the two motors together, pay attention to polarity so the motor directions match up with the spinning turbine causing the drive motor to drive the car forward, not backward.

Now spin one motor by hand. The other will spin as well because you generate electricity from the first motor spinning, it acts as a generator. Pay attention to the resistance you feel on the generator vs when the wires are disconnected. Now mount your turbine and your drive motor and give the whole thing a push on a smooth flat surface in an area with no wind. The wind generated from the forward motion of the car will spin the turbine, generating electricity which will undoubtedly provide some power to the drive motor. If your idea works the car will keep driving and I'll eat my hat. 

The problem is that the amount of power produced by the drive motor will not be nearly enough to maintain the forward motion of the vehicle and it will glide to a stop soon after you let it go. This is due to all the inefficiancies in the system. Measure how far it glided until it came to a stop. Now, disconnect and remove the turbine and add on the same weight back to the chassis so that is equivalent, give the car the same push you gave it before and the car will glide a lot further due to the reduction in overall drag. Therefore you are much better off without the wind turbine! How far a car glides in neutral is directly proportional to how much aerodynamic and rolling drag it has, the higher both of these are the more power is required to keep it moving. If you somehow had a 100% efficient turbine, generator, motor and drive system the car would glide exactly the same distance as if it had the same weight but no turbine! Might as well not have all the extra complexity. 

I entertained the same ideas as you untill I tried almost the same experiment myself. Four years in mechanical engineering explained why it will never work. You are much better off just closing up the holes in the grill altogether and not worrying about trying to recapture that energy.

Now, once you have that out of your system blow a fan on your meccano car from the side and watch it drive along powered by the wind but remember, a windmill powered car only works if the wind is actually blowing, same as a sailboat! I highly recomend watching the mythbusters blow your own sail episode, they have some good explanations of some very similar concepts. 

If you actually go out and try some of these concepts I gaurantee you will not only have a lot of fun but you will learn a lot and gain a real appreciation for how things actually work. No amount of reading stuff on the internet will give you that. If you can post some pictures of your experiments I'm sure people will be glad to help you make it as efficient as possible to give you the best results.

Good luck!

Jesse


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

Look up how a sail boat moves. Maybe that gives an answer to wind power. Boats can sail into the wind, but it requires 'zigzagging'... Try that on the motorways


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

steven4601 said:


> Look up how a sail boat moves. Maybe that gives an answer to wind power. Boats can sail into the wind, but it requires 'zigzagging'... Try that on the motorways


That's not quite accurate, but it gives me a better idea.

Take a 1-prop powerboat. Now you want longer range, so stick another prop on the front that generates power as you move.

INFINITE POWER.

(no.)


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

steven4601 said:


> Look up how a sail boat moves. Maybe that gives an answer to wind power. Boats can sail into the wind, but it requires 'zigzagging'... Try that on the motorways


Wind power is essentially tacking constantly due to the angle of the blades. You can make a wind powered vehicle go straight into the wind, the key is that you're taking power from THE wind, not trying to generate your own.


----------



## zafh15a (Mar 13, 2012)

I have a great idea sure to make me rich. How about a sail boat with a fan that blows air at the sail, and a wind turbine on the boat to power the fan. On a calm day all you have to do is get the fan started with a battery (charged by flux capacitor). As the boat starts to move, The wind generator will power the fan at a higher speed, making the boat move faster, thus pushing more air across the generator, incressing fan speed so the boat speeds up agian, ect ect. After a few feet the boat will be moving at the speed of sound so we switch to a loudspeaker to power the sail until the boat reaches the speed of light. Then all we need to think about is how to slow down because we are at our destination before we left. Oh yea, we wanted a car, soooo we will need to mount the boat on wheels and we have a light speed amphibian. Any flaws in this logic. I thought not. I cant believe no one has thought of this before. I will be rich, and will see who has the last laugh !!!


----------



## chrisc (Apr 12, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Wind power is essentially tacking constantly due to the angle of the blades. You can make a wind powered vehicle go straight into the wind, the key is that you're taking power from THE wind, not trying to generate your own.


Not possible. Unless you stop to charge batteries then move a little and repeat. (similar to tacking).


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

chrisc said:


> Not possible. Unless you stop to charge batteries then move a little and repeat. (similar to tacking).


How is starting and stopping similar to tacking? The purpose of tacking is to create a force that is not in direct opposition to the desired direction of travel. A turbine does this by turning the wind's horizontal force into a perpendicular spinning force. If the turbine is spinning it can be making power. Your direction of travel is irrelevant to the production of this power, and only affects the use of this power as a factor of efficiency.

You don't need a turbine to test this one out. Just hook a fan shaft to a driveshaft and it will move (car, boat, whatever).


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

> *INFINITE POWER.*


Oh yeah, forgot to post this here.








...or


----------



## CrunchTime (Feb 13, 2009)

zafh15a said:


> Then all we need to think about is how to slow down because we are at our destination before we left. Oh yea, we wanted a car, soooo we will need to mount the boat on wheels and we have a light speed amphibian.


It's better than that - since you arrived yesterday, you don't even have to build anything - just use the one you arrived in...


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

MN Driver said:


> Oh yeah, forgot to post this here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which came first though? Chicken or the egg? lol If those things in those two pics were possible, that would be like the same concept.


----------



## chrisc (Apr 12, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> How is starting and stopping similar to tacking? The purpose of tacking is to create a force that is not in direct opposition to the desired direction of travel. A turbine does this by turning the wind's horizontal force into a perpendicular spinning force. If the turbine is spinning it can be making power. Your direction of travel is irrelevant to the production of this power, and only affects the use of this power as a factor of efficiency.
> 
> You don't need a turbine to test this one out. Just hook a fan shaft to a driveshaft and it will move (car, boat, whatever).


 You can not travel directly up wind you need to do it in steps! A vehicle with a wind turbine will generate power which can be stored only when the brakes are firmly applied. If you then release the brakes you will need the same force which the wind is pushing with on the vehicle/turbine to stop it rolling backwards. So even if the magical 100% efficient turbine could convert 100% of the energy from the wind acting on its blades the vehicle will still roll back due to the wind blowing on the vehicles body. 

Apply the brakes and store power. Use this stored power to move a short distance forward into the wind and repeat.

The direction of travel if wind is present in very relevant to the production of power from a turbine mounted on a vehicle. Converting the winds kinetic energy to electrical energy, and then to kinetic energy in a vehicle. Is not as efficient as using a sail. You still can not travel directly into the wind.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

chrisc said:


> If you then release the brakes you will need the same force which the wind is pushing with on the vehicle/turbine to stop it rolling backwards.


So you're saying no matter how hard the wind blows against a prop that is directly coupled to a driveshaft the prop will never move?

The wind is not pushing the car backward with nearly the force that it is spinning the turbine. What you are thinking of is called a sail. 

You can make a test rig in about 5 minutes, or spend 5 seconds searching for videos of people who have. People have built full size prototypes as well.


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

EVEngineer,

It seems as though you have some serious misconceptions about certain things.

"Wind" is the the flow of air. A board/sheet/cover which moving air hits does not produce wind. It may well "scatter" the airflow (the air is forced to flow around it), producing drag, but certainly does not create wind. Such an object will remove energy from the airflow.

Seriously, you need to learn some basic physics - the reasons why your plan will not work have all been pointed out to you ad nauseum so far in this thread.

One more attempt to add to the growing list (numbers are for demonstration only);

1) Your car without any turbine attached takes 10kW to drive at a certain constant speed.
2) Your car with a turbine strapped to the roof/behind the grille/wherever (creating drag through various dynamic mechanisms) is harder to push through the air; 11kW to maintain the same speed as in point 1).
3) Your turbine is 90% efficient at taking energy from the airflow and converting it into electricity. We will assume that (11kW - 10kW = 1000W) of the airflow energy is due to the turbine and goes towards the production of electricity. Therefore, the turbine will produce 900W of energy.
4) Let's assume that the motor, controller and battery in the car are all 100% efficient. Therefore, with the turbine helping to drive the car, the rest of the car's power supply (the battery) needs to produce (11kW - 900W = 10.1kW) This is greater than the 10kW it takes to drive the car without the turbine installed.

As soon as you start moving, the turbine is costing you energy overall - it does not "add 1 mile to your range and then stop working".

All that said, I have a crazy idea of my own; how about a turbine which only works with cross-winds? If it can be implemented without increasing the frontal area of the vehicle, it would still increase the surface drag of the vehicle, but it's power generation would not be working against the motor - that is to say it would be in a similar mode as it is when parked - the natural airflow across the vehicle would be providing the power, not the motor. Of course, this would be totally useless on a calm day when there is no crosswind, but it could be a possibility in very windy climates and might produce enough charge to power a small lamp inside the vehicle...



EVEngineeer said:


> Which came first though? Chicken or the egg? lol If those things in those two pics were possible, that would be like the same concept.


Laugh all you want - this is exactly the same logic you are trying to apply to airflow and turbines. (And if you believe in evolution, the answer is "egg". The thing that laid the first chicken's egg wasn't _quite_ a chicken. )

Chris


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

So that video that ziggythewiz posted, it looks to me that wind power is possible.
To iti_uk: I agree with you about the chicken verse egg thing, but anyways. lol. How do you know those values are correct. Have you tested it or know someone or some place that shows that your figures are accurate. What if the wind power just powered the air conditioner? In that video it shows that the wind is pushing the car backwards, but because of the turbine, it moves forward anyways.


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

Eh, why don't you just try on small scale, measure EVERYTHING and stop asking the same question all over again, which by the way has been answered to so many times in this thread, that even my wife understood?...


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Since energy is lost through heat, couldn't I just put some sort of lubrication on the parts the create friction and then not lose as much energy because of heat?


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

You want to lubricate air, tyres or whole car?...


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> Since energy is lost through heat, couldn't I just put some sort of lubrication on the parts the create friction and then not lose as much energy because of heat?


You're still going to lose more energy than you generate.

Read the First Law of Thermodynamics.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Also consider the turbines, even if there is no friction in the bearings whatsoever, will still create losses. Motors and generators are not 100% lossless. The windings are made from copper which is not a superconductor. So unless you have a generator wound with super conducting wires (which doesn't exist outside of liquid nitrogen cooled machines) then you won't be converting 100% of the wind to electricity


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

gottdi said:


> Uhhhh! Dude it is a slam video. It is a bunch of fans connected to the vehicle free spinning in the wind. No data no nothing. It is total BS. Go right ahead and do the experiment and see for yourself. I won't bother wasting my time or money.


It's a totally legitimate video. You have a big fan blowing on a stick-car with a big turbine on it, highly geared down to the drivetrain. The power extracted by the turbine exceeds the power required to overcome the drag force, and the car *slowly* moves against the airflow. But the car could move much faster against the airflow if it didn't have the induced drag from the turbine mast and the turbine itself. 
Now (for EVengineeer), think about how slowly that car is moving and how much electricity that fan must be using, and how fast you can move an electric slot car with much less electricity. That video is only intended to show that you *can* move into a wind using a fan, when the wind is externally caused. It does *not* show that you can use the airflow moving over a vehicle due to the vehicle's motion, extract energy from that airflow, and then use that energy to speed up the vehicle. If that was true, then the stick car would have started moving and then quickly accelerated because the faster it moved, the more wind there is, the more energy it can extract, etc.
You should also take note of the size of the turbine relative to the size of the car. You'd have trouble mounting something large enough on your car and staying road legal.


----------



## Jesse67 (May 12, 2009)

As some one who sails boats, iceboats and land yachts I can tell you that wind power is indeed possible...even against the wind, it just requires tacking back and forth if you have a stationary sail or using a rotating sail, aka a wind turbine which does the tacking for you so to speak, exactly the same principals. 

But it only works if the wind is blowing with a speed relative to the ground, like it is in the video, the fan is providing all the energy. It is impossible to extract any net energy from the air flow that you create by moving yourself at speed through otherwise still air.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I was just correcting the misconception that a car couldn't be wind powered. Sure it can, but it can't be making its own wind. 

It's obviously not practical for a street application, but as a concept it works...you just can't make your own wind...without a can of beans.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I was just correcting the misconception that a car couldn't be wind powered. Sure it can, but it can't be making its own wind.
> 
> It's obviously not practical for a street application, but as a concept it works...you just can't make your own wind...without a can of beans.


A can of beans and a strategically placed pipe would probably be more practical

probably more practical than on-car solar panels as well


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Duncan said:


> probably more practical than on-car solar panels as well


Onboard solar, applied correctly is great. Mine takes care of all my 12V charging, so probably less weight and far less cost and hassle than a DC-DC. 

It's also a great buzz factor. Most people can't tell my bug is electric unless they're really close, but you can see that solar panel from 500 feet away and it raises questions.

Some day I'll get around to covering the roof and hood, 20% panels could extend my range by 50% and someday when they get to market affordably 40% panels would let me unplug completely.


----------



## zafh15a (Mar 13, 2012)

If you were to unplug completely, range would need to be under 3 ft per day.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

zafh15a said:


> If you were to unplug completely, range would need to be under 3 ft per day.


If I covered my car with 40% panels I could do 14 miles a day unplugged.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

TigerNut said:


> It's a totally legitimate video. You have a big fan blowing on a stick-car with a big turbine on it, highly geared down to the drivetrain. The power extracted by the turbine exceeds the power required to overcome the drag force, and the car *slowly* moves against the airflow. But the car could move much faster against the airflow if it didn't have the induced drag from the turbine mast and the turbine itself.
> Now (for EVengineeer), think about how slowly that car is moving and how much electricity that fan must be using, and how fast you can move an electric slot car with much less electricity. That video is only intended to show that you *can* move into a wind using a fan, when the wind is externally caused. It does *not* show that you can use the airflow moving over a vehicle due to the vehicle's motion, extract energy from that airflow, and then use that energy to speed up the vehicle. If that was true, then the stick car would have started moving and then quickly accelerated because the faster it moved, the more wind there is, the more energy it can extract, etc.
> You should also take note of the size of the turbine relative to the size of the car. You'd have trouble mounting something large enough on your car and staying road legal.


I have a much different design of turbine then the one in the video. It is much more aerodynamic, then just sticking a large wind turbine with that pole attached to it. It is also sound proofed in my design, because I know that turbines are loud.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Jesse67 said:


> As some one who sails boats, iceboats and land yachts I can tell you that wind power is indeed possible...even against the wind, it just requires tacking back and forth if you have a stationary sail or using a rotating sail, aka a wind turbine which does the tacking for you so to speak, exactly the same principals.
> 
> But it only works if the wind is blowing with a speed relative to the ground, like it is in the video, the fan is providing all the energy. It is impossible to extract any net energy from the air flow that you create by moving yourself at speed through otherwise still air.


I'm sorry, I keep reading it over and over, but can someone please explain what tacking is exactly?


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

gottdi said:


> Yea! commented on the wrong video. Yes the little car is for real. There is a full sized one. Really now, how practical would it really be. Proof it works, Yes. But it really takes a hell of a wind and where would you find reliable winds like that?


By driving, so the wind is being forced to the turbine?


----------



## palmer_md (Jul 22, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> I'm sorry, I keep reading it over and over, but can someone please explain what tacking is exactly?


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=tacking&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Where do can someone buy cheap, but good solar panels? Also, is it possible to buy a solar panel like this...
http://www.expansionmedia.net/blog/.../blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/fisker22.jpg
It is great, because it is part of the car and flush with it.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

So in plain English, it means to move in this case the turbine, so that is is facing the wind. Like those modern solar panels that move with the sun, so that it gets full sun for ~12 hours a day and not just part of the day.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> I'm sorry, I keep reading it over and over, but can someone please explain what tacking is exactly?


HLMGTFY

Tacking is a mothod of extracting power from wind by creating vectored forces that work to your advantage. This is done by placing a sail (or turbine blade) at an angle to the wind, which changes the direction of a portion of the wind's force.

You can power anything using wind power. YOU CAN'T POWER ANYTHING BY CREATING YOUR OWN WIND TO EXTRACT POWER FROM.

What you are trying to do is take the power strip pictured above, and plug one end into a fan, and the other into a wind turine. If you have these three objects at home, you can test it out in under 1 min. If you don't have any of these objects, why pretend to know anything about them?


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> I have a much different design of turbine then the one in the video. It is much more aerodynamic, then just sticking a large wind turbine with that pole attached to it. It is also sound proofed in my design, because I know that turbines are loud.


I'll write slowly here so that you can keep up...

It...

doesnt...

matter!!!

Your wind turbine, regardless of how "aerodynamic" it is, will incur a greater drag force than the amount of propulsive force that can be generated from its output, regardless of whether it's by mechanical coupling to the drive wheels, electrical conversion, or having a propeller attached to the shaft of your turbine.

Actually, the last idea may get it through: Suppose, for a second, that you had a turbine, and on the output shaft of that thing you put a gearbox driving a propeller that generates thrust. By your thinking, there would be a gearing combination that would allow the car to propel itself by the airflow generated from its forward motion. This is just not so. Airflow due to vehicle motion is not the same as external wind. The reason is that the vehicle motion airflow is generated by the vehicle's energy expenditure. If you have to generate more airflow to support energy extraction by a turbine, then you expend still more energy to begin with.



EVEngineeer said:


> I'm sorry, I keep reading it over and over, but can someone please explain what tacking is exactly?


Go to Wikipedia or Google and search "tacking" in the context of sailing vessels.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> Where do can someone buy cheap, but good solar panels? Also, is it possible to buy a solar panel like this...
> http://www.expansionmedia.net/blog/.../blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/fisker22.jpg
> It is great, because it is part of the car and flush with it.


http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

Yes, it's possible to buy a panel like that. No, it's not cheap or efficient...nothing about the Karma is. If you're trying to get any insiration from a Fisker product you're better off flushing your head down the toilet.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

ok, thanks for the info about the fisker


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

yes, we've seen that one before... because he built it, it doesn't mean it works as it's supposed to... It's driving, yeah... but that's just a video... there could be anything under that bonnet... and it looks shit...


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

zafh15a said:


> If you were to unplug completely, range would need to be under 3 ft per day.


I live in a place where the solar insolation value is about 3. This means on the worst day of the year if the sun shines I would get the equivalent of 3 hours of charging. If I were to cover my hood with solar cells that have 15% efficiency, face the car south, tip the hood up to the proper angle I would be able to charge my batteries while I am working and recover 720 watt hours of charge. At 200 wh/mile this would be 3.6 miles. At 300 wh/mile this would be 2.4 miles. And that is on December 21. For more than half the year I would get 8 hours of charging or 1920 watt hours of charge. At 200 wh/mile this would give me 9.6 miles and at 300 wh/mile 6.4 miles of charge. I drive an average of 12 miles per day. So I couldn't unplug if I were to do this. But it would cut my charging costs in half. It will go from around $0.396 per day to $0.198 per day cost to charge. It takes a lot of those to pay for the panels and special boost charger that would be needed.

Just saying that it is not three feet, it is closer to 8 miles on the average. So not practical but not impossible like thinking you can power the car from its own relative wind.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Does anyone know if there is a better form of solar power. Solar panels are weak, is there a more modern design? A lot of you are forgetting, that yes I would love to get rid of the plug completely, but to start with, I would like to run partially on other sources of free energy. So, the solar panel is a start. I never said that I am going to make a jump from not even owning an EV to building an EV with 100% free energy. This is a many year long process that I plan to build this car. I'm just trying to find out what my options are and what is the best, but cheapest way of doing things.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

Best forms of solar power depends on what you are trying to do.

Many universities have a solar car project. The car is small, extremely lightweight, as aerodynamic as they come, and can handle and drive on the highway at 55mph in the sun and if its full sun, a little will be going back in the battery at the moment.

What you don't get with such a car is, well cargo space, crash safety, or the exemption to have the requirement of having a support car as is required when you are running off the regulations required when licensed as an experimental car since it can't meet crash standards and self-built and kit cars aren't licensable in a good chunk of states(including mine, although licensing in another state to someone else that has a standard license and then transfering the title might be a way around that for some states but I haven't looked into that).

As far as low or no energy goes. Solar water heating is cheap. Even cheaper is a solar air heater built yourself out of a sheet of black painted plywood, a wooden frame and a pane of glass with a 1 inch gap between the plywood and a duct that snakes through the area of the gap and insulated ductwork out the back with a fan to push air through it. Point it at the sun a great way to add supplemental heat to a house with scrap material for next to nothing, just be sure you can seal it off to prevent your houses heat from escaping at night or when its cloudy and can't produce heat.

Of course this isn't about cars but you did ask about solar options.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> Does anyone know if there is a better form of solar power. Solar panels are weak, is there a more modern design?


With 100% efficiency you could get about 100 watts per square foot. Thats all the energy there is. This would be at high noon near the equator and sea level. It would be a little higher at high elevations say up in the mountains and lower at higher latitudes. There are experimental solar cells that get efficiencies nearing 50% in the lab. The problem with all of these higher efficiency cells is they require more energy than the sun delivers so you need lenses to concentrate the light. They also have an approach where you need to illuminate the back side as well as the front. These would work great in a fixed position like a home or business but are unworkable on a car.

For solar the best way is to charge batteries at your home or business and then level 3 charge your car from those batteries if you need a 20 minute charge. If you don't need level 3 at your home (almost nobody does) you can generate electricity with solar and sell it back to the power company during the day and buy it back from them when you charge at night. Basically using the power company as your storage battery. Mounting solar cells on your car is at best a way to top off your 12v battery and keep the passenger space cool in the summer by circulating air. Even with 100% efficient solar cells you are not going to power a normal two place efficient EV the average driving distance needed to unplug much less a normal four place sedan type. With a highly efficient car and a short commute it could be done but it will basically never pay for itself in that situation. It really is that simple.


----------



## Joey (Oct 12, 2007)

Most people that advocate for these types of energy capture systems can understand the general flow of energy in the system, but they fail to consider two issues: the conversion of energy is always less than 100% efficient, and the system boundary. Unless you are taking advantage of an external power source (such as energy from the sun) or energy that would be wasted as heat (brake friction), you can never come out ahead.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Let me rephrase the question. I know about solar power to a point. I have personally built from scrap materials and without instructions, a solar water heater. It was basically a box made out of multiple layers of insulated materials. On top was a sheet of plexiglass to allow for the sun in, but not out. It heated about a gallon of water 20 F degrees higher in about 30 minutes. I only tested it once. So anyways, are there new designs of solar panels? Like is someone producing or testing something that is better then a solar panel? Maybe they kept it like a solar panel and maybe they didn't.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Here is an example of a way to get AC without using any power from any source that is part of the car. http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Power-Auto-Cooler-Cooling/dp/B007P1DLRG


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> Let me rephrase the question. I know about solar power to a point. I have personally built from scrap materials and without instructions, a solar water heater. It was basically a box made out of multiple layers of insulated materials. On top was a sheet of plexiglass to allow for the sun in, but not out. It heated about a gallon of water 20 F degrees higher in about 30 minutes. I only tested it once. So anyways, are there new designs of solar panels? Like is someone producing or testing something that is better then a solar panel? Maybe they kept it like a solar panel and maybe they didn't.


So... for your solar water heater, you can work out the efficiency, because the amount of energy required to heat water by a specific temperature difference is fairly precisely known, and you know the surface area of the plexi window that let the sun in (plus perhaps any reflectors you may have used).

For any solar power system, whether it's heat or light, the power limit is about 1kW per square meter (about 100 watts per square foot). You can't get more than that because that is all that the sun is giving you. No magic secret stuff exists that will get more.
The best solar cells in the world (not commercially available) can extract maybe 50% of the energy that falls on them, up to a limit given by their maximum operating temperature. Below that limit, you could use reflectors or lenses to increase the light that falls on a given cell, but you're still limited to the 100 watts per square foot of collecting area.

Solar energy collectors generally look like panels or mirrors because they have to collect the sun's radiant energy (light and heat). The larger the collecting area, the more energy they can capture in a given time, i.e. the more power is available. Again, nobody has a small device that captures a large amount of solar power because the power available in a solar collector is proportional to its area. The only way around that is to get some neutron star material, which is dense enough to bend light rays towards itself. But if you can get that, then you will likely have other means of propulsion available to you...


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> Let me rephrase the question. I know about solar power to a point. I have personally built from scrap materials and without instructions, a solar water heater. It was basically a box made out of multiple layers of insulated materials. On top was a sheet of plexiglass to allow for the sun in, but not out. It heated about a gallon of water 20 F degrees higher in about 30 minutes. I only tested it once. So anyways, are there new designs of solar panels? Like is someone producing or testing something that is better then a solar panel? Maybe they kept it like a solar panel and maybe they didn't.


So... for your solar water heater, you can work out the efficiency, because the amount of energy required to heat water by a specific temperature difference is fairly precisely known, and you know the surface area of the plexi window that let the sun in (plus perhaps any reflectors you may have used).

For any solar power system, whether it's heat or light, the power limit is about 1kW per square meter (about 100 watts per square foot). You can't get more than that because that is all that the sun is giving you. No magic secret stuff exists that will get more.
The best solar cells in the world (not commercially available) can extract maybe 50% of the energy that falls on them, up to a limit given by their maximum operating temperature. Below that limit, you could use reflectors or lenses to increase the light that falls on a given cell, but you're still limited to the 100 watts per square foot of collecting area.

Solar energy collectors generally look like panels or mirrors because they have to collect the sun's radiant energy (light and heat). The larger the collecting area, the more energy they can capture in a given time, i.e. the more power is available. Again, nobody has a small device that captures a large amount of solar power because the power available in a solar collector is proportional to its area. The only way around that is to get some neutron star material, which is dense enough to bend light rays towards itself. But if you can get that, then you will likely have other means of propulsion available to you...


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> Here is an example of a way to get AC without using any power from any source that is part of the car. http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Power-Auto-Cooler-Cooling/dp/B007P1DLRG


Those small fan units are next to junk, their bearings don't last long and they don't really do more than just cracking the window a bit does anyway. I've seen people who messed with those who actually went ahead and used a slightly larger panel and used two fans on each of the cars interior exhaust ports(all cars have them because that air you pump into the car from its blower has to go out somehow or you won't be able to continue flowing air in). This system did a great job of not only keeping the car the same temperature as the outside, but also by keeping the cars ductwork cool so it wouldn't blast out stored heat from the dashboard when you turned the car on because the fresh air being sucked into the car to replace what was being pushed out came through those vents. I personally would just run it off of small rechargeable batteries and use it when I park in the sun which is pretty rare as I use a garage and have plenty of shaded parking at my workplace and social life I tend to do when the suns peak hours are not present during the summer.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> Here is an example of a way to get AC without using any power from any source that is part of the car. http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Power-Auto-Cooler-Cooling/dp/B007P1DLRG


That's ventilation, not AC. You can also crack the window for free.


----------



## Haggerty (Jun 9, 2010)

Good natured forums always fail to realize when they are being trolled.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

What are you talking about?


----------



## CrunchTime (Feb 13, 2009)

gottdi said:


> Here is our energy source.


Wow! How much did that little lot set you back (if you don't mind me asking)? What's the payback period?


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I have collected a lot of solar cells from calculators, is there a way to hook them up to a car? How would I hook it up correctly? How much power would I get? Obviously, I would need a ton just to get a small amount of power, but hey it is free.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> I have collected a lot of solar cells from calculators, is there a way to hook them up to a car? How would I hook it up correctly? How much power would I get? Obviously, I would need a ton just to get a small amount of power, but hey it is free.


The solar cells in calculators are of really poor quality. Probably around 4% efficient. If your hood was 4' x 4' (16 sq feet) and you completely covered it and under the best possible conditions you are looking at about 64 watts. This is about twice the power needed to run your car radio. In theory this would power your car at a speed of approximately 1/5 of a mile per hour assuming you dont turn anything else on. It isn't enough to drive the headlights. Actually it wouldn't even be enough to turn over the motor in neutral.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> I have collected a lot of solar cells from calculators, is there a way to hook them up to a car? How would I hook it up correctly? How much power would I get? Obviously, I would need a ton just to get a small amount of power, but hey it is free.


I saw a science fair project where a calculator solar cell was placed on a propeller attached to two 2x4s to see if a plane can be powered by solar power.

The conclusion was 'No'


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

dougingraham said:


> The solar cells in calculators are of really poor quality. Probably around 4% efficient. If your hood was 4' x 4' (16 sq feet) and you completely covered it and under the best possible conditions you are looking at about 64 watts. This is about twice the power needed to run your car radio. In theory this would power your car at a speed of approximately 1/5 of a mile per hour assuming you dont turn anything else on. It isn't enough to drive the headlights. Actually it wouldn't even be enough to turn over the motor in neutral.


with mono cristline cells you can keep the car ventilated and build charge instead of lousing it. You wont brick the car.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> I have collected a lot of solar cells from calculators, is there a way to hook them up to a car? How would I hook it up correctly? How much power would I get? Obviously, I would need a ton just to get a small amount of power, but hey it is free.


You can probably find a DIY forum on building solar panels, that would cover how to repurpose old cells, test them, and configure them into an array. Still, whatever you build is best kept bolted to your house, and set up to charge a stationary battery pack, which you can then use to dump energy to your EV-to-be.
If you don't know: Individual silicon solar cells put out about half a volt in bright sunlight, although they may do so at a couple of amps. You need to configure your cells in series and parallel to obtain the appropriate system voltage for your battery charger. A common setup (which provides near-optimal power transfer) is to have 18V open-circuit (36 cells in series) to charge a 12V lead-acid battery.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> I saw a science fair project where a calculator solar cell was placed on a propeller attached to two 2x4s to see if a plane can be powered by solar power.
> 
> The conclusion was 'No'


Which of course is wrong since the English Channel has been crossed by a solar powered aircraft with a pilot.


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

EVEngineer, your enthusiasm is admirable, but it is very clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about physics and engineering. When you have a design in mind, please make a sketch, drawing or diagram and post it up here for us to see.

For example, to say "I have a much different design of turbine then the one in the video. It is much more aerodynamic, then just sticking a large wind turbine with that pole attached to it. It is also sound proofed in my design, because I know that turbines are loud" says very little outside of your intention. How have you sound-proofed? Honestly, for long bladed props, you couldn't easily improve on the concept of the "tall thin pole" mounting system. Take a look at static wind turbines for example.

Best of luck with your dreams, we're all here trying to push boundaries.

Chris


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

iti_uk said:


> EVEngineer, your enthusiasm is admirable, but it is very clear that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about physics and engineering. When you have a design in mind, please make a sketch, drawing or diagram and post it up here for us to see.
> 
> For example, to say "I have a much different design of turbine then the one in the video. It is much more aerodynamic, then just sticking a large wind turbine with that pole attached to it. It is also sound proofed in my design, because I know that turbines are loud" says very little outside of your intention. How have you sound-proofed? Honestly, for long bladed props, you couldn't easily improve on the concept of the "tall thin pole" mounting system. Take a look at static wind turbines for example.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I am not good at drawing and the pictures that I have drawn would not make any sense to people, because they are that bad. I also keep improving it every now and then, so I do not want to post it just yet.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

could I use this for the car? http://www.harborfreight.com/45-watt-solar-panel-kit-90599.html Someone gave it to me recently for free. I am not currently using it and I would like to.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Of course you can use that, it could probably run your radio. I'm assuming it's a stock radio though


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

yes it's a stock radio. hyundai elantra 2010. Is that all it would run? Could it run my air conditioning instead?


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

It might be able to run a brushless fan, but running the stock fan.. probably not. Most certainly not an A/C compressor


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

It's 45 watts, that means it can run something at 45 watts, not something over 45 watts. It's pretty strait-forward.


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> yes it's a stock radio. hyundai elantra 2010. Is that all it would run? Could it run my air conditioning instead?


It is only 45 watts. That is 3 amps at 12 volts. You would most likely need between 50 and 100 of those to run an air conditioner. People always underestimate how much power these things take.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Yeah, a typical household central air conditioning system would use something like 5 to 8 kW, depending on size of course. Some newer ones for smaller homes use about 2 kW

Window units are anywhere from 500 watts to 1.2 kW so if you had about 10 of the solar panels, and a low loss inverter, you might be able to run a small A/C unit, but the problem is you wouldn't be able to start it. Maybe if it had a VFD and a 3 phase motor (inverter type A/C unit) you could but those are crazy expensive


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Just go get some of these. You keep wasting your time with stupid stuff. Get what works and be happy. Use what is available and enjoy the benefits and go play in the garage lab and have fun. Enjoy knowing your doing your experiments with the power of the SUN.


Is that your house, where is that jealous smily. . .


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

gottdi said:


> So somehow if he can tap into the ETHERnet he should be able to come up with something useful.


Ooohhh...good point. If he uses a Soliton or other smart charger he could use power over ethernet (the same way your IP phone is powered), the 20th century source for free power.


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> yes it's a stock radio. hyundai elantra 2010. Is that all it would run? Could it run my air conditioning instead?


are you aware that most of car AC units are belt driven directly from the engine?...


----------



## Chad (Aug 1, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Well lots of hard work went into getting those puppies. Went back to school. I was 47 when I started work as an X-Ray Tech. Work in the medical field was a perfect move. So its never too late to go back and start over. The wife and I both work in the medical field.


I got sick, lost my Job and can not physicaly put in an 8 hour day at any job. . . now I work from home [for myself], about 4 hours a day, and get to just hang out with my wife and kids. We spend a lot of time at the swimming hole in the summer. I don't have any extra money now, but I have all the time in the world, and wouldn't change it. By the time I am 47 I might have my solar array set up, till then, I'll just keep sitting here. No need to eat my heart out though.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I need some help understanding this paragraph. It is from the wiki link to propetual motion under wind energy. 

"Say you put the wind generator attached to the outside of the car. Wind generators work by creating drag on free flowing air to convert the wind energy into rotational then into electrical. Thus the wind generator can't produce any more energy than the drag it creates on the air. So if you installed a 100% efficiency 1,000 Watt wind generator on your car, your car will then need 11,000 Watts of power to maintain speed. Your wind generator is supplying 1,000 Watts of that, so you're back to 10,000 Watts to maintain speed. Hence without even looking at efficiency losses, there is no gain."

How is this part accurate, "So if you installed a 100% efficiency 1,000 Watt wind generator on your car, your car will then need 11,000 Watts of power to maintain speed?" If you get 1,000 Watts from the turbine, that is the power supplied.....correct? If that is the case, then why did they add the 1,000 Watts to the 10,000 Watts. They did not say that the weight or drag or anything adds to a total amount of 1,000 Watts more needed to move the car.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If the car takes 10,000 watts to move, and you add a 1,000 watt generator to it, it will take 11,000 watts to move, with the net energy required remaining at 10,000 if you're 100% efficient, but you're not, so the net energy required will be somewhere around 10,300 watts, so by adding the generator you've lost 300 watts.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

All forms of energy require you to expend something. There is no such thing as free energy. It's as simple as that. You could have a 100 percent efficient generator on your car, sure, but you won't get out any more than you put in. You want 1 kW? you must put in 1 kW. 

In the real world you actually must put in more than 1 kW. 

Sorry but the truth really does hurt, quite badly.

Read this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

second law of thermodynamics. It really says it all


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

you could use pvwatts - a solar energy calculator to get an idea of how much energy could be harvested.
However, consider that if you installed a panel on a car, unless it was capable of pointing itself at the sun you would likely end up with most of the panels having a poor exposure to the sun (wrong angle, shade)
For example, a 200w system in january could expect in optimum conditions over the course of all sunlight hours of the day around .66kwh. but because of shading and wrong angle i wouldnt expect much out of it.

If your serious about harvesting solar, you would need an array capable of extending itself out of the car and retracting itself while also being able to track the sun. This would of course make your car stand out like a sore thumb and most likely the array would get stolen in a month.
*edit* forgot to divide by the number of days


----------



## mizlplix (May 1, 2011)

The present solar cells are too inefficient, heavy and costly to be effective.

problem 1 with a solar EV is the limited (fixed) space to harvest sun light.

More efficient/lighter weight/affordable cells can solve that.

Lithium battery storage, PM motors and a cleverly designed/light weight vehicle can solve the rest. 

(Also the option to plug in at night can be usefull in cloudy places.)

Or....Live in Arizona...Lol

Miz


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

muffildy said:


> ...
> For example, a 200w system in january could expect in optimum conditions over the course of all sunlight hours of the day around 20kw....


Not even close, unless there are 100 hours of sunlight in a day?!?

Also, energy is power * time, so the units are kWh, not Kw. A 200W panel * 10 hours of sunlight supplies 2kWh of energy.

Except that counting on 10 hours of sunlight (much less 100!  ) seems a bit optimistic. And a 200W panel is around 60" x 39", or 16 square feet in area, so you aren't going to fit too many of them on a car. Not without ruining the aerodynamics to such an extent that the energy contribution of the panels is rendered moot.

At any rate, the average "insolation" value here in Tampa is 5.7 hours, so a 200W panel would be able to put ~1.1kWh back into the battery pack after sitting in the sun all day, or about 3.25 miles of driving at the typical consumption rate of 350Wh per mile.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I completely understand the part about losing part of the generators energy supplied through heat. But how do you know that the other forces are pushing back on the turbine of the EXACT amount of energy as the turbine is suppose to supply? That is where I have doubt. I do not see how if the turbine supplies 1,000 Watts and the other forces causes it too need that same amount more. This example could be looked at similarly...sorta. People have to decide what they want based off of the price, mph, weight, to range given ratio. Like if I add another more battery, yes it will give me more range, but the added weight lowers the efficiency of the car causes the car to be slower. So the amount of energy supplied now does give you more power than before the battery was installed, but now it is less efficient.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> ...But how do you know that the other forces are pushing back on the turbine of the EXACT amount of energy as the turbine is suppose to supply?...


You're right to be skeptical - it will actually take a lot more energy to push the turbine and generator through the air than they can ever hope to provide in return.

Yes, that really means if you bolt a wind generator to an EV that it will take *more energy* to drive around than it did before. Depending on how INEFFICIENT the wind generator is, that could be 20-30% more energy consumption per mile.

How many times does this have to be explained before you will accept that it is true? Being stubborn didn't make the Catholic church any more right when it tried to argue that the universe revolves around the Earth, you know.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> I completely understand the part about losing part of the generators energy supplied through heat. But how do you know that the other forces are pushing back on the turbine of the EXACT amount of energy as the turbine is suppose to supply? That is where I have doubt. I do not see how if the turbine supplies 1,000 Watts and the other forces causes it too need that same amount more. This example could be looked at similarly...sorta. People have to decide what they want based off of the price, mph, weight, to range given ratio. Like if I add another more battery, yes it will give me more range, but the added weight lowers the efficiency of the car causes the car to be slower. So the amount of energy supplied now does give you more power than before the battery was installed, but now it is less efficient.


According to that theory, all the worlds energy problems should be solved. Simple really, make a fan blow against a turbine. Since obviously it doesn't take as much energy to turn the turbine as what it produces, we could then power the fan from the turbine, infinite energy. 

Sounds silly now doesn't it?

Adding a battery to an electric car will add mass/weight. If the motor in the EV is at it's peak torque, then yes the car won't accelerate as fast. However, once it is at speed on a flat road the mass has no bearing on the efficiency. It's aerodynamics that are mainly responsible.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I understand, but it just doesn't make any sense in reality. Like solar panels for example, it's disgraceful that the panels are not as good as they should be. Solar panels are very weak in capturing energy from the sun and it is expensive to buy. I think people need to go back to the drawing board and find a way to redesign solar panels or something else that has the same concept. I do not know how they work exactly, but this world is full of all sorts of things and i'm sure thy can put something together that is better and cheaper. I play hockey and if you want to research something that was engineered to be better, look up the evolution of hockey sticks. They started out as wood and now they are made of composite materials, like carbon fiber, and they are now lighter and more durable. They actually feel like holding a feather...they are so light. I just know that there is a way that may defy or go along with the laws of physics. It's just that no one has thought of it yet. 

My idea was that the turbine is not exposed to the direct flow of air surrounded by the car, but channeled to it within an aerodynamic box, so that all the other forces do not affect it as much.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

You should probably go back to your cave and leave the engineering to engineers.

How much electricity can you get from a pile of sand? The fact that we can get ~20% efficient panels for ~$1/watt is amazing. Just 5 years ago the market was primarily 6% panels at $4/watt.

Comparing the technology involved in making a stick to any actual technology is just asinine.


----------



## cliftonts (May 6, 2012)

I don't understand why this debate is still raging. That statement about solar panels being very poor is correct, plants do the job much more efficiently. But to say that the best science can do is disgraceful when you plainly can't do any better yourself is not really on is it? They are working on it and no doubt one day they will get there. Until then solar panels will continue to improve and continue to drop in price.

As far as the turbine is concerned I saw the question 'How do you know the turbine pushes back with exactly the same amount of force it generates?' The answer to that it very simple, because the result of this experiment is a slightly increased consumption in power.

Amount generated - (force required to generate + losses from wiring, weight, heat loss etc) = slightly less than break even!


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

an example of how a wind turbine in a car could work was done in nascar and was made illegal according to their rulesets; i cant find the article i read, but the basics are:
It was used to power a turbocharger by using the wind that entered the engine compartment.
So, you could harvest this wind inside the engine compartment for a turbo and not create any more drag than the car already has. But, this is a DIY electric car forum, and as such, you wouldnt need a radiator most likely and so wouldnt have any wind in the engine compartment to harvest because you wouldnt have a front grill or radiator. or if you do they wouldnt need to be anywhere near large enough to admit good air flow.


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

if you read what i said, then you know i already said that it wouldnt work on an electric because of the lack of a need of engine cooling.
the wind turbo is just how someone in the past did the idea being discussed here, if the OP is building an ICE car, then he could do this to his car and get a very small amount of 'free' energy from wind by using it in that manner. the nascar driver obviously wanted the free power to create more horsepower from more gasoline so used it as a turbo, but a normal driver probably has all the horsepower he wants and so could in an ICE car use the engine compartment wind to power minor accessories or recharge a battery (would of course need to know just how many watts this produces and at what speed).


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

That actually makes no sense 

Adding drag, of any kind, to any car doesn't help you increase power or give you "free energy" 

A turbocharger works by using the exhaust of the engine to compress air and force it into the intake. That makes sense because it's using energy that would otherwise just go out the tailpipe. Adding a turbine wheel in the front of the car? how does that help? it just adds drag and makes the car slower. Sure you might be able to push air into the engine, but the engine will have to work harder to get the air into it. It doesn't add up. Why would you do that when you could use the waste energy from the exhaust? 

Also, EVEngineer; Yes making a lightweight stick and proving "free energy" have pretty much nothing to do with each other. Since it's clear you won't listen to the countless people who have told you "it won't work" Why don't you just try it and prove it to yourself? You'd be much further ahead to get out into the real world and try something (like the rest of us have) instead of arguing about it on the forums


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm sorry people, but I am asking questions, not because I am obnoxious and rude, but because I am curious and do not have the money or time to waste on building anything. I joined this forum to possibly find answers and suggestions. Just to give you all an idea of my age, because I will not say, I am still in school. School could mean anywhere though from preschool to college, so please do not start making judgments as to which one I am in. I would like to build and/or buy and EV, but before I do, I am trying to figure out what is the best way. I am taking notes of what some of y'all have said. Lastly, I would like to thank everyone for there time in answering my questions.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

http://fooyoh.com/geekapolis_gadgets_camcorders/4974277

It's probably been posted already. And it isn't really the wind regen model.


----------



## cliftonts (May 6, 2012)

EVEngineer, I don't know why but your name led me to assume you are much older, and much more experienced. Perhaps everyone making this mistake is what's lead to this monster thread!

At one point in this thread you said that people are giving you answers without explanations. 'No you can't do it, just accept that and shut up!' I've been thinking about that.

You tell me how gravity works. There's a fair chance you know but you can't put it into words. That doesn't mean you deny it's there, or that you would advise trying to create gravity defying experiments.

So what happens here is many people 'just know' that you can't create the device you are suggesting, even though they aren't sure how to put the science across to you in an easy to digest way. I'd be more than happy to discuss this in private with you, perhaps we can both find a way to visualise the problem.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

gottdi said:


> Sorry person but since you won't say your age we will assume not too high on the scale. Since you refuse to do experiments you will no longer get help. You can do experiments without costing much at all. Much can be done for near nothing. You don't need huge items to test with. Even small bicycle generators you can pick up cheap from garage sales will do.


It isn't a good idea to discourage youth. Those younger than you need to learn and grow from their thoughts to develop into functioning members of society. I'm sure you enjoy picking up Jack Rickard's traits of thinking that youth and women are useless and stupid but most are not and saying they are or implying that they are would be a disservice to them. You can choose to not help him by the basis of him not having the resources to follow through with experimentation or not being close to having funds for such a project, but age doesn't really make that big of a difference. If he told you he was 40 years old, it won't make much of a difference. Although I understand the rest of your point and it is your choice, and the choice of others whether or not you'd like to educate or otherwise assist someone.

I do however strongly support the idea of experimenting to learn and a small bicycle generator with a load is an excellent example of how imposing a load causes a significant and very measurable drain.

EVEngineeer, if there is a science museum near you, usually they have some form of electricity generation demonstration where they either have a hand crank or some other form of human powered propulsion. Turn one bulb on and it's easy, turn them all on and you can barely turn a single revolution because of the load. Using the wind is similar because that load will cause the fan blades to be difficult to move and that difficulty will cause drag on the car which will slow it down. Not only that but the aerodynamic disruption to laminar flow by not having a semi-flat surface for the air to glide against will make the car into something more similar to taking an umbrella, holding it behind you and running with it. It slows you down, a ton!


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

MN Driver said:


> It isn't a good idea to discourage youth. Those younger than you need to learn and grow from their thoughts to develop into functioning members of society. I'm sure you enjoy picking up Jack Rickard's traits of thinking that youth and women are useless and stupid but most are not and saying they are or implying that they are would be a disservice to them. You can choose to not help him by the basis of him not having the resources to follow through with experimentation or not being close to having funds for such a project, but age doesn't really make that big of a difference. If he told you he was 40 years old, it won't make much of a difference. Although I understand the rest of your point and it is your choice, and the choice of others whether or not you'd like to educate or otherwise assist someone.
> 
> I do however strongly support the idea of experimenting to learn and a small bicycle generator with a load is an excellent example of how imposing a load causes a significant and very measurable drain.
> 
> EVEngineeer, if there is a science museum near you, usually they have some form of electricity generation demonstration where they either have a hand crank or some other form of human powered propulsion. Turn one bulb on and it's easy, turn them all on and you can barely turn a single revolution because of the load. Using the wind is similar because that load will cause the fan blades to be difficult to move and that difficulty will cause drag on the car which will slow it down. Not only that but the aerodynamic disruption to laminar flow by not having a semi-flat surface for the air to glide against will make the car into something more similar to taking an umbrella, holding it behind you and running with it. It slows you down, a ton!


Thank you for sticking up for me, I appreciate it. People from the ages of 2-100 years old can be in school. In college the age of people who take the classes can be as young as 16 and as old as 100. I just saw in the newspaper of someone who earned a doctorate degree who was 80 years old. I had said I was in school, because it does not say how old I am, because I do not like to give out to much info about myself to people I do not see in person. The point also to mentioning that I am in school is to explain that I am still learning and willing to learn.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

cliftonts said:


> EVEngineer, I don't know why but your name led me to assume you are much older, and much more experienced. Perhaps everyone making this mistake is what's lead to this monster thread!
> 
> At one point in this thread you said that people are giving you answers without explanations. 'No you can't do it, just accept that and shut up!' I've been thinking about that.
> 
> ...


That would be great, thank you for your understanding. Your correct by the way. I am not saying that everyone is incorrect, but that I just feel like there must be a way around this issue. Maybe not now, due to the technology, but I feel like there is a way to not necessarily break the laws of physics while doing this, but maybe even support it. Oh and by the way I found this http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm


----------



## cliftonts (May 6, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> I am not saying that everyone is incorrect, but that I just feel like there must be a way around this issue. Maybe not now, due to the technology, but I feel like there is a way to not necessarily break the laws of physics while doing this, but maybe even support it.


This I agree with 100% and meant to mention before. I'm not saying there is a way to do it. Just that everyone else has said with 100% certainly you can't. Remember, history tells us we know for sure you can't sail round the world, can't go faster than sound and that the sun travels round the earth!

The laws of science as we know them are approximations at best, only in place because they haven't yet been refined further. And studys into quantum physics and space type stuff are refining them all the time. I don't see any way round this turbine issue and I doubt very much that there will be one in my life time. But is that any reason to stop looking? Of course not!


----------



## albo2 (Oct 4, 2011)

I think the most efficient use of solar power is to change the hot water in your house to solar this is the cheapest and simplest form of solar energy and the savings can run your car, panels on the car need to be quite large to get any benefit from.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

gottdi said:


> Don't think, KNOW. Is it? The answer is either yes or no. It would be better to say the most efficient use of solar power is to ...............
> 
> If you say it is, I agree. If you say you think I will say well maybe not. Can you back up your statement of Yes or No.


I understand about knowing and thinking and yes I agree. But do you really need to write like that. Did he/she do anything to offend you? If not, and maybe even if he/she did, please type with a little more tact. You are not being very sensitive to people's feelings. I would expect people on this forum to be encouraging and helpful in a polite and tactful manner.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Thing is though, to really be helpful on this forum you have to be sure of what you're saying. 

"Science" If I'm not mistaken, is fact. As well as scientific laws. 

For example, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which pertains to this topic, is indeed solid proven fact. Anyone with a heater can prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For example, heat a glass of water above ambient. Turn the heater off and what happens? the glass cools to ambient temperature again. Works everytime. It is fact.

Energy is available, then it's used, then it's not usable anymore. Doesn't disappear but it's unusable. 

I understand that there are many who said "we could never do such and such a thing"

but, for example, breaking the sound barrier doesn't involve "free energy" Thats just a matter of having enough energy and the right machine to do the job. 

A wind turbine that works by the power that it creates on it's own? That would be like saying the glass in the above experiment once heated, would continue to heat itself with it's own energy. Not going to happen. 

Just like gottdi said, you can do these experiements without buying anything, I'm sure you've got a glass and a water heater.


----------



## albo2 (Oct 4, 2011)

gottdi said:


> Actually I don't think its the most efficient use of extracting heat from the sun but it is a good way that is available to ALL.


so it's Ok for you not to think something but not for me to think it, actually I said the most efficient use of solar energy, taking into consideration expense and complexity, this may or may not be the case depending on where you live and incentives offered, but hey I'll stop thinking and go do some those dome experiments.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> That would be great, thank you for your understanding. Your correct by the way. I am not saying that everyone is incorrect, but that I just feel like there must be a way around this issue. Maybe not now, due to the technology, but I feel like there is a way to not necessarily break the laws of physics while doing this, but maybe even support it. Oh and by the way I found this http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question232.htm


You need to be very careful about doing thought (or "feel") experiments. When you're doing those, you need to keep in mind everything that has been proven before, otherwise you can fall into a trap that will then mislead you. The nice thing about doing a real physical experiment is that Nature keeps track of all the laws for you - if something doesn't work the way you thought it should, then it's because you forgot something and Nature did not.

Here's a simple fact, formalized by Newton as his Third Law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When you stand on a floor, your weight pushes the floor down. The floor, in turn, pushes back, with a force that is EXACTLY equal to your weight. No more, no less. If it was more, the floor would bounce you up in the air. If it was less, you'd sink into the floor. When you lean on a wall, the wall pushes back with exactly the same force that you're applying. If you understood the gravity piece, and the fact that gravity causes all objects to exert force on each other (equal and opposite forces!), then you cannot deny Newton's Third Law. 

Earlier on, you were asking about how the turbine would cause the car it's mounted on to require extra power to move it, exactly equal to the power extracted by the turbine. This is because of the same principle, and if you've done first-year college physics or engineering statics, you should be able to prove it algebraically.

A more general extension of Newton's Third Law is the principle of conservation of energy. Just like Newton's Third Law, this principle has never been disproven, even though it's been tested (and continues to be tested) daily since it was first written down on paper. Even in the gray areas of quantum mechanics, the principle of conservation of energy has not been violated. What it does, among other things, is to set upper limits on how much energy can be extracted from any given source, and this includes the sun. The sun gives us 1 kilowatt per square meter at the Earth's surface. No matter how awesome a given solar technology is or becomes, you will never get more than that. Monocrystalline silicon solar cells have a theoretical upper limit of efficiency of about 35 percent (go look it up), because of the semiconductor physics. Today's commercially available cells hit about 20 percent, and in the laboratories, a few folks have hit about 28 percent. Even for multilevel gallium arsenide solar cells (go look that up) are not capable of more than about 55 percent efficiency. So, electric solar cells are never going to be more than about 3 times as good as they are today. Even if they were perfect and they converted ALL the incident sunlight to electricity, they'd only be about 5x as good as they are today... and you'd still need an area much bigger than your car, to provide more energy than what you'd use to drive that car. So we are not just a clever invention away from self-powered solar cars - the fundamental principles of physics make that impractical.


----------



## albo2 (Oct 4, 2011)

gottdi said:


> I am old enough to know that if someone has dome experiments and says its not worth doing or its is worth doing I look and listen.
> 
> QUOTE]


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I will say impossible. We can get better than we have today but no magic beans here people.


But that is what engineering and science is. It is taking a computer the size of a room and making it fit into a pocket.

Yes, there are some laws of nature that are real, but so are solar powered cars. They might not be practical since they are designed to race across a desert, but they exist. It might look weird, but adding a bunch of solar panels to an EV1 would have allowed it to travel at highway speeds. You just need to make it aerodynamic and light weight.

"Don't let those who say it can't be done get in the way of those who are actually doing it."


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Caps18 said:


> But that is what engineering and science is. It is taking a computer the size of a room and making it fit into a pocket.
> 
> Yes, there are some laws of nature that are real, but so are solar powered cars. They might not be practical since they are designed to race across a desert, but they exist. It might look weird, but adding a bunch of solar panels to an EV1 would have allowed it to travel at highway speeds. You just need to make it aerodynamic and light weight.
> 
> "Don't let those who say it can't be done get in the way of those who are actually doing it."


The solar racers is why I said "impractical" rather than "impossible". However, there is a pretty vast gulf between the cost, technology, safety, and creature comforts of a solar race car, and what is affordable, legal and practical for an everyday road car, especially with today's technology. Going from a Cd of 0.29 such as what my daily driver Echo has, to 0.15 or so for a typical solar car, requires a lot of work. Getting the weight from 2400 pounds to (let's say) under 1600 pounds would be challenging especially if you wanted to keep it street legal (that means tempered-glass side and rear windows, and a safety-glass windshield - you could easily save 100 pounds by going to Lexan, but that's not allowed for a car). Then, you need to have surface area for a suitable solar array. Small cars are *small*, and therefore have little usable room for solar cells. A solar racer is actually pretty big from a length and width point of view, because they are basically a mobile solar panel.
Then, solar cars have a lot of sail area... if you have to drive in crosswinds then that can be a major problem. Around here it's relatively common for crosswind gusts to suck the lee-side doorframe outward enough to gap the door seal, or blow trailers clean off the road. Something like that would send a lightweight, large surface-area vehicle into a farmer's field before you had a chance to do anything about it.

Again, this does not spell "impossible", but it means that there are far better ways to do practical solar, and far better ways to do practical electric cars. All you have to do then is transfer the energy from one to the other before you start driving.


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

why would you do it that way? if you were serious about solar, then you wouldnt consider a fixed mount panel in the first place.

If i had the money, and wasnt worried about theft, the way i would do it would be to have 5 or 6 panels mounted on a frame that is capable of expanding and contracting.
for example, the 6 panels are stacked ontop of one another during driving and are inside the car, then you park, open the roof, press a button, and the panels exit the car and spread out. Even with that many panels however the free energy provided is probably not worth the added cost; more batteries would be cheaper.
6 panels, 1$/w, + MPPT controller + custom designed and built tracking expanding/contracting array... probably cost atleast 3-4k and only provide 4kwh per day. of course the added weight; probably around 400# would reduce the net kwh varying with drive time.


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

if you are serious about solar you would put a nice large array on your house, feed that back into the grid at a high $/kw during the day, and use the low overnight $/kw grid supplied energy to charge your EV while you sleep.


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

i didn't realize a parked car needed to be aerodynamic, or perhaps you didnt read the part where i described that the panels are stored inside the car and so wouldnt have any effect on aerodynamics. just weight.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

There are cars where it will work, and cars where it won't. In any case, unless it's an ultralight solar racer style vehicle, the solar will be mainly for show and not for significant power.

As for charge control and tracking, that's all useless in a small install. A tracking system usually gains 10% efficiency, which isn't enough to pay for the motor maintenance, let alone additional install costs. Charge control can be handled by the charge controller you already have, or with a simple monitoring system.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> There are cars where it will work, and cars where it won't. In any case, unless it's an ultralight solar racer style vehicle, the solar will be mainly for show and not for significant power.
> 
> As for charge control and tracking, that's all useless in a small install. A tracking system usually gains 10% efficiency, which isn't enough to pay for the motor maintenance, let alone additional install costs. Charge control can be handled by the charge controller you already have, or with a simple monitoring system.


Sweet semi! Let's see... about 8 feet high (call it 2.5 meters for convenience), and 53 feet long (18 meters, being generous), gives 45 square meters, x2 if you can use both sides and orient them to the sun... 90 square meters is 90 kW of total solar power, or about 18 kW of peak solar panel output assuming 20% efficiency which is attainable today. So this size array (from both sides of the truck) could conceivably move my Echo at highway speeds, with a bit of power to spare.

Note: That is meant as a reality check for those that think solar panels can make a substantial difference on moving vehicles... clearly, "impractical" is still the word of the day.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

It might be feasible to have solar on a car that is constantly parked in the sun in a climate where there is plenty of sunlight and little to no snow in a situation where the driving is low enough to where the owner would need to charge very infrequently and doesn't drive at highway speeds where the solar panel would be a significant contributor to wind drag.

In reality that means 40mph or less neighborhood electric vehicle type driving of less than 10 miles a day where maybe half of what a high quality panel producing 200 watts in average or better sunlight for a decent portion of the day would make. Of course you'll still be plugging in and the solar panel won't be tilted towards the sun and sited properly.

In a real situation, they are far better suited on the roof of a house where they are pointed where they should and can be grid-tied so the energy that would be otherwise if/when the battery is full will not be 'lost'.

I don't buy the whole 'they are so inefficient' thing. They produce power and don't spew any emissions. It makes more sense when you are consuming something like natural gas and the difference between 80% and 95% of the system is 15% of wasted fuel. With solar the panels are cheap right now, just saw a quote for a pallet of 230 watt UL listed panels made in the US, 6.9kw for about $7.2k plus the cost of shipping. I don't have that much roof space so I'd pay an extra 10-15 cents per watt or make a deal with the local solar guy to have him buy the rest if he wanted them.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Trucks like that are used for the military. Drive it into camp and you don't have to give the Taliban ammo money to let tankers in to run the gennies.

I've calculated that my bug has enough real estate that 40% cells (panels would be a bad fit) would power my short commute entirely on solar. Or I could do this with today's panels around $1/watt for 20%. Would cost around $1500.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

gottdi said:


> The original posting is not talking about using free wind to power a car like a sail boat or sail car or turbine mounted on a car. It was about installing on an electrically driven car a turbine driven generator that is put into the wind stream of the moving car where the electric drive motor is the prime mover and creator of the wind to power a generator to charge the car while driving down the road and gaining more distance.
> 
> There has never been any dispute about a sail boat or car. We all know it works that way where the wind is the primary mover. Not the electric motor/battery pack.
> 
> A car with a generator/turbine in the wind stream will not provide more distance but it will actually decrease your distance.


There are a bunch of experiments I could think of that probably wouldn't pan out, but you have people like the Wright brothers who figured out that the right shape going through the wind would break the bounds of gravity.

All the wind turbine/generator has to produce is 10kW-20kW. That is the big issue, and it is quite a bit of power. What would you have to do to create that much power. And can you amplify the power you get without breaking any laws of physics? Either by using the wind you were already going to disrupt to help an permanent magnet motor spin faster. Leverage and gears can help, but you still need to turn a generator at a few thousand rpm's to produce enough power. Physics prevents the wind alone from turning it, but it can aid in it.

Then there is the option of having hydrogen or a fuel cell help create power.

Plus, it would look kind of cool to have a pickup truck with what looked like a jet engine in the back.


----------



## dladd (Jun 1, 2011)

Caps18 said:


> There are a bunch of experiments I could think of that probably wouldn't pan out, but you have people like the Wright brothers who figured out that the right shape going through the wind would break the bounds of gravity.


they didn't break anything. They used the laws of physics in their favor. Gravity is still fully functional on an airplane, do the free body diagram.



Caps18 said:


> All the wind turbine/generator has to produce is 10kW-20kW. That is the big issue, and it is quite a bit of power. What would you have to do to create that much power. And can you amplify the power you get without breaking any laws of physics?


no, you can't. In fact, you cannot create any power at all. you can convert it. It's not just that no one has yet figured out how to create/amplify energy, it just can't be done. I know grama said never say never, but I don't think she knew much about physics...



Caps18 said:


> Either by using the wind you were already going to disrupt to help an permanent magnet motor spin faster. Leverage and gears can help, but you still need to turn a generator at a few thousand rpm's to produce enough power. Physics prevents the wind alone from turning it, but it can aid in it.


what? Are you even reading what you type?



Caps18 said:


> Then there is the option of having hydrogen or a fuel cell help create power.


there's also the option of mounting a squirrel cage and a carrot in the trunk. It's just extra external energy. And again, you cannot create power. You convert it.



Caps18 said:


> Plus, it would look kind of cool to have a pickup truck with what looked like a jet engine in the back.


I think I may have a very different definition of 'cool'.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Caps18 said:


> There are a bunch of experiments I could think of that probably wouldn't pan out, but you have people like the Wright brothers who figured out that the right shape going through the wind would break the bounds of gravity.
> 
> All the wind turbine/generator has to produce is 10kW-20kW. That is the big issue, and it is quite a bit of power. What would you have to do to create that much power. And can you amplify the power you get without breaking any laws of physics? Either by using the wind you were already going to disrupt to help an permanent magnet motor spin faster. Leverage and gears can help, but you still need to turn a generator at a few thousand rpm's to produce enough power. Physics prevents the wind alone from turning it, but it can aid in it.
> 
> ...


Looks like the Bergey Excel 10 (http://www.bergey.com/bergey/pages/excel_info.html) is the one for you. Only 22 feet in diameter, 10 kW at 31 mph. But, for it to achieve that power, it has to be mounted on a 40 foot pole.

By the way: There is just no such thing as "the wind you were already going to disrupt", especially if you had a reasonably aerodynamic vehicle to begin with. This is part of the fallacy that makes people believe you can mount a turbine in the grille opening (for example) and use that airstream. You're better off blocking the grille opening, even if it's bolt upright.
Extracting energy from an airflow causes a retarding force on the energy extraction equipment. The more energy you extract, the harder you have to push on your equipment to keep it moving into the airstream.

Consider this: You have one paddle of a wind turbine. It's area is 100 square inches, and it's facing dead on into the wind at 20 mph. In order for the wind to push it backwards relative to the turbine shaft, the pressure on the front of the paddle has to be greater than the pressure behind it. So assume that at a given wind speed, the pressure on the front is 15 psi absolute (a little higher than ambient) and the pressure on the back is 14 PSI (a little lower than ambient). Now the difference is 1 psi, over 100 square inches, giving a force of 100 pounds. That force, multiplied by the average radius that the paddle is mounted on, gives you a driving torque to the generator shaft... but in order to keep the paddle from just flying away, the generator shaft has to also provide a counterforce of 100 pounds, against the wind direction. If there is no pressure differential between the front and back of the paddle, there is (ideally) no drag force - but there is also no torque to the generator. You can't extract energy from an airflow without requiring the upstream pressure (or temperature) to be greater than the downstream pressure or temperature... and that differential will cause a proportional force on the extraction equipment. Always. No exceptions. No free lunch.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

gottdi said:


> The original posting is not talking about using free wind to power a car like a sail boat or sail car or turbine mounted on a car. It was about installing on an electrically driven car a turbine driven generator that is put into the wind stream of the moving car where the electric drive motor is the prime mover and creator of the wind to power a generator to charge the car while driving down the road and gaining more distance.
> 
> There has never been any dispute about a sail boat or car. We all know it works that way where the wind is the primary mover. Not the electric motor/battery pack.
> 
> A car with a generator/turbine in the wind stream will not provide more distance but it will actually decrease your distance.


you are correct and that is the part I do not understand. I have a design that is much more aerodynamic than just mount a long shaft and propellers on top of it. No one has really answered my questions, because they really don't know the answer. they are just restating past evidence of things that are related but not the same.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Everyone knows the answer, you just don't want to listen.

It doesn't matter how aerodynamic your design is. If your design is really good you'll add a little drag to the system. If it's bad you'll add lots of drag to the system.

No matter what you're going to add more drag to the system than the amount of power you get out of it.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> you are correct and that is the part I do not understand. I have a design that is much more aerodynamic than just mount a long shaft and propellers on top of it. No one has really answered my questions, because they really don't know the answer. they are just restating past evidence of things that are related but not the same.


Then you're not reading my last post with the correct viewpoint. That analysis (of the pressure differential between the front and the back of a turbine blade, and the resulting force on the shaft) applies equally to your rooftop "aerodynamic" device as it does to a 2 MW, 150 foot diameter industrial windmill.

If you can explain what it is about my math, that doesn't apply to your situation, then I'll answer back why it does.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Then build it. Build it and prove to us that it can be done, Mr. "Engineer". You sure seem to know much more than any of the people here.


----------



## steven4601 (Nov 11, 2010)

read some physics books


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

EVEngineeer said:


> you are correct and that is the part I do not understand. I have a design that is much more aerodynamic than just mount a long shaft and propellers on top of it. No one has really answered my questions, because they really don't know the answer. they are just restating past evidence of things that are related but not the same.



It does not matter "how aerodynamic" your idea is it is the direct equivalent of flying by grabbing your shoelaces and pulling your feet into the air

Super strong boot laces will not help!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

But what if I pull harder?


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Ziggythewiz said:


> But what if I pull harder?


Harder than what?



-------------
EVengineeer, we may be having some grins here at your expense, but like some of the others, I'm interested in figuring out exactly what it is that makes you think your idea can flout the basic principles of physics, and I'd like to prove to you that such things can't be done. Unfortunately, such a proof is going to be (because of the limitations of the Internet) a sketch drawing, and a bunch of algebra. Your earlier posting suggested that you didn't think that our explanations applied to the particular scenario you have envisioned, because "it's not the same".

The thing is, that engineering design is usually practiced by taking a physical system and reducing it to a mathematical model where the parts and the attributes of the physical system are each represented in that model. At that point, it doesn't matter anymore what the original system looked like or how it was implemented; and the beauty of applied physics is that, so long as each part of the system was properly modeled, the answers you get will be correct, because the math and algebra is equally applicable to all scenarios.

For instance, you have a rooftop turbine and a generator attached to its shaft. Now slice the system in half, between the turbine and the generator. I can work out the forces acting on the generator for a given power input without worrying about what it is that's creating the torque on the generator shaft. But when I'm done, I've calculated the forces on the turbine... because that is what is driving the generator.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

TigerNut said:


> Harder than what?


Harder than the escape velocity of a shoelace.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

Mr, "engineer" shouldn't call himself an "engineer".....


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

For all those people that are knocking my name, it is a name for reasons that would not be obvious to you, because you do not know me. Also, "The length of this thread is testiment to his expertise as a troll walking that fine line between seeming to be a credible inquiring mind who genuinly wants to know and an intractable moron." Thanks for calling me a moron...I appreciate that, it makes me feel great. Also, I am not a troll, I'm a person who wants to learn.


----------



## MN Driver (Sep 29, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> you are correct and that is the part I do not understand. I have a design that is much more aerodynamic than just mount a long shaft and propellers on top of it. No one has really answered my questions, because they really don't know the answer. they are just restating past evidence of things that are related but not the same.


No, we know the answer. If you don't believe us, we will allow you to spend/waste money to try to prove your point because:

1. Create scheme to defy the laws of physics.
2. ???
3. Profit?

Dude, we're trying to explain physics to you but there's a saying about leading a horse to water.



frodus said:


> Mr, "engineer" shouldn't call himself an "engineer".....


He doesn't, look closely. He's an Engineeer. It reminds me of the hybrid 'Enginer' kit disaster, the guy who designed it was a terrible designer(can't call him an engineer) and went through about a dozen BMS 'current shuttle' and other types of BMS equipment trying to find one basically using the customers as his test bed while using some of the worst LiFePO4 cells around that failed left and right(Mottcell) and required countless warranty replacements. Not sure how they are still in business or how the Prius community can be so apologetic for such a terrible design of a very inefficient converts 48v to pack voltage making gobs of heat(wasted energy) in the process. The guy even includes a fire extinguisher into the system to show how confident he is, but I doubt the tiny thing would do anything if the converter did burn up. Anyway, I digress.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

Bottom line, wind turbines work by creating drag. Adding any kind of drag to a vehicle slows it down. You can never add drag to a vehicle and make it go faster. 

In order to prove this theory, there are a number of cheap experiments you can do, and that you should understand;

1. Heat a glass full of water to about 200 F or 90 C. You can use a stove top burner or even an oven to achieve this temperature. Verify the temperature with a cheap digital thermometer. Remove the glass of water from the source of heat, and monitor the temperature. Does the temperature go up or down? 

2. Get two desk fans, the ordanary kind that you connect to the mains.You can get them cheap at almost any yard sale. Plug one in and start it up on full speed Then aim it to cause the air stream to turn the other fan. Once the second fan starts turning, connect it to the mains. Then observe your electric meter. Is it turning forward, or is it turning backwards? 

3. Get a short length of yarn or string and tie a bolt to the end of the string. suspend the string so that the bolt isn't in contact with anything. Lift the bolt on the end of the string at an angle, so that it will fall and swing like a pendulum. Observe. Once it has started, for how long does it continue to swing? does it gain enery as it swings or does it lose energy?

If you want to spend a little money, you can try something that will give you a little more satisfaction. With two permanent magnet motors, attach their shafts togther, and their power leads togther. Apply power so that they are both turning in the same direction while connected, then remove the power, do the motors speed up or slow down?

If you can't understand that, or just don't accept it then I'm afraid nobody here is going to try to explain it any further. You're going to have to convince yourself of it.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> I'm a person who wants to learn.


Okay. I'll take that at face value. So explain your current technical and educational background. The reason for asking is that it tells us where to start teaching and what level of DIY experiments to suggest. Clearly the way we'be been going about it isn't working.


----------



## FireCrow (Nov 11, 2011)

Hey, EVEngineeer, have you been to China lately?

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16228695


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

If not, maybe he could come pick you up. Should be able to get here and back on a single charge no problem.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

to subcooledheatpump: "2. Get two desk fans, the ordanary kind that you connect to the mains.You can get them cheap at almost any yard sale. Plug one in and start it up on full speed Then aim it to cause the air stream to turn the other fan. Once the second fan starts turning, connect it to the mains. Then observe your electric meter. Is it turning forward, or is it turning backwards? "
I would like to try that one, because the rest of them I know the answers to. This one however I have not seen. Can you please show me pictures or something of how to do it. I'm visual. I understand taking 2 fans and having them face each other, then plug one in. After that is what I do not know. I have a volt meter and fans at home. 

to firecrow: I saw a video a couple of weeks ago about that, but it was in chinese. I wonder if that guy is correct and it does work? I don't see how it would, but maybe it does.

to Tigernut: let's say I've taken high school physics, but I did not learn to much, because I did not have enough math classes behind me to understand the math parts fully, but also my teacher was terrible at teaching. Great person, but if I learned anything, it was from the kid who sat next to me. We pretty much only did experiments that most of them were also done in elementary. Like the mentos and soda bottle thing and the mouse trap car.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> to subcooledheatpump: "2. Get two desk fans, the ordanary kind that you connect to the mains.You can get them cheap at almost any yard sale. Plug one in and start it up on full speed Then aim it to cause the air stream to turn the other fan. Once the second fan starts turning, connect it to the mains. Then observe your electric meter. Is it turning forward, or is it turning backwards? "
> I would like to try that one, because the rest of them I know the answers to. This one however I have not seen. Can you please show me pictures or something of how to do it. I'm visual. I understand taking 2 fans and having them face each other, then plug one in. After that is what I do not know. I have a volt meter and fans at home.
> 
> to firecrow: I saw a video a couple of weeks ago about that, but it was in chinese. I wonder if that guy is correct and it does work? I don't see how it would, but maybe it does.
> ...


okay. You should bone up on algebra (math using letters to represent physical quantities, and manipulating equations to solve for different quantities) and solving "word problems". 
First experiment: Prove to yourself a couple of things about Newton's Third Law. You need a mechanic's socket tool set that has a ratchet handle, a 6 inch extension, and some sockets. It's even better if you have a universal joint.
Put the extension on the ratchet handle, then the universal joint, then a socket that fits a nut or bolt on your car. Now undo that nut or bolt. You notice that you can't do it simply by pulling on the end of the ratchet handle - you also have to brace the drive end of the ratchet handle *in the opposite direction* to actually generate any torque and undo the nut. Now do the nut back up...

This situation is analogous to having the wind try to spin a rooftop mounted turbine shaft. The wind pushes on one end of the turbine paddle, but your car has to push back on the shaft side, in order to actually create a torque in the shaft. This pushing action would consume extra power from the motor or engine driving the car.


----------



## iti_uk (Oct 24, 2011)

It really puzzles me why you're so secretive about your age - if anything it would help us get a handle on your level of education and may temper the way you are spoken to in your favour.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

You should be nice to people on-line regardless of their age.



FireCrow said:


> Hey, EVEngineeer, have you been to China lately?
> 
> http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16228695


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dh4I83gd0..._around_mountain_71264_aircraft-wallpaper.jpg

Surprisingly this thing doesn't fall out of the sky because there is no rotor, and yet can go faster than my car.

But, here is a better example of what a wind powered car/boat would look like.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2758/4190329708_625242c007_z.jpg 
On the water, you can angle your direction so your forward speed doesn't cancel out the wind.


----------



## TigerNut (Dec 18, 2009)

Caps18 said:


> You should be nice to people on-line regardless of their age.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice pictures, but neither the aeroplane nor the boat have anything to do with the topic at hand. If the aeroplane featured a second propeller that somehow would try to capture the thrust of the first; or if the boat had an underwater impeller to "recover" energy from the boat's motion, then yes; but as it is, they're not relevant here.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

TigerNut said:


> okay. You should bone up on algebra (math using letters to represent physical quantities, and manipulating equations to solve for different quantities) and solving "word problems".
> First experiment: Prove to yourself a couple of things about Newton's Third Law. You need a mechanic's socket tool set that has a ratchet handle, a 6 inch extension, and some sockets. It's even better if you have a universal joint.
> Put the extension on the ratchet handle, then the universal joint, then a socket that fits a nut or bolt on your car. Now undo that nut or bolt. You notice that you can't do it simply by pulling on the end of the ratchet handle - you also have to brace the drive end of the ratchet handle *in the opposite direction* to actually generate any torque and undo the nut. Now do the nut back up...
> 
> This situation is analogous to having the wind try to spin a rooftop mounted turbine shaft. The wind pushes on one end of the turbine paddle, but your car has to push back on the shaft side, in order to actually create a torque in the shaft. This pushing action would consume extra power from the motor or engine driving the car.


I have taken algebra 1 and 2 in high school. It's not about my age, it's about my knowledge. There are people who are younger than me who know more than me in some areas while others who are older know more in other areas. We all know different things, because if the info did not relate to our lives before, then we may not remember it. I actually used a socket wrench today in the same way you are describing. A 6500 Watt running generator needed wheels put on it.


----------



## somanywelps (Jan 25, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> I have taken algebra 1 and 2 in high school. It's not about my age, it's about my knowledge. There are people who are younger than me who know more than me in some areas while others who are older know more in other areas. We all know different things, because if the info did not relate to our lives before, then we may not remember it. I actually used a socket wrench today in the same way you are describing. A 6500 Watt running generator needed wheels put on it.


You're trying to violate the first law of thermodynamics. If it's about your knowledge, you would be in 4th grade science (physics).


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Caps18 said:


> You should be nice to people on-line regardless of their age.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


can you get me a link to the wind generator powered sailboat . thanks


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/selkovjr/4190329708/

That is the picture, and here is a long discussion that I haven't read.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/pr...ats-how-many-out-there-they-viable-14182.html

And yes, it is relevant, because it is wind turbine powered. Some are direct drive, but you could store energy when not in use in batteries.


----------



## Tesseract (Sep 27, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> can you get me a link to the wind powered sailboat . thanks


  

What else would power a _sailboat_ if not wind?!?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Well, if it doesn't have a sail it's not a wind powered sailboat but just a wind powered boat. Probably far less efficient than a typical sailboat, though more efficient than a typical boat.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I made the correction adding" generator" . 
Google air foil or aerodynamic lift . 
I heard the same old line from my high school physics teacher , " if you know physics you could engineer anything " understanding aerodynamics takes far more effort then spouting off a handful of physics principles , as important as they are . 
The latest one I've heard from a high school physics teacher was "when the jets hit WT Towers ,they made a huge plasma that brought down the towers 
, I know this because I'm a physics teacher and have worked with plasmas " 
Caps18 , when you aren't getting the information you need start looking for better understanding of design / engineering . This is no small task walking away , only to run into the same old naysayers again and again . But you will find very few but priceless encounters that help you move forward . I could go on about the 4 year wonders ( 18 months of engineering education ) or the 3 year wonders of law school . It takes studying past work and building on that work.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

The difference with that boat is energy is being added to the system in the form of the difference in speed between the wind and water. There has to be some beneficial gradient existing outside your motive energy to take advantage of and draw energy from or you're just adding another lossy trophic level to whatever your stored source is.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Well, if it doesn't have a sail it's not a wind powered sailboat but just a wind powered boat. Probably far less efficient than a typical sailboat, though more efficient than a typical boat.


It is less efficient, but it can sail into the wind. A normal sailboat can't do that.



samwichse said:


> The difference with that boat is energy is being added to the system in the form of the difference in speed between the wind and water. There has to be some beneficial gradient existing outside your motive energy to take advantage of and draw energy from or you're just adding another lossy trophic level to whatever your stored source is.


I thought that is what we are talking about. If you drive at an angle to the wind, you can drive faster than the wind. Converting that energy to batteries, inverter, and such will reduce the efficiency. It would allow you to bank energy in batteries when at port or in a parking lot.

Anyways, you don't have to worry about me building one of these. I am here to convert a truck, not debate the possibilities of engineering.


----------



## windturbinestar (Sep 13, 2012)

That depends what you mean by "wind". It is certainly possible to attach a sail to a set of wheels and have the ambient wind blow you around. That would cetainly be efficient.

On the other hand, if you mean the wind generated by the car moving through the air, then the engine creates that motion by moving the car forward. By capturing that wind to extract energy, you are slowing the car down and making the engine work harder. Even using the energy you extract, you will use *more* gas than you do now. That is to say, the system is less efficient than existing cars.

wind turbine manufacturer
wind turbine cost


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

you know what is funny, I have been thinking a lot lately about this old thread i started. it is funny that windturbinestart just commented after all this time of this thread being inactive. No matter what happens and no matter what the math says, I still have this in the back of my mind that it might work. I according to ya'll am incorrect to think that it would work, but nothing will change my mind there there is a possibility. 
Oh, btw idk y but i feel like windturbinestar just explained this the best. That is what I call simple plan english. So thank you for that.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

So you like his explanation, but you still don't believe it, or the 200+ posts before...

We did encourage you to build a proof of concept; it could be done for $5 or less, though in 5 months it could certainly have been bigger.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to building my prototype of what I was thinking. Also, you are correct ziggy, as many people and as many ways as I have been told it won't/can't work, I do I believe everyone 99.9%. It's just my nature not to trust anyone or anything 100%. NO MATTER WHAT. That 99.9% of me is telling not to continue with this and just listen. But that little .1% is just sticking in my mind and driving me crazy. I'm sorry to everyone, but it is just the way I am. You see that I did not continue on this thread, until someone posted again. I have been trying not to bother people with this anymore.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> It's just my nature not to trust anyone or anything 100%. NO MATTER WHAT. That 99.9% of me is telling not to continue with this and just listen. But that little .1% is just sticking in my mind and driving me crazy.


How much do you trust gravity? I've seen a couple shows where the guy thought there was a chance he was different, that the laws of physics didn't apply to him. In one show he found out he could fly. Awesome! In the other he went splat. Messy!


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w

Here is the video.


----------



## Ace_bridger (Nov 22, 2011)

Despite my better judgement I am indeed wasting time writing a post on this thread.

Just Google 'the first law of thermodynamics'!!!

What you're suggesting is akin to spinning an alternator using an electric motor running off batteries. Would you expect the generate more energy than you take from the batteries? No.

Some people still think the earth is flat but it ain't.


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

There are different types of wind turbine cars though. Some work, some don't hold up to Newton's Law.

The answer is more complicated than flat out denial if you can see other engineering designs and technologies being used. If you can have the car sit in a parking lot next to the ocean generating power for hours and saving it in a battery, the car will move. If you put a sail on the car and the wind is blowing in the right direction, the car will move. If you put a windmill on top of the car, and have it turn smaller wheels on the road, the car will move.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> There are different types of wind turbine cars though. Some work, some don't hold up to Newton's Law.
> 
> If you put a windmill on top of the car, and have it turn smaller wheels on the road, the car will move.


Please explain this in a little more detail. 


P.S. I definitely do believe 100% that gravity exists.


----------



## subcooledheatpump (Mar 5, 2012)

I think he's talking about a wind powered car. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZKZsUqgI&feature=related

Which is fine, when the wind is blowing. Beyond that you're going nowhere.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

It will not move as fast as the wind because there is some loss of efficiency. That same inefficiency shows up if you put a windmill on a car propelled by gas or electricty on a day with no wind. There will be a loss through friction (inefficiency) and you will get less power than it takes to move the additional friction (caused by the windmill) through the air.


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...car-looks-odd-answers-tricky-physics-question

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

The cartoon of the wind turbine car shows some people have more money than common sense. They could simply use a ripstop polyester sheet stretched up on a mast and call it a sail!!

Engineer. This thread was an attempt to take the mick out of these posters wasn't it?

Here's a better idea. You can fly by pulling on your bootlaces.


----------



## ricklearned (Mar 3, 2012)

samwichse said:


> http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...car-looks-odd-answers-tricky-physics-question
> 
> I'll just leave this here.


That doesn't prove anything to me except what ice boats, windsurfers and light catamarans have known for years. At certain angles off the wind ie. not directly into the wind, they can sail faster than the wind. This doesn't have any practical application since they can only go in one direction. That direction is a very narrow compass course determined by the apparent wind. The apparent wind is determined by the wind speed and the boat speed. 

Imagine an ice boat sailing perpindicilar to the wind. As the boat picks up speed the apparent wind moves forward and the helmsman will have to change direction sailing more downwind in order to find the fastest speed.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

samwichse said:


> http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/...car-looks-odd-answers-tricky-physics-question





ricklearned said:


> That doesn't prove anything to me except what ice boats, windsurfers and light catamarans have known for years. At certain angles off the wind ie. not directly into the wind, they can sail faster than the wind.


Yes, but this car can sail _directly into the wind_ and _directly downwind faster than the wind_. The trick is that the spinning blades are moving at certain angles off the wind, while the vehicle itself moves parallel to the wind:









ricklearned said:


> The apparent wind is determined by the wind speed and the boat speed.


In this case the apparent wind at the blades is relevant. And it is determined by the true wind, car velocity and tangential velocity of the blade, relative to the car.

See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(land_yacht)
http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

One cannot sail downwind faster than the wind speed. Not with any wing format.

The wind turbine idea for driving car wheels does allow you to advance into the wind.

There is also the autogyro blade which allows air to blow through it and so doing creates lift at a tangent to the wind and at some angles is very effective indeed!

If anyone wants to be wind or Solar powered I insist you don't try to carry all that baggage with you. Get planning permission around your house.

The idea of a little fan in the radiator.... Who you trying to fool?


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> One cannot sail downwind faster than the wind speed.


The North American Land Sailing Association disagrees:
http://www.nalsa.org/


> On July 2, 2010 on El Mirage Dry Lake, Blackbird sailed directly down wind at a speed of 27.7 mph in a 10 mph wind to set a first record for the ratio of Boat Speed to true wind speed of 2.8





Beemer said:


> The wind turbine idea for driving car wheels does allow you to advance into the wind.


Yes, and that's the same as _downwind faster than the wind_, just in reverse. Both directions explained with simple models:






See also:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120727-the-wind-beneath-my-wheels


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Kathode said:


> The North American Land Sailing Association disagrees:
> http://www.nalsa.org/
> 
> 
> ...


Your baby cartoon is irrelevant.

So you are stating a plastic bag blows down the road faster than the wind?
I'm presuming you can also claim to fly by pulling on your bootlaces.

I'm talking of a direct tail wind!
If you go faster than the tail wind then you have created a wind from your bow.

i.e. 
tail wind on static boat = 10mph
boat travels in same direction at 27mph
27-10 = 17mph bow wind.

*Note the length of the boat velocity vector on "running" against the true wind speed.*









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


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

Beemer: The animation that Kathode posted is well worth watching again. I also find it easier to understand if I think of it as a simple gearing process.

The prop is constantly tacking even when you're travelling downwind, so you can't compare it with running downwind in a sailboat. You just have to choose the right gear ratio and prop pitch, and keep drag as low as possible.

The comparison with a plastic bag is misleading. You need the reaction from the ground/water to tack effectively. If a land yacht can sail faster than the wind on a tack, all you need to do is redirect that force to sail downwind just as fast (faster?). That's what the turbine does.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

You can gain serious speed cross wind but then you will have to turn into the following wind whereon you will lose speed.

If your forward speed is greater than the following wind then your only advantage is reduced air resistance. Hydrodynamics will very quickly sort that advantage out.

turbines, reaction "ground/water", "The prop is constantly tacking".
WHAAATT????


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> I'm talking of a direct tail wind!


Yes, the center of mass moves exactly downwind. The propeller blades move across the wind.



Beemer said:


>


The relevant course here is "broad reach" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_of_sail). This are the vectors for a conventional sailcraft on broad reach, with a downwind velocity made good (VMG) greater than true wind speed:










And here the vectors for the propeller blade, of a cart going directly downwind, faster than the wind:










The animation just shows the transition between the two:


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Kathode said:


> What exactly is incorrect about it?
> 
> Yes, the center of mass moves exactly downwind. The propeller blades move across the wind.
> 
> ...


*So point me out. I must be totally blind. Which one is going with the wind?*


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> So point me out. I must be totally blind. Which one is going with the wind?


Both are going downwind. 

- The conventional sail craft is on broad reach, with a downwind VMG = 1.5 x windspeed (compare "true wind" and "boat velocity" vectors). 

- The propeller cart moves directly downwind at 1.5 x windspeed (compare "true wind" and "vehicle velocity" vectors).


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Kathode said:


> Both are going downwind.
> 
> - The conventional sail craft is on broad reach, with a downwind VMG = 1.5 x windspeed (compare "true wind" and "boat velocity" vectors).
> 
> - The propeller cart moves directly downwind at 1.5 x windspeed (compare "true wind" and "vehicle velocity" vectors).


They are all at a tack of 135. Not following the wind. The vector of forces even at that angle is so slight not many boats can possibly keep their sails in standard trim. It will luff. In reality will have to be set across the jib.

It's all far off subject to the original trolling and just as daft. Even that Google image shows the prop mounted in reverse.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> They are all at a tack of 135. Not following the wind.


The airfoil of the blade is moving at 135. The vehicle is moving at 180. Look at the "vehicle velocity" vector. It's parallel to "true wind":













Beemer said:


> The vector of forces even at that angle is so slight not many boats can possibly keep their sails in standard trim.


Most ice boats and land yachts can do better than that. Even on water some boats can do better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Speed_made_good


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Seriously, you do not understand what you are looking at.

In a turbine there is *never* a tail wind on the blade.
A sail curves into a lifting wing.

If there was a tail wind, it would cease to be an efficient lifting object.

Sure you can use a lifting wing to provide a forward vector of around 15 degrees on a tail wing but as you accelerate the effective wind speed becomes zero. Hence the bag in the wind becomes more effective and is used on sailboats. Here you see the Jib sail extended. If the wind was directly behind the boat, it will be all the way out.









15 degrees equates to a lifting vector of almost 0.26 of the total lift. *While the boat is STATIC!!!*
Remember, if you halve your effective airspeed, you quarter the lift.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> In a turbine there is *never* a tail wind on the blade.


Yes, the "apparent wind" at the propeller blade is not a "tail wind". It comes at an angle from the front. Compare "apparent wind" to "vehicle velocity" and "blade velocity". 

But the "true wind" is a direct tailwind. Compare "true wind" and"vehicle velocity".












Beemer said:


> as you accelerate the effective wind speed becomes zero.


The "apparent wind" at the car chassis becomes zero, when you reach wind-speed, moving directly downwind. The "apparent wind" at the propeller blades never becomes zero, it just changes direction.

Here is the situation when the car reaches windspeed directly downwind:










Note that the blade is left at the same pitch as above. So it is inefficient due to the high angle of attack. But it still can produce a force that drives the blade forward, along the constrained path. Adjusting the propeller pitch would create even better acceleration here.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

On any wing the angle of attack is never more than 15 degrees.
There are ways to increase it but the efficiency falls off markedly.

I hate to say granny and eggs......... I fly.

Somehow I think I've fell on a trolling site.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Kathode said:


> The "apparent wind" at the propeller blades never becomes zero, it just changes direction.


IF the car reaches the speed of the wind in the direction of the wind there is NO RELATIVE MOVEMENT OF AIR. Regardless of the road.

No wonder they call this site DIY electric junk.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> IF the car reaches the speed of the wind in the direction of the wind there is NO RELATIVE MOVEMENT OF AIR.


Relative to what? Without that specification, it's a meaningless statement. There is no movement of air relative to the car chassis. But there is still movement of air relative to the propeller blades. See the vector diagram:

"apparent wind" = movement of air relative to the propeller blade


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

You ARE trolling.

I refuse to accept you are that thick.


----------



## Stiive (Nov 22, 2008)

It works!! I've seen it!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc

No petrol, just use energy recouping the relative wind you produce by moving your vehicle through the air!! It takes far less energy to move a (light) vehicle than the energy produced by the mighty movement of air around the car once its moving. All you need is to capture 1-2% of this free energy and you can commute forever! 
It's the same way planes move through the sky, that's why old ones had propellers - to capture all that free energy when they are up high.. Then the big oil companies wanted them to buy petrol to be able to fly, so they changed airplanes to use turbines which arn't as efficient and have to use some petrol, but you can see some new A380s (mainly in China) with big addon windturbines on the roof fitted as an aftermarket part (same as big 1-2MW ones on ground) to reintroduce flying for free!!

Keep on blowin' peeps... keep on blowin'


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Beemer said:


> You ARE trolling.


Why can't you explain in a calm way where exactly you disagree:

1) An efficient conventional sail-craft (e.g. ice boat) can achieve a downwind VMG greater than true wind speed, by going on broad reach.










[ ] Yes
[ ] No

2) By gybing such an ice-boat can beat a free floating balloon in a race to a point directly downwind (The balloon goes straight downwind at windspeed, the sail-craft uses broad reach tacks with downwind VMG greater than windspeed). 










[ ] Yes
[ ] No

3) When you connect two such ice-boats, in a semi rigid way, that allows them independent lateral movement you have one big catamaran with moving parts. The center of mass can go directly downwind at the same speed as the downwind VMG of the two individual ice boats, which is greater than windspeed.










[ ] Yes
[ ] No

4) Instead of two moving parts that are zig-zaging on broad reach tacks, you can also let them move on helical paths, as this creates the same movement across the wind. It is more practical, because it uses less space.






[ ] Yes
[ ] No



Pictures taken from:
http://rightnice.blogspot.de/2010/08/racing-wind.html
http://www.dadstruction.com/home/2010/11/9/the-great-wind-cart-controversy.html


----------



## _GonZo_ (Mar 23, 2009)

There is a competition of wind turbine powered cars in Europe. Not much interes on it thought...

A picture:









More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_Aeolus


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

_GonZo_ said:


> There is a competition of wind turbine powered cars in Europe. Not much interes on it thought...
> 
> A picture:
> 
> ...


Interesting find.
With only 2m^2 of prop area they are mainly using velomobiles





Oh, *Kathode*
The answer to all of them is "no".
You are not listening.
Not one of those cartoons show a boat, (a sail or a prop on a car was the subject) running a tail wind. They are all performing a tack.


----------



## matthieu149 (May 9, 2011)

There is a student team that have this project at my school.

Here is the link to their page ( in french).

http://chinook.etsmtl.ca/multimedia/


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Kathode said:


> Why can't you explain in a calm way where exactly you disagree:
> 
> 1) An efficient conventional sail-craft (e.g. ice boat) can achieve a downwind VMG greater than true wind speed, by going on broad reach.
> 
> ...





Beemer said:


> The answer to all of them is "no".


So you are even denying that downwind VMG greater than true wind speed is possible on a broad reach, as described in the 1st question? You should educate yourself on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_faster_than_the_wind#Speed_made_good



Beemer said:


> They are all performing a tack.


The *airfoils *are performing a tack in all 4 cases. The *center of mass* of the vehicle is moving _directly downwind faster than the wind_ in case 3 & 4. Just like the propeller vehicle that goes _directly downwind faster than the wind_, while the rotating propeller blades are moving at angle across the wind.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

matthieu149 said:


> There is a student team that have this project at my school.
> 
> Here is the link to their page ( in french).
> 
> http://chinook.etsmtl.ca/multimedia/


Matthieu,

congratulations to your school on winning this years race. The engineers from the Danish team (1st last year, 2nd this year) have written a paper dealing with directly upwind & direcly downwind travel:
http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:55484/datastreams/file_3748519/content

One of their conclusions:


Gaunaa et al. said:


> It is theoretically possible to build a wind
> driven car that can go in the downwind
> direction faster than the free stream wind
> speed (using a propeller in the air)


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

In the case of the downwind turbine car does the car have to be pushed above wind speed using a separate power source before it can be driven by the turbine?


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

MalcolmB said:


> In the case of the downwind turbine car does the car have to be pushed above wind speed using a separate power source before it can be driven by the turbine?


No, you don't have to push it above wind-speed. It can self start from rest, given enough tailwind.











But keep in mind that when going d_irectly downwind faster than the wind_ the rotor acts as a propeller turned by the wheels, not as a turbine turning the wheels. Below windspeed you could use the rotor as a turbine, but you can also stick to the propeller mode. This makes the initial acceleration rather slow though, as you see in the videos above. If you are confused about the whole prop vs. turbine issue, here the self-start is in prop mode is demonstrated on a small model:


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

Kathode said:


> But keep in mind that when going d_irectly downwind faster than the wind_ the rotor acts as a propeller turned by the wheels, not as a turbine turning the wheels.


Yes, I'd got it completely wrong. Many thanks for the videos, that last one is a great illustration.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Hello Everyone, I am laughing these past couple of days, because I thought that this thread that I stop posting on was finished and now it has 2 pages more since then. I have read through some of the comments. Are some of you now in agreement that a wind turbine car is possible? Or did I read incorrectly? I do not plan on arguing about it anymore, unless I get some evidence that it will work.


----------



## _GonZo_ (Mar 23, 2009)

EVEngineeer said:


> Hello Everyone, I am laughing these past couple of days, because I thought that this thread that I stop posting on was finished and now it has 2 pages more since then. I have read through some of the comments. Are some of you now in agreement that a wind turbine car is possible? Or did I read incorrectly? I do not plan on arguing about it anymore, unless I get some evidence that it will work.


Of course it will be posible to move a vehicle with a propeller, a sail, a kite or similar devices, but it is not practical at all, as you will always depend on wind speed and direction.
On a boat is more eficient and practical because you do not have to follow a particular direction so you can choose better wind angles and usually navegate throw the sea, where there is more wind and no obstacules. 

As well an aero generator can be installed but a reasonable size of 2m^2 will only produce around 2000W with good wind and that will be only enough power to move a moped or similar and only if there is wind...

So as school experiments and some beach fun vehicles is great, but from a practical point of view for daily use the answer is no


----------



## Jamie EV (Oct 3, 2012)

madderscience said:


> They aren't more efficient. The difference is that nobody is expending energy pushing them through still air to make them spin.


exactly....when driving, the energy required to rotate the blades has to come from somewhere....and due to the laws of drag and thermodynamics, it has to come from the drive motors....increased drag = higher battery drain and due to the laws of entropy (waste), you never get back what you put in. 

NOW.....let me be crazy here....if you're trying to harness NON-motion derived wind...ie. climatic wind, then sure, you could hoist a massive turbine 30 feet above your car and charge if while parked....that would be one hell of a sight lol....in fact in a wind storm, you could charge your car quite handily....but I don't know of too many people that would try this, nor do I know of too many parking structures that would accommodate it....


lol the image makes me laugh


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

I just came across this article on Wired that gives a nice summary of the building of Blackbird, holder of the world record for directly downwind travel: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/

Sorry if I'm rehashing stuff that's already been posted, but I came to this thread late and got totally sucked in by the faster than wind part.

I'm still not sure how the cart gets moving in the first place though. Is it just blown by the wind?


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

EVEngineeer said:


> Hello Everyone, I am laughing these past couple of days, because I thought that this thread that I stop posting on was finished and now it has 2 pages more since then. I have read through some of the comments.


Sorry for hijacking your thread. I noticed that there already is one about the faster than the wind stuff:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/wind-car-goes-faster-than-windiiiii-76464.html



EVEngineeer said:


> Are some of you now in agreement that a wind turbine car is possible? Or did I read incorrectly?


Yes, but you need true wind. You cannot just use the induced wind from your own motion on a windless day.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

MalcolmB said:


> I just came across this article on Wired that gives a nice summary of the building of Blackbird, holder of the world record for directly downwind travel: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/08/ddwfttw/


I also recomend this one, from MAKE magazine editor. They initially declared it a hoax and had to correct themselves:
http://blog.makezine.com/2010/11/05/what-ive-learned-about-wind-carts/



MalcolmB said:


> I'm still not sure how the cart gets moving in the first place though. Is it just blown by the wind?


Yes, at rest the downwind drag force is greater than the upwind reaction force at the wheels. See CASE C at START UP in the below diagram:


----------



## MalcolmB (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks for the link and the diagram, that's half a working day I've 'lost' to the interweb... 

Has anyone experimented with a variable pitch prop to maximise acceleration and top speed?


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

MalcolmB said:


> Has anyone experimented with a variable pitch prop to maximise acceleration and top speed?


The final version of the Blackbird did have variable pitch. But it didn't go negative. It was always working as a propeller, during the downwind runs. At about 2:05 it looks like he is changing the pitch:






In the 60s Andrew Bauer build a DDWFTTW cart that was starting in turbine mode, and then switching to propeller mode:


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Ok, well in South Florida, the wind is well basically not existent. It's ok that ya'll hijacked this thread.

p.s. I don't say ya'll, down here most people are from New York. haha.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> It's ok that ya'll hijacked this thread.


Since it's wind-powered, it wasn't going anywhere anyway.


----------



## Jamie EV (Oct 3, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Since it's wind-powered, it wasn't going anywhere anyway.


OH SNAP. Wind powered cars do go somewhere....just not under overpasses.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

2.8 times the speed of wind down wind . That's very cool .


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Since it's wind-powered, it wasn't going anywhere anyway.


I find it interesting how you are one of the most helpful person on this forum who is active in most to all threads. Then on the other side, you find every chance there is to attack me. If you think I'm stupid, keep that thought to yourself, but when it comes to respect, I am a person who is trying to learn and I have never disrespected you. For those two reasons you should actually appreciate that I'm even interested and somewhat educated about EVs. In the USA most people are not educated at all about EVs unfortunately.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

That wasn't an attack, it was a joke. 

Wind power is great for lots of things; street cars is not one of them. The farms around Roscoe, TX are one of the most amazing things I've ever seen.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

ok then. I wish i could get wind turbines in Florida, but it's Florida where there is lots of sun, but little to 0 wind. That's why we stick with solar.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Solar's much better than wind anyway. There's virtually no maintenence necessary (rooftop or fixed field - most commercial installs use tracking and molten salt nonsense that make the ROI never), whereas many wind projects are finding it tough to even make money due to upkeep costs. Solar has a fixed and guaranteed ROI, and dropping prices with increasing efficiencies will eventually make it viable for nearly everyone. I can't justify the cost though because electricity prices in my area have dropped significantly for the last 4 years.


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Solar's much better than wind anyway.


Even if might be true from the financial standpoint of a private person, it looks a bit different from a strategic standpoint of replacing the fossil fuels. Compared to wind turbines, solar panels need much longer to generate the energy that was used to build them. And the total energy return is much better for wind turbines too:









http://www.quora.com/How-long-does-...te-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it

Solar panels are cheap, because we still use fossil fuel energy to make them.


----------



## Jamie EV (Oct 3, 2012)

That is changing though. Solar production processes are getting streamlined, the energy yeild is better (almost 40%!) and the cost is going down. ANd yet Romney balks at spending money on solar companies....what a short-sighted fool.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Why should we spend money on solar companies? Why not buy me some? Or some EVs?

We should be paying for corps to develop open source technologies (not that they'd be interested in that) or paying companies to install solar panels etc to power the govt, not just to pocket the money under the guise of building their own company.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Engineeeeer
you need to check your sources - energy payback for solar panels is less than 6 months

Your article was talking about BIG wind power and even then they were struggling to match solar

Six months to payback - 30+ years life give a ratio of 60+ not 5!


----------



## Kathode (Oct 1, 2012)

Duncan said:


> you need to check your sources - energy payback for solar panels is less than 6 months


I would like to check your sources.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

I've seen the energy payback listed as ~1.5 years. On something that lasts 30+ years and runs by itself that's pretty awesome.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

Duncan said:


> Hi Engineeeeer
> you need to check your sources - energy payback for solar panels is less than 6 months
> 
> Your article was talking about BIG wind power and even then they were struggling to match solar
> ...


that was Kathode's comment, not mine. it's ok, i know it was a mistake no big deal, but just wanted to let you know.


----------



## suzukicanter (Dec 25, 2010)

This Footage is good for the theory I have on the matter, You get extra range from a suit as apposed to dropping like a rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w

Now this Car has been built, the footage I swear has been edited since i last saw it, it had an extended range of 900klms with two wind turbines in the back, can't find that footage now. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-fhrh5ewsU

and this video says that he improves the mileage three fold with his wind turbine,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGvXx4rfUY&list=FL7iIysIXfOS3dWuNXoVezNg&index=1

I have read all the comments and posts by you guys, I don't think i can do the impossible, In my opinion I would love to try and build one my self , 

I really like this old footage as it makes me wonder, More turbines/alternators to charge the system means , less load on each turbine ? that equals to easier to spin, not chasing perpetual motion, only extended range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc

I have considered the fact of wind resistance caused by all these turning and extra weight, and extra load, thats why I likes the zerocarbonista, it had nice turbines, but i can't find the footage or any details. It just looks like an EV now.

flame suit on


----------



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

Ziggythewiz said:


> We really need to limit these threads to about a page. If someone has their own interpretation of physics or is convinced they'll find the loophole in the law that millions of scientists have overlooked for thousands of years there's really no hope of us convincing them otherwise. It's a fun conversation for the first few minutes, but after that it's really just pointless.


I can’t believe this thread has gone on so long. The guy that started this discussion certainly has a way of pulling everybody’s chain in a way to make them waste time on such a pointless subject. The real embarrassing part is I took the time to look at it again. 
Two minutes of my life shot to hell.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

dragonsgate said:


> I can’t believe this thread has gone on so long. The guy that started this discussion certainly has a way of pulling everybody’s chain in a way to make them waste time on such a pointless subject. The real embarrassing part is I took the time to look at it again.
> Two minutes of my life shot to hell.


LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! I thought this thread was over too. I just had to click on it and see who was continuing this. haha. BTW I still believe it's possible, but I have been keeping to myself, not to bother ya'll anymore.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

suzukicanter said:


> I have considered the fact of wind resistance caused by all these turning and extra weight, and extra load, thats why I likes the zerocarbonista, it had nice turbines, but i can't find the footage or any details. It just looks like an EV now.
> 
> flame suit on


Your first two videos have nothing to do with wind power. The second two are silly Chinese shams. 

Anyone wanting to build a car to try these out is an idiot. The concepts can be tested by a 6 yr old in an afternoon.

Or if that's too much, you can simplify it further as shown here:


----------



## samwichse (Jan 28, 2012)

Quickest summation of this idea, for those wanting to build one to test:


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

samwichse said:


> Quickest summation of this idea, for those wanting to build one to test:


Not to be rude, but I think Ziggythewiz got this, no need to try to top him. He already said that. 

Thank you Ziggythewiz for insulting people, that's real nice. 

Anyone else wanna jump on the insult train?


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

EVEngineeer said:


> Thank you Ziggythewiz for insulting people, that's real nice.


What part was insulting? Was it something I said, or the fact that you haven't found an hour in the last 10 months to put together a simple experiment to test this idea that you still believe to be possible?



EVEngineeer said:


> Anyone else wanna jump on the insult train?


P.S. Don't try to steal my wind-powered insult train. Patent pending and all that.


----------



## motorhedfred (Feb 12, 2013)

Why not throw a few Rodin, Abha, or Starship coils in there too to waste even more time/money ! Oh, and a joule thief as well...... Maybe a roof mount UltraCapacitor bank with a tall lightning rod to catch a few lightning bolts.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Alternative energy is a great thing to mix with electric vehicles. The key to making it work is to have the alternative energy source fixed to your real estate and not your car. Plug into it to recharge, and then leave it behind. If you follow this simple program, you CAN power your car with a wind turbine and any other alternative energy sources, AND have an extremely efficient EV.


----------



## motorhedfred (Feb 12, 2013)

Actually, I was only half kidding about some of this. I think super/ultra capacitors are going to change the way we look at batteries in the not to distant future. 

When they're able to store enough energy to power an EV for a reasonable distance, they become a much better choice as they can be charged much more quickly. 

Even in thier current state of development, they make sense to use for capturing the energy from regenerative braking because they charge so much faster.


----------



## trukr (Mar 17, 2013)

EVEngineeer said:


> LMFAO!!!!!!!!!! I thought this thread was over too. I just had to click on it and see who was continuing this. haha. BTW I still believe it's possible, but I have been keeping to myself, not to bother ya'll anymore.


If you really want to give it a go, you can build a small pop up wind turbine that activates when you release the throttle, and drops when you're on it. So the only time you are trying to capture power and creating drag is off load, same as regen. I guess at most you'll probably get enough to run a high mount led tail light.

For it to be net gain it would have to be light enough that the energy you're saving in the high mount tail light isn't spent on carrying it in the car. You can't have servos activating it because it would be heavy and draw more power than you are capturing. 

You'll either need to manually pop it up whenever you are off load, or use a bunch of strings, springs and pulleys to do it automatically, based on your go pedal. Again, don't forget the amount of energy used to carry the extra weight.

Seems like a lot of work to power a high mount tail light. 

Personally, I don't think you could make the whole system light enough to produce a net gain.

ps. Did I mention the amount of energy used to carry the extra weight.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

Might as well add a link to the thread on charging while in motion, which shows some wind-powered vehicles:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...charge-motioni-12241.html?p=349262#post349262


----------



## dougingraham (Jul 26, 2011)

motorhedfred said:


> Actually, I was only half kidding about some of this. I think super/ultra capacitors are going to change the way we look at batteries in the not to distant future.
> 
> When they're able to store enough energy to power an EV for a reasonable distance, they become a much better choice as they can be charged much more quickly.
> 
> Even in thier current state of development, they make sense to use for capturing the energy from regenerative braking because they charge so much faster.


The LiFePO4 batteries we are using now are perfectly capable of accepting all the energy from a regen event. Supercaps are not necessary. You can't charge fast at home because your house does not have a big enough electrical drop and at the moment you would not want to pay for a 48kw charger. My batteries could be charged at 3C which means 20 minutes. If I used the entire 200A 240V service at 100% efficiency that is only 2.5C. It isnt the batteries that make charging slow. The other side of it is that for charging at home who cares how long it takes. You have to sleep and eat so you get at least 10 hours of down time. From a 30A J1772 EVSE this typically means 20-25 miles per hour of charging. That would be 200-250 miles while you eat and sleep. The only time anyone really needs Level 3 charging at the 20 minute rate is when you are going cross country. And for that it won't be practical to use an EV until we have a lot more charge stations on the interstate. Does this mean EV's are not practical? No. Just not practical for long distance travel today.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

The real time way to go faster than the wind.





*How about this for perpetual motion:-*
Make all the roads with an up an down wave pattern. The vehicle must have a special suspension where it becomes compressed on the up wave on the road. The excess pressure adds to a pressure tank for the air car motor to keep it rolling along. The effort to return the suspension is far less because it does not have the weight of the vehicle to fight so it just quickly plops down.
The action of the suspension is 90 degree's to the road so between the up wave and down wave, the load to slow the car is a net zero.

This way you can have gravity powered motor drive AND not need to stop and recharge.

Well, it's a safer thought train than following the trolls on here either telling you the Earth is about to melt from C02 or telling you to overcharge your cells and his mates BMS has a foolproof MIL spec.


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

Beemer said:


> Make all the roads with an up an down wave pattern.


Or just make the rear wheels much larger than the front so you're always driving downhill!


----------



## trukr (Mar 17, 2013)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Or just make the rear wheels much larger than the front so you're always driving downhill!


ROFL


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Darn it!
Ziggys out mental'ed me with a healthy dose of K.I.S.S. i'm truly amongst giants.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

If you dig perfectly straight tunnels between major cities thousands of miles apart, they will pull objects (cars) toward the middle by gravity, and the vehicles will pick up momentum. Then they can use that kinetic energy to travel back out the other end. you can also blow air through the tunnel to match the speed of the vehicle. Make two tunnels for opposite directions so the air out of one is vented to the other to form a loop.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

Ziggythewiz said:


> Or just make the rear wheels much larger than the front so you're always driving downhill!


This would be even better if it was a tank or a tractor hauling a heavy track. As the track goes from the large wheel to the small wheel yet flat on the ground.. Explains why some are like this..


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

An express tunnel to China could help our LiFePO4 sourcing issues.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

The flip up roof turbine could be a huge hit. When we first discuss EVs with somebody who is new to them, most suggest solar panels and wind turbines and altenators on the wheels. People seem to instinctively overlook unity, so if you implemented a clean looking pop up wind turbine and even a small solar array into an oem vehicle, they would sell like hotcakes. They do not need to make sense, but they would need to be wired to accomplish the hypothetical goal for which they are intended. This could add thousands of dollars to the price of this super green vehicle if it was set up to time the collection and dispursement of the braking energy to a point that you could actually net enough energy to power a domelight while in stop and go traffic. This system belongs on the prius.


----------



## EVEngineeer (Apr 11, 2012)

OMG what has happened to this thread? I really thought this was over.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Oh no. It got hijacked. You would be amazed where a thread can go if you speak against hybrids, the j plug or over unity stuff. I have not even made my way over to the global warming section yet.


----------



## Beemer (Jun 2, 2011)

EVEngineeer said:


> OMG what has happened to this thread? I really thought this was over.


Its like the climate change debate. We are talking science here. It will never be over.

Behold the monster you have created. It has a mind of its own; it lives!


----------



## Ziggythewiz (May 16, 2010)

evmetro said:


> I have not even made my way over to the global warming section yet.


Please don't. There's enough people out to get you already.


----------



## evmetro (Apr 9, 2012)

Yea, I know... I will save that one for a rainy day.


----------

