# Kit Car Electric Vehicle Project



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

An electric Cobra sounds great, I must admit it was one of my considerations too but the cost of a good kit was too big a factor for me.

I don't know about the transaxle route, would that be to put the motor and transmission in the front for front wheel drive or in the back for rear wheel drive?

I think a traditional (?) front motor rear wheel drive with a good manual transmission in the tunnel would be the simper method using whatever components the chassis was designed to take as a regular kit.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Oh boy, yet another secret patented technology to drive electric car without plugging in....

Sigh..... time to make some popcorn and watch the show.....

Sorry to rain on your parade, but electric cars are expected to be plugged in to recharge. Stating that electric car does not need to plug in to recharge is just simply retarded. Please don't mention it again if you want any credibility on this forum, especially since its supposed to be a secret anyway 

Now, making electric Cobra kit car is a different story, that sounds like a good project and you will definitely get a lot of enthusiastic support for it here.


----------



## nexgen009 (Aug 17, 2009)

Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself. Ever heard of plenums, ducting? Hint, ever heard of wind power? Go figure it out now, and you might learn something new. Ever heard of turbines, vanes, etc... Ever heard of alternator / generators? It works dude. No hybrid, no plug-in charging. I have a provisional patent. Wouldn't you try to protect a technology that guarantees no plug-in, no hybrid motor, with minimal added cost to the system? I have a lot invested in this, and when its ready, I'll release it. Its just recently that I thought about a kit car for my mid-life crisis, and thought it might be a good test bed. I am also thinking of buying a smart car to test it on a small scale. I am not waiting fro the EV Smart to come out. I can buy a used Smart cheap. Its a simple vehicle to modify.


----------



## nexgen009 (Aug 17, 2009)

If anyone wants to sign an NDA, I will elaborate on the technology. I would rather collaborate and further the progress than hinder it. I have to patent this. I work in product design, and I have seen enough rip offs and dishonesty in my time, and been the victim of both. So, if you wouldn't mind signing an enforceable NDA, I'd be happy to collaborate so we can all benefit.

Send e-mail to [email protected]


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

All of the airflow energy in and out of the moving car is created by energy source onboard which was used to get the car moving in the first place ( except the wind that may or may not be blowing in desired direction, so it cannot be depended upon to collect extra energy ).

So, any modification to the airflow designed to either recapture or reduce such airflow energy is simply an attempt to reduce the initial energy spent to get the car moving.

So, in effect, you might as well just make your car more aerodynamic and lighther, so it will spend less energy to get moving, instead of adding weight of the contraption which will convert some small portion of that lost energy back into the battery, which will ALWAYS come as negative bottom line, due to laws of energy conservation.

I don't have an issue with your patent, but if its supposed to be a secret, then why did you have to mention it at all?

Also, US patent system is such a joke that having a patent means nothing, especially not to prove the validity of the contraption.

I lost count of how many forum posts on various forums bring up these silly ideas of capturing airflow energy in a moving vehicle. Its not even funny anymore, just sad....


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

nexgen009 said:


> If anyone wants to sign an NDA, I will elaborate on the technology. I would rather collaborate and further the progress than hinder it. I have to patent this. I work in product design, and I have seen enough rip offs and dishonesty in my time, and been the victim of both. So, if you wouldn't mind signing an enforceable NDA, I'd be happy to collaborate so we can all benefit.
> 
> Send e-mail to [email protected]


I find it offensive that some dick thinks he's figured out "what no scientist/engineer could do in 100 years". Unless you can explain the energy input to power your vehicle, you have a perpetual contraption which doesn't, and never will, exist. You're promoting bad science which puts you in the same boat as the creationists/fundamentalists - stifling the scientific development of mankind by distracting other ignorant members of the public.

And then you want to patent your crackpot idea. Even if it worked and became the "holy grail" of free energy, why would you patent it? To get rich off the solution to the world's energy crisis and climate change? What's better, being rich or being a hero, like Nikola Tesla? It'd be where even good inventions shrouded in secrecy and patented end up - poorly marketed and ultimately fail due to the greed of the inventor. Just take a look at the Ovonic battery saga.


----------



## gte718p (Jul 30, 2009)

nexgen009 said:


> Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself. Ever heard of plenums, ducting? Hint, ever heard of wind power? Go figure it out now, and you might learn something new. Ever heard of turbines, vanes, etc... Ever heard of alternator / generators? It works dude. ....quote]
> 
> Someone completely forgot to study conservation of energy and entrpy. Oh well.


----------



## frodus (Apr 12, 2008)

nexgen009 said:


> Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself. Ever heard of plenums, ducting? Hint, ever heard of wind power? Go figure it out now, and you might learn something new. Ever heard of turbines, vanes, etc... Ever heard of alternator / generators? It works dude. No hybrid, no plug-in charging. I have a provisional patent. Wouldn't you try to protect a technology that guarantees no plug-in, no hybrid motor, with minimal added cost to the system? I have a lot invested in this, and when its ready, I'll release it. Its just recently that I thought about a kit car for my mid-life crisis, and thought it might be a good test bed. I am also thinking of buying a smart car to test it on a small scale. I am not waiting fro the EV Smart to come out. I can buy a used Smart cheap. Its a simple vehicle to modify.


Ever hear of the law of conservation of energy? Perpetual motion DOES NOT exist, never did, never will.

Provisional patent is something ANYONE can do, but you will get rejected, just like the 1000's of other people that didn't understand highschool physics classes.

Read this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13449&highlight=perpetual 
and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13644&redir_from=31073

and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20548&highlight=perpetual

and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24038&highlight=perpetual

and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28945&highlight=perpetual

and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32713&highlight=perpetual

and this:
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18984&highlight=perpetual


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

nexgen009 said:


> Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself. Ever heard of plenums, ducting? Hint, ever heard of wind power? Go figure it out now, and you might learn something new. Ever heard of turbines, vanes, etc... Ever heard of alternator / generators? It works dude. No hybrid, no plug-in charging. I have a provisional patent. Wouldn't you try to protect a technology that guarantees no plug-in, no hybrid motor, with minimal added cost to the system? I have a lot invested in this, and when its ready, I'll release it. Its just recently that I thought about a kit car for my mid-life crisis, and thought it might be a good test bed. I am also thinking of buying a smart car to test it on a small scale. I am not waiting fro the EV Smart to come out. I can buy a used Smart cheap. Its a simple vehicle to modify.


All of those things you mentioned are very well known by the members of this forum. This is a forum full of VERY smart people and others like me who are learning, this isn't a forum full of meathead motorheads...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

nexgen009 said:


> If anyone wants to sign an NDA, I will elaborate on the technology. I would rather collaborate and further the progress than hinder it. I have to patent this. I work in product design, and I have seen enough rip offs and dishonesty in my time, and been the victim of both. So, if you wouldn't mind signing an enforceable NDA, I'd be happy to collaborate so we can all benefit.
> 
> Send e-mail to [email protected]


lol - some of us older folks don't need to sign an NDA to recognize another "perpetual motion idea."

Hint: They don't work....



Now, if you figure out a way to pluck energy from dark matter, that would be another thing entirely!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

nexgen009 said:


> Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself.


Oy Vey  Stop and think for a second, where does the air flow come from? The motion of the vehicle. Where does the motion of the vehicle come from? Whatever power source is pushing the vehicle. As has been mentioned, this is basic stuff.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

samborambo said:


> What's better, being rich or being a hero, like Nikola Tesla?


Didn't Tesla end up poor, bitter, and a bit insane? Nothing wrong with being compensated for a good idea, if it's truly revolutionary the inventor can be rewarded without ripping off the public. Of course this guy does not have a good idea so....


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Didn't Tesla end up poor, bitter, and a bit insane? Nothing wrong with being compensated for a good idea, if it's truly revolutionary the inventor can be rewarded without ripping off the public. Of course this guy does not have a good idea so....


Yeah, Tesla was a genius, screwed over by Edison and Westinghouse repeatedly. Edison was a shrewed, callus businessman, not an inventor.

That's pure capitalism for you though...

Intellectual Property is a misnomer. Information should be shared freely. Recognition should be given to those who work hard to perfect an idea and make it viable. Patents stifle innovation, they do not encourage it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Not necessarily. If there were no potential for personal gain many people would not be motivated to invent things, that's just the way it is. My cousin left Wall st. to pursue his inventions, but if there were no potential for payoff he couldn't have done it. His ideas are pretty basic and easy to copy but never before implemented. The patents protect his hard work perfecting the inventions and allow him to be compensated for his efforts, and prevent someone else from profiting from his work. Certainly just sitting on a patent with no intention of producing a product is stifling, and should not be allowed.


----------



## martymcfly (Sep 10, 2008)

Getting back to a kit car idea, I have wanted to do a kit car for a long time. My next ev project will probably be a kit car like a Sterling or Manta or gt40. I think a trans axle would work in the rear of a Cobra. There were several cars that used a trans axle without a transverse mounted ice. Example would be Toronado or Eldorado, Fox, 924, Eagle premier. There are probably more that I can't remember. I appreciate creativity.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Not necessarily. If there were no potential for personal gain many people would not be motivated to invent things, that's just the way it is. My cousin left Wall st. to pursue his inventions, but if there were no potential for payoff he couldn't have done it. His ideas are pretty basic and easy to copy but never before implemented. The patents protect his hard work perfecting the inventions and allow him to be compensated for his efforts, and prevent someone else from profiting from his work. Certainly just sitting on a patent with no intention of producing a product is stifling, and should not be allowed.


Thinking more of "the greater good". Coming up with an idea is just creative, not hard work. *perfecting* the idea into a workable prototype and realised in a commercial product is a bit inefficient on a small scale. I have no problem with paying people for hard work but they shouldn't be hiding the idea in the first place. A coveted idea should not be kept in secrecy. A coveted idea is more important than one single person if it benefits everyone. The success or failure of such an idea shouldn't be left up to the conceiver. This is the concept of "open source". Everyone benefits.

Have a look at www.halfbakery.com . Amateur half-baked ideas shared for all to see (most of them nonsense). That *encourages* innovation. Creative people share ideas and resourceful, equipped people make them a reality.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

martymcfly said:


> Getting back to a kit car idea, I have wanted to do a kit car for a long time. My next ev project will probably be a kit car like a Sterling or Manta or gt40. I think a trans axle would work in the rear of a Cobra. There were several cars that used a trans axle without a transverse mounted ice. Example would be Toronado or Eldorado, Fox, 924, Eagle premier. There are probably more that I can't remember. I appreciate creativity.


I agree, a kit car would be a great project. From the ground up, you've got the chance to place batteries and motors appropriately. Plus, it'd have a lot more resale value than a 25 year old ICE conversion.

I've always dreamed of a GT40 conversion!

Sam.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

nexgen009 said:


> If anyone wants to sign an NDA, I will elaborate on the technology. I would rather collaborate and further the progress than hinder it. I have to patent this. I work in product design, and I have seen enough rip offs and dishonesty in my time, and been the victim of both. So, if you wouldn't mind signing an enforceable NDA, I'd be happy to collaborate so we can all benefit.
> 
> Send e-mail to [email protected]


Do you mean product design like drawing things that engineers then go away and actually design then build?

Go ask one of the engineers at your work to explain what this means then;

F = 1/2 x Rho x A x Cd x V^2

And make sure you ask where the opposing force comes from


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

you guys are too much L) I almost feel bad for the guy....but conservation of energy is a harsh mistress


----------



## kek_63 (Apr 20, 2008)

AmpEater said:


> you guys are too much L) I almost feel bad for the guy....but conservation of energy is a harsh mistress


I think that it's fair to expect a new poster to have read enough on the site to realize that "unlimited mileage" ideas are judged harshly. 

I realize that the forum has grown a lot since I joined, but I read every thread before I posted anything. You don't just join into the conversation of a group of strangers with out knowing anything about them do you?

Later,
Keith


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Especially if you're promoting ideas that have no basis in science.


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

Maybe he just knows something we don't 

Seriously though, the whole perpetual motion thing is a big red flag in our educational system. Not long ago I was dating a girl that was attending an ivy league school.....ivy league.....who thought my electric car was cool, but she didn't understand why I didn't just connect a generator to the wheels so I could recharge while I drove. Instead of setting her straight I brought up the topic around her brother, mother and father, all who were well educated, just to see what they said. They all thought it was a legitimate idea....it wasn't until I talked them through it, asked where that power would ultimately be coming from, weather it would slow the car down when you turned it on, etc....that they realized it wouldn't work. (I spontaneously came up with the idea of regen braking on my car right after the conversation based on their idea so they didn't feel like I was talking down to them) 

I now have two questions I ask any potential mate/friend right off the bat to see if I want to continue talking to them;

The generator on the wheel to charge while driving thing
And if a boat made made from concrete could float

You can get a pretty good idea of someone's grasp of the basic laws of our universe based on how they answer.


----------



## DaveAK (Jun 28, 2009)

AmpEater said:


> I now have two questions I ask any potential mate/friend right off the bat to see if I want to continue talking to them;
> 
> The generator on the wheel to charge while driving thing
> And if a boat made made from concrete could float


I think these are two of eHarmony's questions.


----------



## DaveAK (Jun 28, 2009)

I just wanted to add that wind resistance is a real drag.


----------



## bbbowden (Apr 13, 2009)

AmpEater said:


> And if a boat made made from concrete could float
> 
> You can get a pretty good idea of someone's grasp of the basic laws of our universe based on how they answer.


Actually, the US made ships out of concrete during WWII.

http://www.concreteships.org/ships/ww2/

So, yes a boat made out of concrete does float. But that doesn't validate the perpetual motion arguement....


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

bbbowden said:


> But that doesn't validate the perpetual motion arguement....


Nor would I expect it to. 

Most people will (unfortunately) say that concrete is heavier than water, so it must sink. 

In fact, a while back I was building a concrete canoe in my driveway, and an old man actually stopped his car to tell me that I was stupid, it could never work. I asked him what most boats are made out of......


----------



## Lordwacky (Jan 28, 2009)

Guys,

Can we please take step back from the feeding frenzy here? There were quite a few rude comments and it would be nice we tried to keep things a little more civil. Calling a guy a "Dick" for having an idea that wont work is a little out of line. I have hundreds of ideas a day, and 99.9% of them wont work. If he truly has a lot of money invested in this idea then he'll learn the hard way that perpetual motion will not work.

I'm afraid that we have just scared away a potential EVer.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Lordwacky said:


> Guys,
> 
> Can we please take step back from the feeding frenzy here? There were quite a few rude comments and it would be nice we tried to keep things a little more civil.


I'm sorry but he brought it on himself with this attitude:


> Ever heard of airflow at speed? Are you aware of the forces involved. Its an energy in and of itself. Ever heard of plenums, ducting? Hint, ever heard of wind power? Go figure it out now, and you might learn something new. Ever heard of turbines, vanes, etc... Ever heard of alternator / generators? It works dude.


Come in with a bad idea AND a poor attitude, expect to get jumped.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

I totally agree with JRP. I'm defending my "dick" comment. It was deserved.

Sam.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

Notice he hasn't posted at all since the beginning of this thread? The abuse worked.

This has been a very amusing thread!


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

Lordwacky said:


> Guys,
> 
> Can we please take step back from the feeding frenzy here? There were quite a few rude comments and it would be nice we tried to keep things a little more civil. Calling a guy a "Dick" for having an idea that wont work is a little out of line. I have hundreds of ideas a day, and 99.9% of them wont work. If he truly has a lot of money invested in this idea then he'll learn the hard way that perpetual motion will not work.
> 
> I'm afraid that we have just scared away a potential EVer.


While I agree that some of the comments were a little rude, if he is really spending money out of pocket to pursue this idea they're all ultimately in his best interests. 

There is this whole "over unity" / perpetual motion crowd that is very active on the internet. Many, if not most, choose to apply their "inventions" towards electric vehicles, and quite frankly, give us all a bad name in the public eye. I think all of us would prefer that a google search, or a visit to this forum, didn't turn up a mess of stuff that anybody who passed highschool physics would immediately dismiss as violating basic laws of conservation of energy.

Your average Joe doesn't think much of electric vehicles as it is


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

AmpEater said:


> Your average Joe doesn't think much of electric vehicles as it is


Most of the time I'm reluctant to tell people I'm converting a car to electric. I get this "this guy's a crackpot" look and they often follow up asking about over-unity stuff. It's embarrassing somewhat. I want to put as much distance between these over-unity nutters as possible.


----------



## el ohmbre (May 28, 2009)

This last post is interesting to me. I was very surprised when some people were not supportive of my EV project. A couple of very smart people I know have taken a very negative view. One complains that he thinks he is subsidizing my electricity bill by paying his bill and the other is just plain negative about the concept.

I expected a few people wouldn't understand why I would undertake a project like this but I didn't expect negativity and certainly not from intelligent people.

I guess I'm sort of glad I'm not alone here with this but it's still too bad.

As far as the beginning of this thread there is actually an article in the wiki about this topic: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13644 maybe the original poster can read it and follow up on some of the links. It's non-threatening and informative on the subject.

Tom
el ohmbre


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

el ohmbre said:


> This last post is interesting to me. I was very surprised when some people were not supportive of my EV project. A couple of very smart people I know have taken a very negative view. One complains that he thinks he is subsidizing my electricity bill by paying his bill and the other is just plain negative about the concept.
> 
> I expected a few people wouldn't understand why I would undertake a project like this but I didn't expect negativity and certainly not from intelligent people.


Could you elaborate on their reasoning (to the best of your understanding)? Such thought processes are extremely interesting to me, even if a little disturbing on an intellectual level.


----------



## DaveAK (Jun 28, 2009)

AmpEater said:


> Could you elaborate on their reasoning (to the best of your understanding)? Such thought processes are extremely interesting to me, even if a little disturbing on an intellectual level.


Not that I want to speak for Tom, but I would hazard a guess at the reason being they are just bat shit crazy.


----------



## Lordwacky (Jan 28, 2009)

I know exactly where you guys are coming from. Having degree in Physics I find myself fighting the "over unity" battle more times then I care for. I have found that it is virtually useless to argue with these people. They have already decided what they believe and nothing you can say, no matter how loud you say it, or however many "colorful" names you call the guy it will not change what he thinks. The conversation usualy ends with a statement a kin to, "well that is your opinion". Even though whatever your opinion is it wont change the physical laws of the universe.

The point I'm trying to make is it serves no good to call the guy names and tear him apart, because it will do no good.

Also, since we are teaching each other physics:
The law of conservation of energy (which is the same as the first law of thermodynamics) does not rule out perpetual motion entirely, it only rules out perpetual motion on systems that do work on an external system. It is the 2nd law thermodynamics that actually rules out perpetual motion entirely.


----------



## el ohmbre (May 28, 2009)

Yeah, I agree that it doesn't make much sense to fight it.

As far as the guys I know, I think they are just both threatened in different ways. One is a hot rodder and likes the noise and doesn't want to see a world of electric cars. (He actually helped me quite a bit on the project because he has a nice machine shop in his garage.) The other is a very accomplished finance guy and I think he just thinks that DIY is a waste of time. He'd rather take a vacation to France with his time and money and I'd rather build an electric car. I'm not threatened by his choice and don't tear it down so I don't know why he throws out little barbs. I just ignore them because I'm having fun, exercising my mind, exercising my body, helping the world and driving around in an electric car.

Speaking of resistance. The biggest resistance I met so far is at the California Department of Motor Vehicles. I'll have to start a thread about that one!

Tom
elohmbre.com


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

It doesn't help when one of the ad banners on this forum is for "free power" perpetual motor plans. Amusing, but again, a bit disturbing. I know the website admin has to recoup the costs of running this site, but advertising perpetual motors? Might as well have porn banners.

Sam.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Perhaps the Over-Unity aspect is why some politicians have taken such a shine to EVs. As a group they are always trying to sell one fairy tale or another...


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

I also confirm general hostility and misunderstanding of basic energy conservation principles on many car related forums and some people I showed my EV to. At the same token, there seem to be just as many people defending EVs and supporting me on same forums, so we can at least say that EVs touch people's buttons and bring up interesting conversations 

Many laymen seem to be amazed that you can DIY a car conversion, they seem to have accepted a dogma that only major car makers are capable of producing anything worth looking at.

Many people seem to be simply ignorant of the whole concept and think that gas will be flowing forever and government will be there to save their asses when next crisis occurs.


----------



## esoneson (Sep 1, 2008)

netgen0009,

I am very interested in your kit car implementation. If you could share a little more about your car (other than the nda related stuff), I would really appreciate it. You may have some good implementation ideas that I could use with my project. I am still in the planning stage (i.e. short on cash) so I am looking at all aspects of my design with a fine tooth comb. Perhaps what you have done could help me refine my design.

Any chance that you could share a little bit more of what you are doing with your kit car?

If you would rather not answer in this public forum, simply PM me.

Much appreciated.

Eric


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I guess I've been lucky but most people who I've told about my EV conversions are very positive. I also usually make some pre-emptive strikes to stop some of the usual "problems" that get brought up, i.e. coal is just as polluting, batteries exploding, batteries only lasting a few years, etc. I rattle off some facts which seem to either satisfy them, confuse them, or make them think I'm a nut and they don't dare to question me   I usually try to take some shots at hydrogen as well to stifle the hype about that inefficient dragon.
One of my most interesting conversations was with a military guy who is involved in using Altairnano batteries to power a howitzer, cool stuff.


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

samborambo said:


> It doesn't help when one of the ad banners on this forum is for "free power" perpetual motor plans. Amusing, but again, a bit disturbing. I know the website admin has to recoup the costs of running this site, but advertising perpetual motors? Might as well have porn banners.
> 
> Sam.


I would guess (or hope) that those ads are not because the admin sold ad space to that "company" specifically, but instead sold a chunk of space to a service that analyzed key words here and determined which would be most relevant. 

If you don't like one specifically, the best thing to do would be to click on it! For every click they pay some amount of money that goes towards supporting this site. You can check it out, see what they have to say, and if you're not convinced then don't buy anything. If enough people did that without giving them any money they would either go out of business, or find a more lucrative place to stick their ads.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

AmpEater said:


> If you don't like one specifically, the best thing to do would be to click on it! For every click they pay some amount of money that goes towards supporting this site. You can check it out, see what they have to say, and if you're not convinced then don't buy anything. If enough people did that without giving them any money they would either go out of business, or find a more lucrative place to stick their ads.


Actually I'd recommend against clicking on ads like that, when they have zero responses then they get the point that no one here is interested in such nonsense.


----------



## AmpEater (Mar 10, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Actually I'd recommend against clicking on ads like that, when they have zero responses then they get the point that no one here is interested in such nonsense.


I think the bottom line is what really is the deciding factor. It doesn't cost them anything to have an ad sit there and get viewed by thousands if nobody clicks, but if thousands click and nobody buys then its costing them money every day to keep up the shenanigans.


----------



## dragster (Sep 3, 2008)

Hi
The electric cobra has been done before but I say go for it.
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/12/19/evs23-the-baddest-shelby-cobra-427-around-is-all-electric-vide/
Do to the down turn in the economy there are a lot of unfinished kits out there for shot money. You will have to use lithium batteries do to the small space you have to work with. Please check out our web site we were given a lot of grief when we were building it.
http://www.discbrakesrus.com/make/fordtruck/electriccar.htm
For example we were told we could not use the ford explore transmission as it is electronic shifted by the computer and this is true but we found out how to do it. Also we were told that SUV's were to heavy to be an electric vehicle. It weights in at 5300 pounds with lead batteries and mileage is 35 with lithium battery's that save 600 pounds and 15 amp hours more per batteries we think we can go 70 plus miles. As for driving it is just like it was with the gas engine.
For more info please call us at htcracing.com 866 883 5700
P.S we supply Factory Five with most of there rear ends and sell many Cobra parts on our www.discbrakesrus.com Web site. Thanks tom


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I hope your other prices are a lot better than the $390.00 you're charging for an already over priced $90.00 PB6 pot box!
http://www.discbrakesrus.com/make/fordtruck/ev car.htm


----------



## dragster (Sep 3, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I hope your other prices are a lot better than the $390.00 you're charging for an already over priced $90.00 PB6 pot box!
> http://www.discbrakesrus.com/make/fordtruck/ev car.htm


 
Sometimes thing are no what they appear to be. As is with the pot box ours is part of a kit with bracket and pre wired to bolt on a ford explore 1995-2004 with two bolts and yes the bolts are also provided.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It might be a good idea to show a picture of what people are getting for that $390 so they don't get the wrong impression as I did.


----------



## gte718p (Jul 30, 2009)

$1200 dollar battery cables? Really?


----------



## meat (Jul 13, 2009)

Well, THIS was certainly an entertaining thread to read.

I'm not sure what an 'over unity' thingy is, but it sounds interesting.

I didn't know that Factory Five supplied rear ends with their roadsters, but things may have changed since the two of them I built.

It's amazing how quickly things got out of shape, once the posts started piling up.

If the original poster did come up with a way to make a perpetual motion machine, I think that's a good thing. Maybe he can do it.

If he's using a Cobra replica, I'd certainly recommend the Factory Five, it's a good proven platform. If not that, then buy a Superformance (if cost is no object) or a Backdraft; then you don't have to actually build a car and can concentrate on making it electric.

I'd stay away from the GT40s, though. They're kind of cramped inside. Although they do have those two big long gas tanks outboard of the cockpit. I liked my Ford GT better than my GT0 replica.

In any case, you might want to stay away from the SEP Cobras. SEPs - 'somebody else's problem' are unfinished kit cars. Every one of my kit cars have been SEPs, and they did require a bit more DISassembly than assembly to undo what others had ... done.


----------



## speedboats (Jan 10, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> I usually try to take some shots at hydrogen as well to stifle the hype about that inefficient dragon.


Who said hydrogen is inefficient? 2 Hydrogens make an Helium an emmit a neutron and some energy. Just putting it under the hood of a domestic vehicle is somewhat.... difficult

I've had mixed results with the mention of an ev project. Am a little more selective whom I share this with. Have had to explain the wind and wheel generator thing also. Even had a more interesting conversation that both wind and hydro was a round-a-bout way of harnessing solar energy.


----------



## Woodsmith (Jun 5, 2008)

speedboats said:


> I've had mixed results with the mention of an ev project. Am a little more selective whom I share this with. Have had to explain the wind and wheel generator thing also. Even had a more interesting conversation that both wind and hydro was a round-a-bout way of harnessing solar energy.


I am also cautious about how I talk about my EV project and other environmental issues as I have become bored of the back and forth circular arguments that ensue.

I also avoid the arguments about over unity for the same reasons. I do have a finger or two in investigating some of the over unity ideas that are out there including checking, by repeatable experiment and measuring, if the ideas holds water prior to patent application. In order to do this I have to keep an open mind.

Now AC Cobras, that's a different kettle of fish.
We could do with a good kit car build project to follow.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meat said:


> If the original poster did come up with a way to make a perpetual motion machine, I think that's a good thing. Maybe he can do it.


He didn't and he can't, that's the whole problem.


----------



## meat (Jul 13, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> He didn't and he can't, that's the whole problem.


Well ... ya never know. Shelby Super Cars claims 1,000 HP and 800 lbs/ft of torque on their car that can be charged in 10 minutes from a 220V outlet because of their "Charge on the Run" onboard charging system that '_nearly_ eliminates (or at least minimizes) the need for a battery swapping infrastructure.'

The name 'Shelby' in automotive circles is, after all, synonymous with truth, good business practices and originality (yes, I know Jerod Shelby isn't Carroll Shelby ... I just have issues with the latter, and they come out every now and then).

So maybe the OP did come up with some kind of Stirling Wind Turbine Electric Generator system made of unobtanium that will rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

Then again, he could just be Shelbyizing.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

meat said:


> Well ... ya never know.


That's the thing, we do know, he doesn't. He obviously lacks a basic understanding of how things actually work.


> Shelby Super Cars claims 1,000 HP and 800 lbs/ft of torque on their car that can be charged in 10 minutes from a 220V outlet because of their "Charge on the Run" onboard charging system that '_nearly_ eliminates (or at least minimizes) the need for a battery swapping infrastructure.'


I think they've changed their tune on that whole thing, the actual physics kinda got in the way. Besides, there isn't any need for a battery swapping infrastructure, fast charge stations make more sense, or a towable generator, or plug in hybrids, if you really need long range. Or just rent an ICE for the occasional long trip. The added expense and complexity of pack swapping is not a good idea for EV's, as much as it's being hyped by some.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

meat said:


> If the original poster did come up with a way to make a perpetual motion machine, I think that's a good thing. Maybe he can do it.


This kind of talk will make you about as popular as saying, "Maybe the Holocaust didn't happen".


----------



## EV-propulsion.com (Jun 1, 2009)

Ha, very entertaining !
I think we'd all be rich if we had a buck for everytime we heard this nonsense from people!
(and they insist they are the first to think of it and it will work)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The closest thing I've ever seen for capturing wind energy and allowing you to convert it to propulsion no matter what direction it is coming from is a vertical wind turbine:










Problem is, in order to generate enough power to make it worth carrying the extra weight it would need to be too tall to get under bridges.

Popular Science once ran an article on using these on cargo ships; they would be used to supplement the steam turbines but would not replace them because they don't generate enough power even in high winds to propel the ships at their normal 20-25 knot speed.

Almost every perpetual motion idea runs into this stumbling block - that being that it takes far more weight and complexity to generate enough power to move an object than the size of the object itself, and then the added weight cannot move itself. Wind and sun, it should be pointed out, do not truly represent "perpetual motion" - you are actually converting a different kind of energy for local consumption. However, with both wind and sun you need to be able to store enough energy to take you through calm / dark periods, and the "charging" period is much longer than the "run" period.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> The closest thing I've ever seen for capturing wind energy and allowing you to convert it to propulsion no matter what direction it is coming from is a vertical wind turbine


Converting wind to electricity to power motors for traction seems a bit pointless when you could just sail:










Although tacking into the wind along a road may be an issue. Watch out for oncoming traffic!

Seriously, even if you used a vertical axis wind turbine, if you had anything close to a head wind, you've got no energy source. It'd be even less efficient in a head wind because the drag coefficient and frontal area has increased dramatically.

Large freighters and oil tankers have started using huge kites, like spinnakers, to reduce fuel consumption in a tail wind. Not too practical on the road though, especially in built up areas.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Never mind, it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Actually, a vertical wind turbine CAN (but doesn't necessarily) help no matter what the wind direction is provided that your velocity is generally lower than that of the wind. The secret lies in that the advancing blades have "nearly zero" drag while the driven blades harness some of the wind energy, then "gear it down" to provide propulsion.
> 
> If you are going down wind ("with" the wind) any surface capturing wind helps.
> 
> ...


Totally wrong.

In order to generate power fom wind, the turbine, whatever the construction, creates drag. That's what a turbine is designed to do. There's no such thing as a "zero drag" wind turbine. That would be an over-unity generator - exactly what we're abusing these ignorant posters about.

That said, if the axis was locked on one of those sparse helical VAWT designs, it would produce little drag....but also zero power.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Never mind, it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## gte718p (Jul 30, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> One of the few things you can count on in life is that when you find yourself using "absolute" words, you have probably overlooked something...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have they stopped teaching physics in schools. If you create a net torque you have to put energy into the system.

In theory you could extract the energy from the wind, but your movement is not going to help you any. By the time you do two state conversions your not going to get much energy out. You might as well throw up a sail or a kite it would be much more effecient.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The problem is there are two different concepts being argued here. One is using the wind as power, the other is using motion generated airflow as power, which can't work.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> One of the few things you can count on in life is that when you find yourself using "absolute" words, you have probably overlooked something...


Nope. Just extremely confident in my argument. PP, nothing personal, but you need to learn some basics of energy conservation in physics. Velocity, torque, force, etc.

Sam.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Never mind, it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Never mind, it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Nope. Just extremely confident in my argument. PP, nothing personal, but you need to learn some basics of energy conservation in physics. Velocity, torque, force, etc.
> 
> Sam.


lol - Looking at your photo I'd guess I learned physics before you were born. I know my limits - some folks on this board know lots of tricks about electrical stuff that would make my head explode. This is just another trick...
<EDIT>
Yep, it was a trick - it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

If a car is facing into a 25 mph head wind with a large turbine on the roof energy can be extracted from the turbine due to the wind velocity. If the car is not moving no energy is being put into its forward motion to overcome drag and the extra drag caused by the turbine is irrelevant. If the car moves forward at 5 mph the turbine now sees 30 mph wind. The drag caused by the turbine and car is only fractionally more than it was when the car stood still but the turbine can generate even more power than before due to the higher wind speed it sees. The car is now doing work because now it is covering distance as well as overcoming a force (drag). In a purely hypothetical sense it could work but in a practical sense the added weight and complexity would negate any benefit.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

John said:


> If a car is facing into a 25 mph head wind with a large turbine on the roof energy can be extracted from the turbine due to the wind velocity. If the car is not moving no energy is being put into its forward motion to overcome drag and the extra drag caused by the turbine is irrelevant. If the car moves forward at 5 mph the turbine now sees 30 mph wind. The drag caused by the turbine and car is only fractionally more than it was when the car stood still but the turbine can generate even more power than before due to the higher wind speed it sees. The car is now doing work because now it is covering distance as well as overcoming a force (drag). In a purely hypothetical sense it could work but in a practical sense the added weight and complexity would negate any benefit.


John, in your example, the car moving at 5mph into a 25mph head wind is actually trying to overcome the drag of the turbine CSA + the car's own CSA at 30mph. The turbine is generating power from drag caused by only its own CSA. Not even taking into account rolling resistance, wind shear or other losses, do you really think the turbine is generating more power than the car is consuming to maintain 5mph?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Never mind, it was another over-unity deception...


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

PhantomPholly said:


> Actually, a vertical wind turbine CAN (but doesn't necessarily) help no matter what the wind direction is provided that your velocity is generally lower than that of the wind. The secret lies in that the advancing blades have "nearly zero" drag while the driven blades harness some of the wind energy, then "gear it down" to provide propulsion.
> 
> If you are going down wind ("with" the wind) any surface capturing wind helps.
> 
> ...


Sorry mate, you still can't head directly into the wind, no matter what system you're using, you'll end up going backwards. 

If you've got any angle offset then you can use the difference in the absolute value of wind velocity and the velocity in your direction to generate positive power, but the practical limit to this is Vusable=Vtotal*system efficiency. 

If you had a system efficiency of 90% then you'd end up going backwards at anything closer than 26 degrees to the direction of wind.



Meat, I read the whole shelby charge on the run thing as well, and wrote it off immediately as rubbish. Shelby was always a great branding tool, but AFAIK they haven't been responsible for anything noteworthy in the history of cars. Although they did manage to put a rather large engine in a mustang chassis and they were involved in fords effort to rebrand an AC chassis.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sorry mate, you still can't head directly into the wind, no matter what system you're using, you'll end up going backwards.
> 
> If you've got any angle offset then you can use the difference in the absolute value of wind velocity and the velocity in your direction to generate positive power, but the practical limit to this is Vusable=Vtotal*system efficiency.
> 
> If you had a system efficiency of 90% then you'd end up going backwards at anything closer than 26 degrees to the direction of wind.


Looking back over the material, it appears I missed an important piece:



> The idea worked, but the propulsion force generated was less than the motor would have generated if it had been connected to a standard marine propeller.


So, it appears that I was mislead in that some input power was required to spin the rotor to achieve the effect. Their claims of fuel savings were true, but only because ships rarely travel directly into the wind.

Ah well, perhaps someone will invent real over-unity one day - but it will probably involve stealing the power from another universe. In the mean time I will delete the content of my prior posts to prevent some other hapless soul from being likewise mislead...



Popular Science should have included a disclaimer that the effect did NOT provide energy directly into the wind...


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much, the idea of a turbine connected to a propellor is basically a sailing ship that you don't need to know about wind to be able to pilot.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Nah, I get that part, and there is still potential utility in that alone. Having manned sailing yachts in my younger years, I can full well appreciate the ability to ignore (mostly) where the wind is coming from. Just annoyed that the PopSci article all those decades ago left out some details which would have led me to the correct conclusion.

Oh, well. Back to more important things.


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

samborambo said:


> John, in your example, the car moving at 5mph into a 25mph head wind is actually trying to overcome the drag of the turbine CSA + the car's own CSA at 30mph. The turbine is generating power from drag caused by only its own CSA. Not even taking into account rolling resistance, wind shear or other losses, do you really think the turbine is generating more power than the car is consuming to maintain 5mph?


Think about it. If the car is not moving the turbine is generating surplus power. The equilibrium between power generated and power consumed must be at some speed greater then zero. The energy consumed to move something is equal to force times distance. If the distance is zero the energy consumed is zero. Even if the force is large as in lots of drag and the distance is very small the energy consumed will also be low. Don't think of it in terms of forces but in terms of energy.

PS. The car and the ship differ in that the car is not floating in an entirely fluid enviroment, it has a very solid conection with the road. A ship must expend energy to produce a counter balancing thrust to maintain zero velocity in windy condition a car doesn't have to.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

John said:


> Think about it. If the car is not moving the turbine is generating surplus power. The equilibrium between power generated and power consumed must be at some speed greater then zero. The energy consumed to move something is equal to force times distance. If the distance is zero the energy consumed is zero. Even if the force is large as in lots of drag and the distance is very small the energy consumed will also be low. Don't think of it in terms of forces but in terms of energy.
> 
> PS. The car and the ship differ in that the car is not floating in an entirely fluid enviroment, it has a very solid conection with the road. A ship must expend energy to produce a counter balancing thrust to maintain zero velocity in windy condition a car doesn't have to.


John, you're assuming you can control the force pushing the car in reverse. You can't. The moment you release the brakes, the car will be pushed back because the power required to overcome a 25mph wind drag on both the car and the turbine is more than the power produced from the turbine.

Its no different for a ship in water. Release the anchor and you'll have the same effect of the ship drifting backwards. There's no "connection" to the road, just the friction force of the brakes or anchor.


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

samborambo said:


> John, you're assuming you can control the force pushing the car in reverse. You can't. The moment you release the brakes, the car will be pushed back because the power required to overcome a 25mph wind drag on both the car and the turbine is more than the power produced from the turbine.
> 
> Its no different for a ship in water. Release the anchor and you'll have the same effect of the ship drifting backwards. There's no "connection" to the road, just the friction force of the brakes or anchor.


Come on. If the car is forced backwards against the drive the motor would become a generator and would also be producing surplus power along with the turbine. If the car was forced backwards it would be because the gearing was wrong not because of the iresistable force of wind.


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

Assume the cars frontal area is 2m^2. Assume the turbines blade swept area is 2m^2. 25mph wind = 11.11m/s. Assume wind speed drops by 5mph behind turbine to 8.88m/s. Air density (p) is approximately 1.293kg/m^3. Given the above assumptions the turbine would pass 28.7kg/s of air. Using difference in kinetic energy per second in the airflow before and after the turbine to calculate the absorbed power the turbine would produce 637.5W. Applying an 80% generating efficiency yields 510W of power. The retarding force the turbine exerts on the car = mass time acceleration (F=m.a). Taking a 1 second window F = 28.7kg * 2.22m/s/s = 63.78N. Say turbine is 85% aerodynamically efficient 63.78/0.85 = 75N. Force due to aero drag on car (Fd) = 0.5 * p * Cd * A * V^2. Say Cd of car is 0.33. Fd = 0.5 * 1.293 * 0.33 * 2 * 11.11^2 = 52.68N. Using rolling resistance of 125N total force to overcome would be 252.68N or about 25kg. Work = Force times distance. Again taking a 1 second window work = 510J = 252.68 * d so d = 2.018. So 510W should be able to push the car at about 2m/s or around 4mph ignoring certain drive line inefficiencies. Real world it’s probably closer to 2mph. I never said it was practical just hypothetically possible.


----------



## speedboats (Jan 10, 2009)

Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, so you get a 2ms-1 force against an 8.88ms-1 wind, so a net loss of 6.88ms-1?


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

John said:


> Assume the cars frontal area is 2m^2. Assume the turbines blade swept area is 2m^2. 25mph wind = 11.11m/s. Assume wind speed drops by 5mph behind turbine to 8.88m/s. Air density (p) is approximately 1.293kg/m^3. Given the above assumptions the turbine would pass 28.7kg/s of air. Using difference in kinetic energy per second in the airflow before and after the turbine to calculate the absorbed power the turbine would produce 637.5W. Applying an 80% generating efficiency yields 510W of power.


 

This first part of the calculation just shows how much power is absorbed from the air by the turbine by slowing the airs velocity by 5mph or 2.22m/s. The air flow speed behind a turbine will be lower than ahead of it and this change of velocity or kinetic energy of the air flow is where the energy comes from to rotate the turbine.




John said:


> The retarding force the turbine exerts on the car = mass time acceleration (F=m.a). Taking a 1 second window F = 28.7kg * 2.22m/s/s = 63.78N. Say turbine is 85% aerodynamically efficient 63.78/0.85 = 75N.


 

The force exerted on the air flow through the turbine to decelerate or slow the airflow will produce an equal and opposite force on the turbine blades. This calculation above shows what that force will be in order to generate the power calculated in the first step. The acceleration used is a derivative of the change in velocity assumed over a one second period and as the mass used is also what would pass through the turbine in one second so any adjustment in time frame would cancel itself out. So this is the aero drag due to the turbine at 25mph windspeed.




John said:


> Force due to aero drag on car (Fd) = 0.5 * p * Cd * A * V^2. Say Cd of car is 0.33. Fd = 0.5 * 1.293 * 0.33 * 2 * 11.11^2 = 52.68N. Using rolling resistance of 125N total force to overcome would be 252.68N or about 25kg.


 

This next step calculates the force due the aerodynamic drag of the car itself at 25mph windspeed and assumes a rolling resistance of 125N. All the forces are then added together (turbine drag, car body aero drag, and rolling resistance) to give the total force that must be overcome to move the car in a 25mph headwind.




John said:


> Work = Force times distance. Again taking a 1 second window work = 510J = 252.68 * d so d = 2.018. So 510W should be able to push the car at about 2m/s or around 4mph ignoring certain drive line inefficiencies. Real world it’s probably closer to 2mph. I never said it was practical just hypothetically possible.


 
This last part calculates what forward velocity could be achieved from the power generated by the turbine with the forces it has to overcome in the 25mph headwind. The original calculation of Kinetic energy over a one second period yields results in Joules (J) and Watts equals Joules per second. Using the work equals force times distance calculation yields the distance that can be covered with that quantity of energy which happens to be one seconds worth.




speedboats said:


> Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, so you get a 2ms-1 force against an 8.88ms-1 wind, so a net loss of 6.88ms-1?


 
So no net loss just about 4mph forwards into a 25mph headwind and no over unity. The wind velocity would be slower behind the vehicle and that is where the energy comes from like any other wind powered device. I could use iteration to calculate the true equilibrium point but as rolling resistance is by far the largest force to be overcome and wont change with velocity I don’t think results would change that much.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

John said:


> Assume the cars frontal area is 2m^2. Assume the turbines blade swept area is 2m^2. 25mph wind = 11.11m/s. Assume wind speed drops by 5mph behind turbine to 8.88m/s. Air density (p) is approximately 1.293kg/m^3. Given the above assumptions the turbine would pass 28.7kg/s of air. Using difference in kinetic energy per second in the airflow before and after the turbine to calculate the absorbed power the turbine would produce 637.5W. Applying an 80% generating efficiency yields 510W of power. The retarding force the turbine exerts on the car = mass time acceleration (F=m.a). Taking a 1 second window F = 28.7kg * 2.22m/s/s = 63.78N. Say turbine is 85% aerodynamically efficient 63.78/0.85 = 75N. Force due to aero drag on car (Fd) = 0.5 * p * Cd * A * V^2. Say Cd of car is 0.33. Fd = 0.5 * 1.293 * 0.33 * 2 * 11.11^2 = 52.68N. Using rolling resistance of 125N total force to overcome would be 252.68N or about 25kg. Work = Force times distance. Again taking a 1 second window work = 510J = 252.68 * d so d = 2.018. So 510W should be able to push the car at about 2m/s or around 4mph ignoring certain drive line inefficiencies. Real world it’s probably closer to 2mph. I never said it was practical just hypothetically possible.


OK John, you made your point. When you do the power equations it shows you could move *very slowly* directly into a head wind. Where I got confused was with dealing with two velocities - ground and wind. 

I would have considered the Cd of a wind turbine to be around 1. Not that I'm an expert on wind turbines.

To anyone else reading this thread thinking you can use a wind turbine to capture the wind flow from forward motion, think again. This exercise deals with an external energy source - basically a very complicated sail car that doesn't need to tac.


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

Looking at the figures you can see how insane this thing would be with it's 1.6m diameter turbine on the roof and wait until it's blowing a gale so you can drive at less than walking pace. Not real useful. If it were scaled down to a sane size and used for suplimentry generation any benefit if any would be so small it would get lost in the margin of error. At higher vehicle velocities the inefficiencies in the motor, turbine, and generator would quickly turn it into a negative return device as a larger amount of the energy passing between the generator and motor came from the vehicle motion and less from the wind. Like a big feed back loop with a bunch of parasitic loses eating away at the cars velocity.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> OK John, you made your point. When you do the power equations it shows you could move *very slowly* directly into a head wind. Where I got confused was with dealing with two velocities - ground and wind.
> 
> I would have considered the Cd of a wind turbine to be around 1. Not that I'm an expert on wind turbines.
> 
> To anyone else reading this thread thinking you can use a wind turbine to capture the wind flow from forward motion, think again. This exercise deals with an external energy source - basically a very complicated sail car that doesn't need to tac.


While I was originally convinced (30 years ago) by the PopSci article that this was possible, I am less convinced now that I know that they were using a motor to rotate their shaft.

I can see that it would certainly be possible on LAND to move forward by alternately applying a brake and temporarily storing some of the energy, then releasing the brake and the stored energy. The logical extreme of this is to take the derivative of the energy "steps" (the limit as the size of each individual step approaches zero, or your net power per second) and determine if there is enough energy using a low "gearing" (properly pitched propeller at the appropriate rpm?) to move a ship forward. If the steady-state drag induced by the rotor is more than the steady-state power generated, the answer is definitively "no..."

This is all the more amusing because both of us were "certain" when we started, and both of us appear to have (tentatively) reversed our positions...



Well, the equations in the preceding posts are making my head hurt. I think we can all agree that even if it "works a little" it would be marginal at best into a direct head wind, useless (or worse) at any reasonable speed, and in no case is it a case of "over-unity."


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> While I was originally convinced (30 years ago) by the PopSci article that this was possible, I am less convinced now that I know that they were using a motor to rotate their shaft.
> 
> I can see that it would certainly be possible on LAND to move forward by alternately applying a brake and temporarily storing some of the energy, then releasing the brake and the stored energy. The logical extreme of this is to take the derivative of the energy "steps" (the limit as the size of each individual step approaches zero, or your net power per second) and determine if there is enough energy using a low "gearing" (properly pitched propeller at the appropriate rpm?) to move a ship forward. If the steady-state drag induced by the rotor is more than the steady-state power generated, the answer is definitively "no..."
> 
> ...


PP: The measure of one's integrity is how willingly he can admit he's wrong. Saying, "I told you so" isn't very endearing. Besides, you blew off John's idea as being "over-unity deception".

I just flicked back through the thread. Did you edit all your posts to cover up what you wrote? ... and you're having a go at me for reversing my position?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> PP: The measure of one's integrity is how willingly he can admit he's wrong. Saying, "I told you so" isn't very endearing. Besides, you blew off John's idea as being "over-unity deception".


I did not feel that I was doing so, and I said very clearly that I thought the whole effect was a clever trick and NOT "over unity. I posted my source, which I felt to be reputable, and when I discovered information to the contrary I corrected myself. If the humor and irony in my final post was taken as "I told you so," that was not the intent - I was merely laughing out loud that both of us started convinced and both of us ended up suspecting that the other was right. That is laughing at both of us for shared foolishness, not "I told you so."

Your post, I will point out, was simply dismissive and disrespectful:



> Have they stopped teaching physics in schools.


Now you are being abusive following my public retraction - who is the one saying "I told you so?" 

If you are going to accuse people of being impolite, you might want to consider living in something other than a glass house.



> I just flicked back through the thread. Did you edit all your posts to cover up what you wrote? ... and you're having a go at me for reversing my position?


I did edit those posts, and included a post stating that I had done so. That is hardly "trying to cover up." I did so to retract my argument because I realized my mistake. I had believed an untruth (or PROBABLY an untruth) for 30 years based on a reputable magazine article.

One of us has acknowledged their mistake, the other is behaving childishly. If you choose to behave as you suggested I do, I will edit this post and retract that statement, too.


----------



## camerondmm (Apr 28, 2009)

Just a little something...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/windmill_sailbo.php

There are a lot of other examples of these on line too.

Also, this is a very good (23 page long) thread on this subject at BoatDesign.net. http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/pr...ats-how-many-out-there-they-viable-14182.html 

It works.

However, capturing energy from an atmospheric wind it is very different than trying to re-capture energy from the air displaced by your car. One is an external source of energy (solar in the case of atmospheric wind) and the other is not.


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

Do not let these people discourage you I have a prototype, I can’t tell you the exact set up but I can give you a hint: 4 hamster balls and a sail!


----------



## Jokerzwild (Jun 11, 2009)

samborambo said:


> It doesn't help when one of the ad banners on this forum is for "free power" perpetual motor plans. Amusing, but again, a bit disturbing. I know the website admin has to recoup the costs of running this site, but advertising perpetual motors? Might as well have porn banners.
> 
> Sam.


 He said perpetual motion and porn in the same paragraph


----------



## Wiredsim (Jul 4, 2008)

batateam said:


> Ever heard of airflow at SPAM..




Boy that is quite the impressive bit of spam work! If that is done by a spam bot it is rather interesting.. It has to copy a previous post and then interject the links. Of course it would pick a BS post to copy from also..


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Spambot unleashed on the board running wild, posting everywhere.


----------



## meat (Jul 13, 2009)

samborambo said:


> This kind of talk will make you about as popular as saying, "Maybe the Holocaust didn't happen".


Wow. That was kind of harsh.

Perhaps a better way of putting it would have been: "This kind of talk will make you about as populare as saying "This kind of talk will make you about as popular as saying, 'Maybe the Holocaust didn't happen.'"


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

That's just his particular charm, don't take it personally. He usually has good information to share, even if it's lacking in diplomacy  Perpetual motion schemes are particularly tiring for those of us who have been at this for a while.


----------



## Bowser330 (Jun 15, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Spambot unleashed on the board running wild, posting everywhere.


stupid thing! whats the freakin point of those span bots? do the builders/developers make money? or is it just "I want to be a cool hacker" sort of thing?


----------



## meat (Jul 13, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> That's just his particular charm, don't take it personally. He usually has good information to share, even if it's lacking in diplomacy  Perpetual motion schemes are particularly tiring for those of us who have been at this for a while.


There's a perpetual motion joke about perpetual motion schemes in there somewhere...


----------

